Status Review of the Protected‐Area System in Myanmar, with Recommendations for Conservation Planning

2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 360-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madhu Rao ◽  
Alan Rabinowitz ◽  
Saw Tun Khaing
Keyword(s):  
Conservation Planning ◽  
Protected Area

scholarly journals Providing more protected space for tigers Panthera tigris: a landscape conservation approach in the Western Ghats, southern India

Oryx ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 336-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay Gubbi ◽  
Kaushik Mukherjee ◽  
M.H. Swaminath ◽  
H.C. Poornesha
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Conservation Planning ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Wildlife Conservation ◽  
Area Network ◽  
Panthera Tigris ◽  
Landscape Conservation ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Protected Area Network ◽  
Indian State

AbstractConservation of large carnivores is challenging as they face various threats, including habitat loss and fragmentation. One of the current challenges to tiger Panthera tigris conservation in India is the conversion of habitat to uses that are incompatible with conservation of the species. Bringing more tiger habitat within a protected area system and in the process creating a network of connected protected areas will deliver dual benefits of wildlife conservation and protection of watersheds. Focusing on the southern Indian state of Karnataka, which holds one of the largest contiguous tiger populations, we attempted to address this challenge using a conservation planning technique that considers ecological, social and political factors. This approach yielded several conservation successes, including an expansion of the protected area network by 2,385 km2, connection of 23 protected areas, and the creation of three complexes of protected areas, increasing the protected area network in Karnataka from 3.8 to 5.2% of the state's land area. This represents the largest expansion of protected areas in India since the 1970s. Such productive partnerships between government officials and conservationists highlight the importance of complementary roles in conservation planning and implementation.

scholarly journals Multi-taxa spatial conservation planning reveals similar priorities between taxa and improved protected area representation with climate change

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Critchlow ◽  
Charles A. Cunningham ◽  
Humphrey Q. P. Crick ◽  
Nicholas A. Macgregor ◽  
Michael D. Morecroft ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Conservation Planning ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Species Conservation ◽  
Conservation Areas ◽  
Indicator Taxa ◽  
Network Effectiveness ◽  
Spatial Conservation Planning ◽  
Richness Patterns

AbstractProtected area (PA) networks have in the past been constructed to include all major habitats, but have often been developed through consideration of only a few indicator taxa or across restricted areas, and rarely account for global climate change. Systematic conservation planning (SCP) aims to improve the efficiency of biodiversity conservation, particularly when addressing internationally agreed protection targets. We apply SCP in Great Britain (GB) using the widest taxonomic coverage to date (4,447 species), compare spatial prioritisation results across 18 taxa and use projected future (2080) distributions to assess the potential impact of climate change on PA network effectiveness. Priority conservation areas were similar among multiple taxa, despite considerable differences in spatial species richness patterns; thus systematic prioritisations based on indicator taxa for which data are widely available are still useful for conservation planning. We found that increasing the number of protected hectads by 2% (to reach the 2020 17% Aichi target) could have a disproportionate positive effect on species protected, with an increase of up to 17% for some taxa. The PA network in GB currently under-represents priority species but, if the potential future distributions under climate change are realised, the proportion of species distributions protected by the current PA network may increase, because many PAs are in northern and higher altitude areas. Optimal locations for new PAs are particularly concentrated in southern and upland areas of GB. This application of SCP shows how a small addition to an existing PA network could have disproportionate benefits for species conservation.

scholarly journals Using regional bird density distribution models to evaluate protected area networks and inform conservation planning

Ecosphere ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. e01799 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Alexander ◽  
Jaime L. Stephens ◽  
Sam Veloz ◽  
Leo Salas ◽  
Josée S. Rousseau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Density Distribution ◽  
Conservation Planning ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Distribution Models ◽  
Bird Density

scholarly journals Protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ángel Delso ◽  
Javier Fajardo ◽  
Jesús Muñoz
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Conservation Planning ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Species Distribution Models ◽  
Distribution Models ◽  
Arthropod Species ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Current Area ◽  
Species Being ◽  
Planning Approaches

AbstractMost existing protected area networks are biased to protect charismatic species or landscapes. We hypothesized that conservation networks designed to include unseen biodiversity—species rich groups that consist of inconspicuous taxa, or groups affected by knowledge gaps—are more efficient than networks that ignore these groups. To test this hypothesis, we generated species distribution models for 3006 arthropod species to determine which were represented in three networks of different sizes and biogeographic origin. We assessed the efficiency of each network using spatial prioritization to measure its completeness, the increment needed to achieve conservation targets, and its specificity, the extent to which proposed priority areas to maximize unseen biodiversity overlap with existing networks. We found that the representativeness of unseen biodiversity in the studied protected areas, or extrinsic representativeness, is low, with ~ 40% of the analyzed unseen biodiversity species being unprotected. We also found that existing networks should be expanded ~ 26% to 46% of their current area to complete targets, and that existing networks do not efficiently conserve the unseen biodiversity given their low specificity (as low as 8.8%) unseen biodiversity. We conclude that information on unseen biodiversity must be included in systematic conservation planning approaches to design more efficient and ecologically representative protected areas.

Social networks and information flow: Building the ground for collaborative marine conservation planning in Portofino Marine Protected Area (MPA)

2016 ◽  
Vol 120 ◽  
pp. 29-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasiliki Markantonatou ◽  
Pedro Noguera-Méndez ◽  
María Semitiel-García ◽  
Katie Hogg ◽  
Marcello Sano
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Information Flow ◽  
Conservation Planning ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Marine Conservation

The Influence of Changing Conservation Paradigms on Identifying Priority Protected Area Locations

2011 ◽  
pp. 286-302
Author(s):  
Alan Grainger
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Carbon Cycling ◽  
Conservation Planning ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Forest Degradation ◽  
Complex Interactions ◽  
Mitigate Climate Change ◽  
Hydrological Services

Conservation planning for climate change adaptation is only one in a long sequence of conservation paradigms. To identify priority locations for protected areas it must compete with three other contemporary paradigms: conservation of ecosystem services, optimizing conservation of ecosystem services and poverty alleviation, and reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. This chapter shows how conservation paradigms evolved, discusses the merits of different approaches to modelling potential impacts of climate change on biodiversity, and describes the hybrid BIOCLIMA model and its application to Amazonia. It then discusses conservation planning applications of the three other contemporary paradigms, illustrated by examples from Amazonia and Kenya. It finds that rapid paradigm evolution is not a handicap if earlier paradigms can be nested within later ones. But more sophisticated planning tools are needed to identify optimal locations of protected areas when climate is changing, and to use protection to mitigate climate change. These should encompass the complex interactions between biodiversity, hydrological services, carbon cycling services, climate change, and human systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document