Human footprint in biodiversity hotspots

Abstract

Natural ecosystems are disappearing at an increasing rate, and disappearing along with them is the immense biodiversity they contain. In addition to direct factors influencing the conversion of natural ecosystems to agriculture, international trade and consumption of products in wealthy countries have also been implicated as drivers of ecosystem change. We used quantitatively advanced methods to connect loss of potential net primary production (NPP) in global biodiversity hotspots to its ultimate driver – final consumption (eg consumption by households and government) – and identified the origins of agricultural products through global supply chains to quantify spatial impacts on the potential photosynthetic production of natural ecosystems. Using embodied potential NPP equivalents, we estimated the footprint of final consumption on ecosystems in the most threatened biodiversity hotspots. Our results contribute to the identification of conservation priorities from the perspective of consumer responsibility.

Changes in Human Population Density and Protected Areas in Terrestrial Global Biodiversity Hotspots, 1995–2015

“…In light of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of these global biodiversity hotspots, we analyze how well their conservation is currently being achieved relative to measures in 1995, in comparison to protected area targets of 17% and 50%, and in the face of one of the biggest threats to biodiversity-increasing human population density (Figure 1), which presents additional challenges for conservation planning [3,25,[34][35][36]. Our assessment follows up on Cincotta et al's [25] similar study in 1995, providing an update and comparison, and complements a recent assessment by Weinzettel et al [37] of conservation priorities among hotspots based on a footprint measured as loss of potential net primary production due to agricultural production and final consumption. Such diverse and on-going analyses are important in moving forward with future conservation strategies, such as new protected area targets beyond 2020.…”

“…In those where the population is more spatially concentrated, greater opportunities may exists for 'land-sparing', in which larger and more connected protected areas may be set aside. Further, it is well established that land-use activities such as agriculture, timber harvesting and mining can be extensive and intensive in terms of impact on biodiversity, even in areas with low population densities [37]. may exists for 'land-sparing', in which larger and more connected protected areas may be set aside.…”

“…may exists for 'land-sparing', in which larger and more connected protected areas may be set aside. Further, it is well established that land-use activities such as agriculture, timber harvesting and mining can be extensive and intensive in terms of impact on biodiversity, even in areas with low population densities [37]. Despite these limitations, population density is generally accepted as an indicator for assessing broad trends over large areas and can be considered a better measure of environmental impact than total population or population growth [34].…”

“…Those that are signatory to the Convention on Biodiversity should at a minimum follow through on their commitments to Aichi target 11. Beyond these internal commitments, however, relatively wealthy nations should recognize their responsibilities to other global hotspots in terms of world leadership and stewardship in general, but also in response to their indirect role in the loss of natural habitat in the hotspots, such as through their consumption of agricultural and other products produced in those regions and exported through global trade [37]. It is unrealistic, and unethical in terms of international equity, to assume that conservation targets will be met in economically and socially challenged regions without extensive support from the global community.…”

“…As Cincotta et al [25] note, biodiversity hotspots with low population density may also be highly threatened by extensive and intensive resource extraction, such as through disturbances related to 'over-logging, burning, grazing, mining and commercial hunting that have extracted or degraded natural resources, abetted biological invasion or polluted soil and water resources' [50]. Many hotspots are at risk from land conversions to agriculture, the effects of which are further compounded by international trade and the consumption of the products in wealthy nations [37]. Consideration of these various factors can result in different estimations of threat.…”