The Effectiveness of Protected Areas in Biodiversity Conservation: The Case of Turkey

Birben, Üstüner

doi:10.1590/01047760201925042644

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The impact of overgrazing is obvious in most of the (sub)alpine habitats with a high cover/abundance of poisonous and thorny species that have replaced natural species compositions and vegetation types. Moreover, not only the surface coverage but also the conservation efficiency of the nature reserves in SW Asia is lower than the global average (Birben, 2019; Farashi & Shariati, 2017; Kolahi et al, 2013; Küçük & Ertürk, 2013; Şekercioğlu et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hotspots of (sub)alpine plants in the Irano‐Anatolian global biodiversity hotspot are insufficiently protected

Noroozi

Minaei

Khalvati

et al. 2022

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The mountainous regions in SW Asia harbour a high number of endemic species, many of which are restricted to the high‐elevation zone. The (sub)alpine habitats of the region are under particular threat due to global change, but their biodiversity hotspots and conservation status have not been investigated so far. Location Subalpine‐alpine habitats of SW Asia. Methods Distribution data of all (sub)alpine vascular plant species of the region were compiled, resulting in 19,680 localities from 1672 (sub)alpine species, the majority of them being restricted to the region (76%). Six quantitative indices of species diversity were used on the basis of 0.5° × 0.5° grid cells to identify (sub)alpine hotspots. Hotspots whose surface area in the (sub)alpine zone was covered by nature reserves maximally by 10% were defined as conservation gaps. Results A high proportion (80%) of the endemic species of the study area is range‐restricted and narrowly distributed. The results of all six indices were highly correlated. Using the top 5%, 10% and 20% richest cells supported by any index, 32, 53 and 98 cells, respectively, were identified as Hotspots. Almost 60% of these Hotspots at all three levels were identified as unprotected (i.e. constituted Conservation Gaps). Generally, only 22%, 18% and 16%, respectively, of the alpine surface area of the identified Hotspots were covered by nature reserves for the top 5%, 10% and 20% richest cells, respectively. Main conclusions Although the rate of protection in (sub)alpine Hotspots exceeds that of the entire region it is still insufficient, because these Hotspots are much richer in endemic and in range‐restricted species, but at the same time are under high pressure of global change. Therefore, the establishment of new nature reserves with high conservation efficiency in (sub)alpine habitats with a particular focus on the identified Hotspots is strongly recommended.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hotspots of (sub)alpine plants in the Irano‐Anatolian global biodiversity hotspot are insufficiently protected

Noroozi

Minaei

Khalvati

et al. 2022

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An enhanced level of protection plays a pivotal role in conserving biodiversity (Hoffmann et al, 2018;Birben, 2019); however, its effectiveness depends upon governance and management (Cazalis et al, 2020). The forests in India are governed by various agencies viz., Government Forest officials, right holders/stakeholders, private individuals and organizations, indigenous people, etc.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each governance type has differentiated strategies depending upon the key actors involved in decisionmaking and level of their powers resulting in variation in the conservation outcomes (Macura et al, 2015). Strict FMRs are vital for biodiversity conservation and the minimization of loss (Hoffmann et al, 2018;Birben, 2019;Geldmann et al, 2019). However, the efficiency of any FMRs in conserving biodiversity is contingent on the governance or management of a specific forest (Cazalis et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity conservation and carbon storage of Acacia catechu willd. Dominated northern tropical dry deciduous forest ecosystems in north-western Himalaya: Implications of different forest management regimes

