scholarly journals Global Biodiversity Indicators Reflect the Modeled Impacts of Protected Area Policy Change

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Costelloe ◽  
Ben Collen ◽  
E.J. Milner-Gulland ◽  
Ian D. Craigie ◽  
Louise McRae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Policy Change ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biodiversity Indicators ◽  
Global Biodiversity

scholarly journals Essential Indicators for Measuring Area-Based Conservation Effectiveness in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Geldmann ◽  
Marine Deguignet ◽  
Andrew Balmford ◽  
Neil D. Burgess ◽  
Nigel Dudley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Biodiversity Monitoring ◽  
Biodiversity Indicators ◽  
Ecological Values ◽  
Fit For Purpose ◽  
Global Biodiversity ◽  
Conservation Of Biodiversity

Work has begun in earnest to formulate a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework which will outline the vision and targets for the next decade of biodiversity conservation and beyond. However, the performance of the 2011-2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity suggests that even a meaningful target can fail to deliver if not accompanied by fit-for-purpose indicators. Here we provide a review of how ‘protected area’ effectiveness was addressed in the 2011-2020 plan and based on this, provide recommendations for fit-for-purpose indicators that will measure how such efforts contribute to the conservation of biodiversity. Indicators need to be built on quantitative data from site-level biodiversity monitoring of species and ecosystems combined with measurements of the state of nature in near-time, informed by remote-sensed products and other technologies. Additionally, indicators need to capture whether the essential elements of good management are in place including the identification of ecological values, threats, and objectives, equitable governance, and sufficient management resources and capacity. These fit-for-purpose indicators will require multilateral collaboration to galvanize support for, and resources to develop, the necessary infrastructure to collate and store information from countries.

scholarly journals Sufficiency and Suitability of Global Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Progress to 2020 Targets

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 489-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris J. Mcowen ◽  
Sarah Ivory ◽  
Matthew J. R. Dixon ◽  
Eugenie C. Regan ◽  
Andreas Obrecht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Indicators ◽  
Global Biodiversity ◽  
Monitoring Progress

scholarly journals Changes in Human Population Density and Protected Areas in Terrestrial Global Biodiversity Hotspots, 1995–2015

Land ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlin Cunningham ◽  
Karen Beazley
Keyword(s):  
Population Density ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Human Population ◽  
Area Coverage ◽  
Biodiversity Hotspots ◽  
Population Densities ◽  
Human Population Density ◽  
Global Average ◽  
Global Biodiversity

Biodiversity hotspots are rich in endemic species and threatened by anthropogenic influences and, thus, considered priorities for conservation. In this study, conservation achievements in 36 global biodiversity hotspots (25 identified in 1988, 10 added in 2011, and one in 2016) were evaluated in relation to changes in human population density and protected area coverage between 1995 and 2015. Population densities were compared against 1995 global averages, and percentages of protected area coverage were compared against area-based targets outlined in Aichi target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (17% by 2020) and calls for half Earth (50%). The two factors (average population density and percent protected area coverage) for each hotspot were then plotted to evaluate relative levels of threat to biodiversity conservation. Average population densities in biodiversity hotspots increased by 36% over the 20-year period, and were double the global average. The protected area target of 17% is achieved in 19 of the 36 hotspots; the 17 hotspots where this target has not been met are economically disadvantaged areas as defined by Gross Domestic Product. In 2015, there are seven fewer hotspots (22 in 1995; 15 in 2015) in the highest threat category (i.e., population density exceeding global average, and protected area coverage less than 17%). In the lowest threat category (i.e., population density below the global average, and a protected area coverage of 17% or more), there are two additional hotspots in 2015 as compared to 1995, attributable to gains in protected area. Only two hotspots achieve a target of 50% protection. Although conservation progress has been made in most global biodiversity hotspots, additional efforts are needed to slow and/or reduce population density and achieve protected area targets. Such conservation efforts are likely to require more coordinated and collaborative initiatives, attention to biodiversity objectives beyond protected areas, and support from the global community.

scholarly journals Projecting Global Biodiversity Indicators under Future Development Scenarios

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piero Visconti ◽  
Michel Bakkenes ◽  
Daniele Baisero ◽  
Thomas Brooks ◽  
Stuart H. M. Butchart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Future Development ◽  
Biodiversity Indicators ◽  
Development Scenarios ◽  
Global Biodiversity

scholarly journals The Why, What, and How of Global Biodiversity Indicators Beyond the 2010 Target

