Distribution and connectivity of protected areas in the Americas facilitates transboundary conservation

Abstract

Large‐scale anthropogenic changes to landscapes will cause species to move and shift their ranges against a backdrop of international political boundaries. Transboundary conservation efforts are therefore key to preserving intact and connected landscapes, particularly if such efforts can be implemented within the framework of protected area networks that provide for resiliency and persistence in the face of threats such as climate change. We studied the distribution, connectivity, and integrity of protected areas in regions near international borders within the Americas. We found that there is a greater proportion of land protected near vs. far from borders, with this effect extending approximately 125 km from the border. This trend was most pronounced when considering multiuse categories of protected areas in the analysis. We also found that there is greater connectivity of protected areas in border regions than more internally within countries, and relatively low rates of habitat loss within border‐situated and internal protected areas. Our results indicate that protected area networks are larger and more connected if considered in a transboundary context and that efforts to conserve species and mitigate effects of long‐term stressors like climate change will be most successful when planning includes neighboring countries. Despite a relative lack of attention to transboundary conservation in the Americas, our results suggest substantial opportunities for linking landscapes via a focus on international border regions and coordination across borders in protected areas management.

Mapping and assessing ecosystems and their services: a comparative approach to ecosystem service supply in Suriname and French Guiana

“…Such asymmetries in the environmental protection status may hijack the effectivity of environmental protection and call for joint transboundary river management policies. The collaboration of national actors and environmental protection agencies should be promoted in the face of the potential benefits of well-functioning cross-border protection areas (McPherson and Boyer 2015;Thornton et al 2020). With transboundary environmental conservation efforts, the Maroni River could provide an excellent example of protected ecoregions across borders.…”

Land systems’ asymmetries across transnational ecoregions in South America

“…5a). Protected areas do not require the specific biophysical conditions as agricultural or fire activities do, but tend to be located in regions that are peripheral to economic activities, which in South America often includes borders (e.g., Bolivian vs Argentinean Puna, Argentinean vs Paraguayan Atlantic forest) (Baldi et al 2017;Thornton et al 2019). Protected areas have been used in South America as a low-cost way to claim land sovereignty and stabilize borders (e.g., peace parks) (Baldi et al 2017;Guo 2012;Marinaro et al 2012;Matossian and Vejsbjerg 2018;Rumley and Minghi 1991).…”

“…Earth scientists have studied biophysical differences of borderlands, such as differences in terrain roughness in neighbour regions of Africa (Nunn and Puga 2012) or different soil erosion rates at the country scale as a consequence of differing national agricultural practices (Wuepper et al 2019). Conservation scientists have developed initiatives for across-border cooperation (Liu et al 2020, Prist et al 2019, Taggart-Hodge and Schoon 2016, ecosystem services management (López-Hoffman et al 2010, Rai et al 2018, cross-border protected areas (Thornton et al 2019), or across-border animal movement (Lennox et al 2016). Land systems and sustainability scientists have analyzed forest use, management and disturbances under different human population growth and land ownership across borders (Kuemmerle et al 2006;Röder et al 2015;Wuepper et al 2019;Wulder et al 2007).…”

Spatial phylogenetics of the native woody plant species in Hainan, China

“…Understanding patterns of biodiversity distribution is a primary goal of macroecological research and essential for conservation, particularly in the global context of increasing habitat loss (Thornton et al., 2020) and anthropogenic climate change (Marchioro et al., 2020). The fundamental unit of biodiversity assessment is the species.…”