scholarly journals Nature protection across countries: Do size and power matter?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Germán Baldi
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Area Network ◽  
Nature Protection ◽  
The Face ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Limited Spectrum ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Effective Growth

AbstractProtected areas are one of the most effective tools for nature conservation. Consequently, almost all countries have agreed to set increasingly demanding goals for the expansion of their protected area systems. However, there is a large disparity among countries, and research on the cultural drivers of differences remains quite unexplored. Here, we explore the relationship between protected extent and a limited spectrum of socio-economic characteristics, making focus on size and power features. Protected areas under strict conservation categories (I to IV, IUCN) were considered for 195 countries, and relationships were modeled by means of LOESS regressions, violin plots, and a random forest ensemble learning method. Larger and more powerful countries (in terms of land area, gross domestic product, or military expenditure) protect less and in relatively smaller units than smaller and less powerful countries. Out of the twenty most extensive countries of the world, only two exceed 10% of protection. This situation is problematic since an effective growth of the global protected area network depends on the willingness of larger and more powerful countries. We propose different hypotheses a posteriori that explain the role of size and power driving protection. These hypotheses involve direct mechanisms (e.g., the persuasive capacity of large countries) or mechanisms that mediate the interactions of some others (e.g., tourism contribution to GDP and insularity). Independently of mechanisms, our results emphasize the conservation responsibilities of large and powerful countries and contribute to envision conservation scenarios in the face of changes in the number and size of countries.

Creating an integrated protected area network in Chile: A GIS assessment of ecoregion representation and the role of private protected areas

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
JESSICA SCHUTZ
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Gap Analysis ◽  
Area Network ◽  
Conservation Areas ◽  
Traditional Beliefs ◽  
Protected Area Network ◽  
Private Protected Areas

SUMMARYNational protected areas (NPAs) often exhibit biodiversity representation bias, do not adequately protect priority conservation areas (PCAs), and fail to meet conservation goals. Protected area (PA) discourse assumes private PAs (PPAs) are more systematically established than NPAs. The Chilean conservation community has proposed an integrated national–private PA network (IPAN) so PPA benefits can remedy NPA shortcomings. However, there has been no recent assessment of Chilean PPA ecoregion representation or data to support the usefulness of spending valuable resources creating an IPAN. Using the most recent Chilean private and national PA data, this study conducted a terrestrial ecoregion gap analysis under two scenarios. Scenario 1 assessed NPAs and nature sanctuaries. Scenario 2 assessed the IPAN. Both scenarios showed representation bias and failure to adequately protect PCAs or meet conservation goals. The IPAN fell short of expectations because PPAs exhibited bias similar to NPAs. The findings refute PA discourse by upending traditional beliefs regarding PPA effectiveness, and they identify a need to more critically assess the benefits of PPAs and IPANs on a country-by-country basis.

scholarly journals Estimating the benefit of well-managed protected areas for threatened species conservation

Oryx ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 276-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen G. Kearney ◽  
Vanessa M. Adams ◽  
Richard A. Fuller ◽  
Hugh P. Possingham ◽  
James E. M. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Threatened Species ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Species Conservation ◽  
Area Network ◽  
Protected Area Network ◽  
Adequate Funding ◽  
Conservation Actions ◽  
Threat Management ◽  
Almost All

AbstractProtected areas are central to global efforts to prevent species extinctions, with many countries investing heavily in their establishment. Yet the designation of protected areas alone can only abate certain threats to biodiversity. Targeted management within protected areas is often required to achieve fully effective conservation within their boundaries. It remains unclear what combination of protected area designation and management is needed to remove the suite of processes that imperil species. Here, using Australia as a case study, we use a dataset on the pressures facing threatened species to determine the role of protected areas and management in conserving imperilled species. We found that protected areas that are not resourced for threat management could remove one or more threats to 1,185 (76%) species and all threats to very few (n = 51, 3%) species. In contrast, a protected area network that is adequately resourced to manage threatening processes within their boundary could remove one or more threats to almost all species (n = 1,551; c. 100%) and all threats to almost half (n = 740, 48%). However, 815 (52%) species face one or more threats that require coordinated conservation actions that protected areas alone could not remove. This research shows that investing in the continued expansion of Australia's protected area network without providing adequate funding for threat management within and beyond the existing protected area network will benefit few threatened species. These findings highlight that as the international community expands the global protected area network in accordance with the 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, a greater emphasis on the effectiveness of threat management is needed.