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 450-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
JULIA P. G. JONES ◽  
BEN COLLEN ◽  
GILES ATKINSON ◽  
PETER W. J. BAXTER ◽  
PHILIP BUBB ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Indicators ◽  
2010 Target ◽  
Global Biodiversity

scholarly journals Area-based conservation planning in Japan: protected area network effectiveness to the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takayuki Shiono ◽  
Yasuhiro Kubota ◽  
Buntarou Kusumoto
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Planning ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Extinction Risk ◽  
Vascular Plant ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Biodiversity Loss ◽  
Area Network ◽  
Global Biodiversity

To reframe the imperfect review processes of nation-scale actions on area-based conservation through protected area (PA) networks, we first created novel infrastructure to visualize nation-level biodiversity information in Japan. We then assessed the performance of the existing PA network relative to land exploitation pressure and evaluated conservation effectiveness of PA expansion for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. The Zonation algorithm was used to spatially prioritize conservation areas to minimize biodiversity loss and the extinction risk for 8,500 Japanese vascular plant and vertebrate species under constraints of the existing PA network and land use. The spatial pattern of the identified priority areas, which were considered candidate areas for expansion of the current PA network, was influenced by land-use types according to the mask layers of non-PAs, and low-, middle-, and high-ranked PAs. The current PA network reduced the aggregate extinction risk of multiple species by 36.6%. Indeed, the percentage of built-up areas in the existing PAs was in general smaller than that in the areas surrounding PAs. Notably, high-ranked PAs fully restrained built-up pressure (0.037% per 10 years), whereas low-ranked PAs in the national park and wild-life protection areas did not (1.845% per 10 years). Conservation effects were predicted to substantially improve by expansion of high-ranked (legally strict) PAs into remote non-PAs without population/socio-economic activities, or expansion of medium-ranked PAs into agriculture forestry satoyama and urban areas. A 30% land conservation target was predicted to decrease extinction risk by 74.1% when PA expansion was implemented across remote areas, satoyama, and urban areas; moreover, PA connectivity almost doubled compared with the existing PA network. In contrast, a conventional scenario showed that placing national parks in state-owned and non-populated areas would reduce extinction risk by only 4.0%. The conservation prioritization analyses demonstrated an effectiveness of using a comprehensive conservation approach that reconciles land-sparing protection and land-sharing conservation in other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM) in satoyama and urban green spaces. Our results revealed that complementary inclusion of various PAs interventions related to their governance and land-use planning plays a critical role in effectively preventing biodiversity loss and makes it more feasible to achieve ambitious conservation targets.

scholarly journals Making Robust Policy Decisions Using Global Biodiversity Indicators

PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. e41128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Nicholson ◽  
Ben Collen ◽  
Alberto Barausse ◽  
Julia L. Blanchard ◽  
Brendan T. Costelloe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Biodiversity Indicators ◽  
Global Biodiversity

scholarly journals Adapting global biodiversity indicators to the national scale: A Red List Index for Australian birds

2012 ◽  
Vol 148 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judit K. Szabo ◽  
Stuart H.M. Butchart ◽  
Hugh P. Possingham ◽  
Stephen T. Garnett
Keyword(s):  
Red List ◽  
National Scale ◽  
Biodiversity Indicators ◽  
Australian Birds ◽  
Global Biodiversity

scholarly journals Conservation beyond the existing protected area network is required to improve species and habitat representation in a global biodiversity hotspot

2021 ◽  
Vol 257 ◽  
pp. 109105
Author(s):  
Jose Don T. De Alban ◽  
Bryan Po Ian Leong ◽  
Rubén Venegas-Li ◽  
Grant M. Connette ◽  
Johanness Jamaludin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protected Area ◽  
Biodiversity Hotspot ◽  
Area Network ◽  
Protected Area Network ◽  
Global Biodiversity

scholarly journals Neutral theory exposes the challenge of bending the curve of biodiversity loss for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Falko Buschke
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Neutral Theory ◽  
Biodiversity Loss ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Biodiversity Indicators ◽  
Geographical Patterns ◽  
20Th Anniversary ◽  
Global Biodiversity ◽  
Species Specific ◽  
Ecological Drift

In May, nations of the world will meet to negotiate the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity. An influential ambition is “bending the curve of biodiversity loss”, which aims to reverse the decline of global biodiversity indicators. A second relevant, yet less prominent, milestone is the 20th anniversary of the publication of The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Here, I apply neutral theory to show how global biodiversity indicators for population size (Living Planet Index) and extinction threat (Red List Index) decline under neutral ecological drift. This demonstrates that declining indicators alone do not necessarily reflect deterministic species-specific or geographical patterns of biodiversity loss. Thus, “bending the curve” could be assessed relative to a counterfactual based on neutral theory, rather than static baselines. If used correctly, the 20-year legacy of neutral theory can be extended to make a valuable contribution to the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document