No abstract

No abstract

Governments have committed to conserving ≥17% of terrestrial and ≥10% of marine environments globally, especially “areas of particular importance for biodiversity” through “ecologically representative” Protected Area (PA) systems or other “area‐based conservation measures”, while individual countries have committed to conserve 3–50% of their land area. We estimate that PAs currently cover 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but 59–68% of ecoregions, 77–78% of important sites for biodiversity, and 57% of 25,380 species have inadequate coverage. The existing 19.7 million km2 terrestrial PA network needs only 3.3 million km2 to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, it would require nearly doubling to achieve, cost‐efficiently, coverage targets for all countries, ecoregions, important sites, and species. Poorer countries have the largest relative shortfalls. Such extensive and rapid expansion of formal PAs is unlikely to be achievable. Greater focus is therefore needed on alternative approaches, including community‐ and privately managed sites and other effective area‐based conservation measures.

One-sixth of the global terrestrial surface now falls within protected areas (PAs), making it essential to understand how far they mitigate the increasing pressures on nature which characterize the Anthropocene. In by far the largest analysis of this question to date and not restricted to forested PAs, we compiled data from 12,315 PAs across 152 countries to investigate their ability to reduce human pressure and how this varies with socioeconomic and management circumstances. While many PAs show positive outcomes, strikingly we find that compared with matched unprotected areas, PAs have on average not reduced a compound index of pressure change over the past 15 y. Moreover, in tropical regions average pressure change from cropland conversion has increased inside PAs even more than in matched unprotected areas. However, our results also confirm previous studies restricted to forest PAs, where pressures are increasing, but less than in counterfactual areas. Our results also show that countries with high national-level development scores have experienced lower rates of pressure increase over the past 15 y within their PAs compared with a matched outside area. Our results caution against the rapid establishment of new PAs without simultaneously addressing the conditions needed to enable their success.

Protected areas (PAs) are at the forefront of conservation efforts, and yet despite considerable progress towards the global target of having 17% of the world's land area within protected areas by 2020, biodiversity continues to decline. The discrepancy between increasing PA coverage and negative biodiversity trends has resulted in renewed efforts to enhance PA effectiveness. The global conservation community has conducted thousands of assessments of protected area management effectiveness (PAME), and interest in the use of these data to help measure the conservation impact of PA management interventions is high. Here, we summarize the status of PAME assessment, review the published evidence for a link between PAME assessment results and the conservation impacts of PAs, and discuss the limitations and future use of PAME data in measuring the impact of PA management interventions on conservation outcomes. We conclude that PAME data, while designed as a tool for local adaptive management, may also help to provide insights into the impact of PA management interventions from the local-to-global scale. However, the subjective and ordinal characteristics of the data present significant limitations for their application in rigorous scientific impact evaluations, a problem that should be recognized and mitigated where possible.

Protected areas (PAs) are a key tool in efforts to safeguard biodiversity against increasing anthropogenic threats. As signatories to the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, 196 nations pledged support for expansion in the extent of the global PA estate and the quality of PA management. While this has resulted in substantial increases in PA designations, many sites lack the resources needed to guarantee effective biodiversity conservation. Using management reports from 2167 PAs (with an area representing 23% of the global terrestrial PA estate), we demonstrate that less than a quarter of these PAs report having adequate resources in terms of staffing and budget. Using data on the geographic ranges of the 11,919 terrestrial vertebrate species overlapping our sample of PAs, we estimate that only 4–9% of terrestrial amphibians, birds, and mammals are sufficiently represented within the existing global PA estate, when only adequately resourced PAs are considered. While continued expansion of the world's PAs is necessary, a shift in emphasis from quantity to quality is critical to effectively respond to the current biodiversity crisis.

Protected areas (PAs) represent a cornerstone of efforts to safeguard biodiversity, and if effective should reduce threats to biodiversity. We present the most comprehensive assessment of threats to terrestrial PAs, based on in situ data from 1,961 PAs across 149 countries, assessed by PA managers and local stakeholders. Unsustainable hunting was the most commonly reported threat and occurred in 61% of all PAs, followed by disturbance from recreational activities occurring in 55%, and natural system modifications from fire or its suppression in 49%. The number of reported threats was lower in PAs with greater remoteness, higher control of corruption, and lower human development scores. The main reported threats in developing countries were linked to overexploitation for resource extraction, while negative impacts from recreational activities dominated in developed countries. Our results show that many of the most serious threats to PAs are difficult to monitor with remote sensing, and highlight the importance of in situ threat data to inform the implementation of more effective biodiversity conservation in the global protected area estate. K E Y W O R D Sbiodiversity, conservation, cumulative link mixed model, IUCN threat classification scheme, managementThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

It is widely accepted that the main driver of the observed decline in biological diversity is increasing human pressure on Earth's ecosystems. However, the spatial patterns of change in human pressure and their relation to conservation efforts are less well known. We developed a spatially and temporally explicit map of global change in human pressure over 2 decades between 1990 and 2010 at a resolution of 10 km(2) . We evaluated 22 spatial data sets representing different components of human pressure and used them to compile a temporal human pressure index (THPI) based on 3 data sets: human population density, land transformation, and electrical power infrastructure. We investigated how the THPI within protected areas was correlated to International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) management categories and the human development index (HDI) and how the THPI was correlated to cumulative pressure on the basis of the original human footprint index. Since the early 1990s, human pressure increased 64% of the terrestrial areas; the largest increases were in Southeast Asia. Protected areas also exhibited overall increases in human pressure, the degree of which varied with location and IUCN management category. Only wilderness areas and natural monuments (management categories Ib and III) exhibited decreases in pressure. Protected areas not assigned any category exhibited the greatest increases. High HDI values correlated with greater reductions in pressure across protected areas, while increasing age of the protected area correlated with increases in pressure. Our analysis is an initial step toward mapping changes in human pressure on the natural world over time. That only 3 data sets could be included in our spatio-temporal global pressure map highlights the challenge to measuring pressure changes over time.