scholarly journals Gap analyses of priority wild relatives of food crop in current ex situ and in situ conservation in Indonesia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wiguna Rahman ◽  
Joana Magos Brehm ◽  
Nigel Maxted ◽  
Jade Phillips ◽  
Aremi R. Contreras-Toledo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
In Situ Conservation ◽  
Wild Relatives ◽  
Ex Situ ◽  
Area Network ◽  
Complementarity Analysis ◽  
Ex Situ Collections ◽  
Conservation Actions

AbstractConservation programmes are always limited by available resources. Careful planning is therefore required to increase the efficiency of conservation and gap analysis can be used for this purpose. This method was used to assess the representativeness of current ex situ and in situ conservation actions of 234 priority crop wild relatives (CWR) in Indonesia. This analysis also included species distribution modelling, the creation of an ecogeographical land characterization map, and a complementarity analysis to identify priorities area for in situ conservation and for further collecting of ex situ conservation programmes. The results show that both current ex situ and in situ conservation actions are insufficient. Sixty-six percent of priority CWRs have no recorded ex situ collections. Eighty CWRs with ex situ collections are still under-represented in the national genebanks and 65 CWRs have no presence records within the existing protected area network although 60 are predicted to exist in several protected areas according to their potential distribution models. The complementarity analysis shows that a minimum of 61 complementary grid areas (complementary based on grid cells) are required to conserve all priority taxa and 40 complementary protected areas (complementary based on existing protected areas) are required to conserve those with known populations within the existing in situ protected area network. The top ten of complementary protected areas are proposed as the initial areas for the development of CWR genetic reserves network in Indonesia. It is recommended to enhanced coordination between ex situ and in situ conservation stakeholders for sustaining the long term conservation of CWR in Indonesia. Implementation of the research recommendations will provide for the first time an effective conservation planning of Indonesia’s CWR diversity and will significantly enhance the country’s food and nutritional security.

scholarly journals Areas of endemism of Cactaceae and the effectiveness of the protected area network in the Chihuahuan Desert

Oryx ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Héctor M. Hernández ◽  
Carlos Gómez-Hinostrosa
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Chihuahuan Desert ◽  
Distribution Data ◽  
Area Network ◽  
Protected Area Network ◽  
Complementarity Analysis ◽  
Areas Of Endemism ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Narrow Endemism

AbstractWe used distribution data of 121 cactus species endemic to the Chihuahuan Desert to test the effectiveness of the region’s protected area network. The analysis of species distribution using a 30′ latitude × 30′ longitude grid facilitated the identification and categorization of areas of endemism. We found a low degree of coincidence between protected areas and the areas of cactus endemism, and only 63.6% of the 121 species occur in protected areas. A complementarity analysis showed that 10 of the protected areas contain the 77 species that occur in protected areas. The four top priority areas protect 65 (84.4%) of these 77 species The 44 unprotected species are mainly micro-endemic and taxonomically distinctive taxa widely scattered in the region. The complementarity analysis applied to these species showed that all of them can be contained in a minimum of 24 grid squares, representing 32.9% of the total area occupied. Their strong spatial dispersion, along with their narrow endemism, is a major conservation challenge. We conclude that the current protected area network is insufficient to protect the rich assemblage of cacti endemic to the Chihuahuan Desert. Conservation efforts in this region should be enhanced by increasing the effectiveness of the already existing protected areas and by the creation of additional protected areas, specifically micro-reserves, to provide refuge for the unprotected species.