Kumar

Thakur

Bhardwaj

et al. 2022

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable forest management is the key to biodiversity conservation, flow of resources and climate change mitigation. We assessed the impact of various forest management regimes (FMRs): legal felling series [(reserve forest (RF), demarcated protected forest (DPF), un-demarcated protected forest (UPF), co-operative society forest (CSF) and un-classed forest (UF)] on biodiversity conservations and carbon storage in Acaciacatechu Willd. Dominated northern tropical dry deciduous forest ecosystems in Nurpur Forest Division of north-western Himalaya, India. The study revealed significant variations in floristic composition, biodiversity indices, population structure and C storage potential among different forest management regimes. The RF and DPF were found to be rich in species diversity and richness whereas the Simpson dominance index for trees and shrubs was maximum in UF and UPF, respectively. The diversity of understory herbs were higher in CSF and UF. The maximum density of seedlings, saplings and poles were recorded in RF followed by DPF and UPF, whereas the minimum density was found in CSF. The tree C density (69.15 Mg C ha−1) was maximum in UF closely followed by RF; whereas the minimum was recorded in CSF (33.27 Mg C ha−1). The soil C density was maximum in RF (115.49 Mg C ha−1) and minimum in CSF (90.28 Mg C ha−1). Similarly, the maximum total ecosystem C density was recorded in RF (183.52 Mg C ha−1) followed by DPF (166.61 Mg C ha−1) and minimum in CSF (126.05 Mg C ha−1). Overall, UF management regimes were shown to have a greater capacity for C storage in vegetation, whereas strict FMRs, such as RF and DPF, were found to be more diverse and have a higher soil and ecosystem carbon density. The study established that in the midst of climate and biodiversity emergencies, it is urgent to maintain, protect and strengthen the network of RF and DPF FMRs for biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation and mitigation.

show abstract

“…Although there is progress in establishing protected areas, there are still concerns about the effectiveness of international treaties, because these commitments have not yet been able to reverse the trends of biodiversity loss and ecosystem functions at local and global scales (Birben, 2019). According to the Protected Planet Report 2020 (UNEP-WCMC; IUCN; and NGS, 2018) since the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010, ∼ 21 million km 2 has been declared as protected areas around the world, where ∼ 2.1 million km 2 represents land and inland water ecosystems and 18.8 million km 2 marine ecosystems.…”

Section: Protected Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial analysis guiding decision making in environmental conservation: Systematic conservation planning and ecosystem services

Magdalena

Souza

Amorim

2022

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achieving conservation targets for sustainable development has been one of society’s greatest challenges. In this context, environmental conservation approaches such as Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) and ecosystem services (ES) have become increasingly popular as feasible solutions for the allocation, delimitation, and management of protected areas. These approaches, often used to drive public policies based on payment for environmental services, have highlighted the intrinsic relationships between the paradigms of geography and spatial analysis (SA), as they rely on space-time processes and multidisciplinary concepts for the analysis of the biophysical, social, and economic variables. In this context, this manuscript aimed to outline the relevance of SA as a geographic perspective for the progress of environmental conservation. The arguments were here aligned in the following steps: (i) concepts around protected areas and the factors that impact them; (ii) environmental conservation approaches used to allocate and delimit protected areas, and their respective features, limitations, and related definitions; and (iii) correlations between SA and the use of ES and SCP (paradigms, advances, and contributions). As major findings, it was indicated that the SCP and ES work in a space-time dimension to measure and describe patterns of abstract phenomena using spatial analysis techniques. Moreover, we identified that conceptual mismatches and the absence of a common language to environmental conservation approaches reduces the expressive participation of geography that has its focus on determination the abstract features of observed objects or phenomena. It is important, however, that its paradigms become an essential methodological component in environmental approaches to the quantification and delimitation of the elements and natural processes.

show abstract

The Effectiveness of Protected Areas in Biodiversity Conservation: The Case of Turkey

Cited by 14 publications

References 72 publications

Hotspots of (sub)alpine plants in the Irano‐Anatolian global biodiversity hotspot are insufficiently protected

Hotspots of (sub)alpine plants in the Irano‐Anatolian global biodiversity hotspot are insufficiently protected

Biodiversity conservation and carbon storage of Acacia catechu willd. Dominated northern tropical dry deciduous forest ecosystems in north-western Himalaya: Implications of different forest management regimes

Spatial analysis guiding decision making in environmental conservation: Systematic conservation planning and ecosystem services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About