Socio-economic and ecological impacts of global protected area expansion plans

Several global strategies for protected area (PA) expansion have been proposed to achieve the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi target 11 as a means to stem biodiversity loss, as required by the Aichi target 12. However, habitat loss outside PAs will continue to affect habitats and species, and PAs may displace human activities into areas that might be even more important for species persistence. Here we measure the expected contribution of PA expansion strategies to Aichi target 12 by estimating the extent of suitable habitat available for all terrestrial mammals, with and without additional protection (the latter giving the counterfactual outcome), under different socio-economic scenarios and consequent land-use change to 2020. We found that expanding PAs to achieve representation targets for ecoregions under a Business-as-usual socio-economic scenario will result in a worse prognosis than doing nothing for more than 50% of the world's terrestrial mammals. By contrast, targeting protection towards threatened species can increase the suitable habitat available to over 60% of terrestrial mammals. Even in the absence of additional protection, an alternative socio-economic scenario, adopting progressive changes in human consumption, leads to positive outcomes for mammals globally and to the largest improvements for wide-ranging species.

[1]  A. Cropper Convention on Biological Diversity , 1993, Environmental Conservation.

[2]  D. Vuuren,et al.  Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0 : Model description and policy applications , 2014 .

[3]  F. M. Pouzols,et al.  Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism , 2014, Nature.

[4]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities , 2000, Nature.

[5]  J. Diniz‐Filho,et al.  Globalizing Conservation Efforts to Save Species and Enhance Food Production , 2014 .

[6]  G. Powell,et al.  Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth , 2001 .

[7]  H. D. Cooper,et al.  A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets , 2014, Science.

[8]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Ad Hoc Reservations: Forward or Backward Steps in Developing Representative Reserve Systems? , 1994 .

[9]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Effectiveness of land classes as surrogates for species in conservation planning for the Cape Floristic Region , 2003 .

[10]  R. Maloney,et al.  Financial Costs of Meeting Global Biodiversity Conservation Targets: Current Spending and Unmet Needs , 2012, Science.

[11]  A. Belward,et al.  GLC 2000 : a new approach to global land cover mapping from Earth observation data , 2005 .

[12]  Anni Arponen,et al.  Projecting Global Biodiversity Indicators under Future Development Scenarios , 2016 .

[13]  Matthew E. Watts,et al.  Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritization , 2009 .

[14]  T. Iwamura,et al.  Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: Implications for conservation priorities , 2007 .

[15]  Piero Visconti,et al.  Future hotspots of terrestrial mammal loss , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  Matthew E. Watts,et al.  Global Gap Analysis: Priority Regions for Expanding the Global Protected-Area Network , 2004 .

[17]  Frank Biermann,et al.  Roads from Rio+20 : Pathways to achieve global sustainability goals by 2050 , 2012 .

[18]  James E. M. Watson,et al.  Shortfalls and Solutions for Meeting National and Global Conservation Area Targets , 2015 .

[19]  P. Ehrlich,et al.  Cost-effective priorities for global mammal conservation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  C. Boyd,et al.  Spatial scale and the conservation of threatened species , 2008 .

[21]  Piero Visconti,et al.  Global habitat suitability models of terrestrial mammals , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  Peter Berck,et al.  Habitat and Open Space at Risk of Land‐Use Conversion: Targeting Strategies for Land Conservation , 2006 .

[23]  A. Belward,et al.  GLC2000: a new approach to global land cover mapping from Earth observation data , 2005 .

[24]  Vanessa M. Adams,et al.  Opportunity costs: Who really pays for conservation? , 2010 .

[25]  N. Kingston,et al.  Protected Planet Report 2014 , 2014 .

[26]  J. Ros,et al.  Evaluation of the indirect effects of biofuel production on biodiversity: assessment across spatial and temporal scales. , 2010 .

[27]  Liana N. Joseph,et al.  Targeting Global Protected Area Expansion for Imperiled Biodiversity , 2014, PLoS biology.

[28]  K. Redford,et al.  MEETING AICHI TARGET 11: WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE FOR PROTECTED AREA SYSTEMS? , 2012 .

[29]  P. Armsworth Inclusion of costs in conservation planning depends on limited datasets and hopeful assumptions , 2014, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.