Key Biodiversity Areas as Site Conservation Targets

Eken, Güven; Bennun, Leon; Brooks, Thomas M.; Darwall, W.R.T.; Fishpool, Lincoln; Foster, Matt; Knox, David; Langhammer, Penny F.; Matiku, Paul; Radford, E.; Salaman, Paul; Sechrest, Wes; Smith, Michael L.; Spector, Sacha; Tordoff, Andrew W.

doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1110:kbaasc]2.0.co;2

Cited by 423 publications

(309 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

273

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The concept of KBAs has been in use for some time (Eken et al 2004;Langhammer et al 2007), and widely employed in a number of geographical regions (e.g., Eken et al 2004;Gerlach 2008;Kasecker et al 2009;Paese et al 2010;Melovski et al 2012) and ecological zones such as freshwater ecosystems (Holland et al 2012;Carrizo et al 2014). However, a fully standardised methodology for their identification, based on a single set of criteria for all organism groups with strict quantitative thresholds-the KBA Standardhas only recently been launched .…”

Section: Alignment Of Ipa Criteria To Iucn Key Biodiversity Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst initial studies indicate that the congruence between IBAs and important sites for other vertebrate taxa is high (Brooks et al 2001;Eken et al 2004), wider cross-taxon congruence can vary tremendously (e.g., Lund and Rahbek 2002;Kati et al 2004;Heino 2010;Sabatini et al 2016) and evidence suggests that the congruence between important sites for plants and those for faunal groups may be considerably lower. For example, an analysis of Important Plant Areas (IPAs), IBAs and Prime Butterfly Areas (PBAs) in Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro found a 52% overlap or partial overlap between IBAs and IPAs and 65% between PBAs and IPAs across the four countries (Radford and Odé 2009, Table 9).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the severe threats to plant habitats and high levels of extinction risk for plant species in many parts of the world, plant conservation priorities are often poorly represented in national and global frameworks because of a lack of data in an accessible and consistent format to inform conservation decision making. The Important Plant Areas (IPAs) criteria system offers a pragmatic yet scientifically rigorous means of delivering these datasets, enabling informed national-or regional-scale conservation prioritisation, and contributing significantly towards global prioritisation systems including the International Union for Conservation of Nature Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) Standard. In this paper, we review the IPA rationale and progress on IPA identification to date, including the perceived limitations of the process and how these may be overcome. We then present a revised set of criteria for use globally, developed through the combined experiences of IPA -017-1336-6 identification over the past decade and a half and through a recent global consultation process. An overview of how the revised IPA criteria can work alongside the newly published KBA Standard is also provided. IPA criteria are based around a sound, scientific, global framework which acknowledges the practical problems of gathering plant and habitat data in many regions of the world, and recognises the role of peer reviewed expert opinion in the selection process. National and sub-national engagement in IPA identification is essential, providing a primary route towards long term conservation of key sites for plant diversity. The IPA criteria can be applied to the conservation of all organism groups within the plant and fungal kingdoms.

show abstract

Section: Alignment Of Ipa Criteria To Iucn Key Biodiversity Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Determination of priority species make it easy to overcome various obstacles, to improve the management of biodiversity in conditions of limited resources (Dono, 2013). (Brooks et al, 2006), biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al, 2000) and key biodiversity (Eken et al, 2004). Otus jolandae is the first priority because it is an endemic bird species on the island of Lombok and is not found elsewhere.…”

Section: Birds Conservation Prioritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Species Richness and Birds Conservation Priority in Mount Rinjani Areas, Lombok

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mount Rinjani area on the island of Lombok is unique in bioecology. It provides habitats for many species of birds, especially birds of Wallacea. Several studies on birds in this area have been done, but the conservation priority of these birds has not been determined. Based on this condition, the purpose of this research is to determine the priority of birds conservation in mount Rinjani areas. Exploration about the spesies of birds was started from Senaru Village to Segara Anak Lake. Abundance of each bird species was estimated using point count. Data analysis to determine the conservation priority used indicators that consist of endemicity, population status, species threatened and species management. The results showed that the birds species in mount Rinjani areas are composed of 32 species belonging to 20 families. Bird species that have high abundance were Amandava amandava (15.94%), Zosterops Montanus (15.70%), and Parus major (11.32%), while Ptilinopus melanospila and Anthus novaeseelandiae were in low abundance (0.23%). Analysis birds conservation priority in mount Rinjani areas indicates that Otus jolandae has the highest score (65) and should be the first priority for the conservation, while Philemon buceroides and Gallus varius with the same score (60) are the second priority.

show abstract

“…WCED, 1987), and are used as indicators of progress in the protection of biological diversity by a number of international agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Analyses of progress towards Target 1.1 have to date tended to measure protected area coverage (Chape et al, 2005, Coad et al, 2008, Spalding et al, 2008, Coad et al, 2009a, Coad et al, 2009b, Jenkins and Joppa, 2009 and ecological representativeness (Rodrigues et al, 2004, Spalding et al, 2007, Schmitt et al, 2009, Herbert et al, 2010 facilitated by the availability of open-access global datasets on protected area locations (e.g. The World Database on Protected Areas -WDPA) and global frameworks of ecological regions and key areas for biodiversity (Olson et al, 2001, Eken et al, 2004. In terms of global protected area coverage, Parties have made significant progress towards achieving Target 1.1 for terrestrial biodiversity: over 50 per cent of terrestrial ecoregions have 10 per cent or more of their area within protected areas, although marine ecosystems are still severely under-represented (Spalding et al, 2008, Coad et al, 2009b.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress towards the CBD protected area management effectiveness targets

Coad¹,

Leverington²,

Burgess³

et al. 2013

PARKS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The management effectiveness of protected areas is a critically important consideration for their conservation success. Over 40 different protected area management effectiveness (PAME) data collection tools have been developed to systematically assess protected area management effectiveness. Many of these assessments have recently been collated into the Global IUCN Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) database. We use the PAME database together with and the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) to assess current progress towards the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) 2010 and 2015 targets for PAME, which call for at least 30 per cent and 60 per cent of the total area of protected areas to have been assessed in terms of management effectiveness, respectively. We show that globally 29 per cent of the area protected has been assessed and 23 per cent of countries have reached the 60 per cent target. In addition 46 per cent of countries have reached the 30 per cent target. However, analytical results show that there are biases in the type of protected area assessed; protected areas with larger areas, and protected areas designated as National Parks (IUCN category II) are much more likely to have conducted a PAME assessment. In addition there is a paucity of PAME assessments from Europe and North America, where assessments of protected area management may already be integrated into protected area planning and monitoring systems, creating a challenge for reporting to the CBD. We further discuss the potential and limitations of PAME assessments as tools for tracking and evaluating protected area management, and the need for further assessment tools to address the 'equity' elements of Target 11 of the CBD. KEYWORDS

show abstract

Key Biodiversity Areas as Site Conservation Targets

Cited by 423 publications

References 28 publications

Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation

Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation

Species Richness and Birds Conservation Priority in Mount Rinjani Areas, Lombok

Progress towards the CBD protected area management effectiveness targets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About