The role of protected area wetlands in waterfowl habitat conservation: Implications for protected area network design

2014 ◽  
Vol 176 ◽  
pp. 144-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
William S. Beatty ◽  
Dylan C. Kesler ◽  
Elisabeth B. Webb ◽  
Andrew H. Raedeke ◽  
Luke W. Naylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Network Design ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Habitat Conservation ◽  
Area Network ◽  
Protected Area Network ◽  
Conservation Implications ◽  
Waterfowl Habitat

AN ANALYSIS OF THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE TWIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48 OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT AND SECTION 48 OF THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, IN RESPECT OF “PROTECTED AREAS”

Obiter ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clive Vinti
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Management ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Petroleum Resources ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
National Environmental ◽  
Resources Development

This note examines the interplay between the twin provisions of section 48 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003) (NEMPA Act) and section 48 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (28 of 2002) (MPRDA), in respect of the concept of a “protected area”. In essence, section 48(1) of the NEMPA Act read with section 48(1) of the MPRDA, prohibit “prospecting” in “protected areas”. However, section 48(1)(b) of the NEMPA Act and section 48(2) of the MPRDA, permit “prospecting” in “protected environments” and in any land “reserved in terms of any other any law”, if written authorisation is acquired under specific strict conditions. “Prospecting” is defined as intentionally searching for any mineral through any method which disturbs the surface or subsurface of the earth, including any portion of the earth that is under the sea or under other water; or in or on any residue stockpile or residue deposit, in order to establish the existence of any mineral and to determine the extent and economic value thereof; or in the sea or other water on land (s 1 read with s 17 of the MPRDA). This issue of the relationship between section 48 of the NEMPA Act and section 48 of the MPRDA has yet to be appropriately adjudicated on by the courts and thus, this paper will assess the implications of their inevitable interaction and suggest an approach that the courts could take in the assessment of a prospecting licence granted in respect of a “protected area”.

Part III Conceptual Pillars, Ch.16 Harm Prevention

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brunnée Jutta
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
Significant Harm ◽  
Actual Harm ◽  
The Face ◽  
Harm Prevention ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter addresses how international environmental law originates from and revolves around the harm prevention rule. It focuses on three points of contention, each related to the role of due diligence in harm prevention, and each highlighted by recent judicial engagements with the harm prevention rule. First, it is generally accepted that a state's obligation to prevent environmental harm is not absolute, but requires due diligence in the face of risk of significant harm. However, it is unclear whether a failure to act diligently to avert harm on its own—absent actual harm—can amount to a breach of the harm prevention rule. Second, the relationship between the procedural and substantive dimensions of the harm prevention rule remains ambiguous. Third, there is some uncertainty as to where the line runs between the harm prevention obligation and the precautionary principle, given the focus of both notions on risk. These inter-related conceptual questions affect the harm prevention rule's function as a reference point for international environmental law.

scholarly journals Climate as an Evolutionary Driver of Nest Morphology in Birds: A Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela M. Perez ◽  
Janet L. Gardner ◽  
Iliana Medina
Keyword(s):  
Local Environment ◽  
Climatic Conditions ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Extended Phenotype ◽  
The Face ◽  
Building Behavior ◽  
Fledgling Success ◽  
Nest Microclimate ◽  
The Relationship

Avian nests are critical for successful reproduction in birds. Nest microclimate can affect egg development, chick growth and fledgling success, suggesting that nest building behavior should be under strong selective pressure to nesting conditions. Given that the internal microclimate of the nest is critical for avian fitness, it is expected that nest morphology is shaped by the local environment. Here we review the relationship between nest morphology and climate across species’ distributions. We collate growing evidence that supports a link between environmental conditions and particular nest traits, within species and across species. We discuss the degree to which phenotypic plasticity in nesting behavior can contribute to observed variation in nest traits, the role of phylogenetic history in determining nest morphology, and which nest traits are likely to be influenced by climatic conditions. Finally, we identify gaps in our understanding of the evolution of nest morphology and suggest topics for future research. Overall, we argue that nests are part of the extended phenotype of a bird, they play a crucial role in their reproductive success, and may be an important factor in determining which species will be able to persist in the face of ongoing climate change.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document