Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets

Chape, Stuart; Harrison, J.; Spalding, Mark; Lysenko, Igor

doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1592

Cited by 864 publications

(588 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

546

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Protected areas (PA) are recognized as the most effective strategy for in situ conservation, maintaining not only the biodiversity and ecosystem services, but also historical and cultural values (Chape et al 2005, Xavier et al 2008. However, the conservation of viable populations in the long term inside PA depends on their surroundings, since species are not restricted to the interior of the reserves (Hjert 2006, Vynne et al 2014.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Buffer zone use by mammals in a Cerrado protected area

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat loss and degradation is threatening mammals worldwide. Therefore, Protected Areas (PA) are of utmost importance to preserve biodiversity. Their effectiveness, however, depends on some management strategies such as buffer zones, which prevent/mitigate the impact of external threats and might increase the amount of available habitat for wildlife existing within reserves. Nevertheless, how intensively terrestrial mammals use buffer zones remains little studied, particularly in the Neotropical region. Aiming to analyse the use of a buffer zone (5 km wide) by medium and large-sized mammals, we modelled the occupancy probabilities of five species of conservation concern including local (interior and buffer zone) as a site covariate, simultaneously controlling for imperfect detection. Data collection was made with camera traps from April to September 2013 in a 9000 ha Cerrado PA (“interior”) and in its surrounding area (39721.41 ha; “buffer zone”). This PA (Jataí Ecological Station) is immersed in a landscape where sugarcane plantations predominate in the northeastern of the state of São Paulo. We also conducted an inventory to compare the number and composition of species between interior and buffer zone. A total of 31 mammal species (26 natives) was recorded via camera traps and active search for sightings, vocalizations, tracks and signs. Occupancy estimates for Myrmecophaga tridactyla, Leopardus pardalis and Pecari tajacu were numerically higher in interior. On the other hand, Chrysocyon brachyurus had the highest occupancy in buffer zone, while the largest predator, Puma concolor, used both areas similarly. However, as the confidence intervals (95%) overlapped, the differences in occupancy probabilities between interior and buffer were weak for all these species. Additionally, regarding only the species recorded by cameras, the observed and estimated richness were similar between interior and buffer zone of the PA. Our data demonstrated that the buffer zone is indeed used by medium and large-sized mammals, including conservation-dependent ones. The lack of enforcement of current legislation regarding buffer zones is therefore a real threat for mammals, even when protection is guaranteed in the interior of protected areas.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Buffer zone use by mammals in a Cerrado protected area

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although these figures do not meet the 10% target, they appear promising in comparison with global statistics, which indicate that close to 75% of 190 coastal states and territories have less than 1% of their EEZ (or equivalent) within MPAs, and 63% have less than 0.5% protected (Spalding et al, 2010). The number and coverage of MPAs does not however provide an indication of whether or not these MPAs are actually being managed and whether management is effective (Chape et al, 2005).…”

Section: Regional Organisation For the Protection Of The Marine Envirmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2003, only 0.45% of the global ocean surface area or 1.14% of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), was protected within 4116 MPAs (Chape et al, 2003). By 2006, there were 4435 MPAs protecting 2.35 million km 2 , equivalent to 0.65% of the global oceans or 1.63% of EEZs , which compared poorly to achievements in the terrestrial domain, where 104,791 protected areas covered 18.38 million km 2 , equivalent to 12% of the global land surface area (Chape et al, 2005). By 2008, there were 5045 MPAs, protecting a total of 2.59 million km 2 , equivalent to 0.72% of the global oceans or 1.80% of EEZs (Spalding et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An effective regional Marine Protected Area network for the ROPME Sea Area: Unrealistic vision or realistic possibility?

Lavieren

Klaus²

2013

Marine Pollution Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tConvention on Biodiversity (CBD) targets aim to encourage the establishment of an effective global network of MPAs covering 10% of coastal and marine ecoregions by 2020. This paper presents findings from the first ever regional assessment of MPA management effectiveness in the ROPME (Regional Organisation for the Protection of the Marine Environment) Sea Area (RSA). The RSA, extends from the Gulf to the Arabian Sea coast of Oman, and is bordered by 8 member states, including some of the world's richest and fastest growing global economies. There are 173 MPAs covering 7.8% of the RSA (36,182.03 km 2 ). Progress towards CBD MPA targets is lower as: (i) stated area coverages often include a terrestrial component; (ii) only 37% are legally 'Designated' (5.4% RSA), while 73% remain 'Proposed' (2.4% RSA) and; (iii) assessment of management effectiveness revealed variable levels of performance (11% to 58%, with an average of 34%). Underlying causes for low performance are discussed and recommendations are offered to help RSA member states meet CBD MPA targets by 2020.

show abstract

“…imminently. Globally, the overall land under protection is slightly in excess of this, although protection and management are very varied (Coad et al, 2008;Chape et al, 2005). It has been suggested that it would be useful to debate whether there is an appropriate upper limit to the level of designated land in the UK.…”

Section: Policy Driversmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation designations—Are they fit for purpose in the 21st century?

Selman¹

2009

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. 1Selm an, P H ( 2009) Conser vat ion designat ions-Ar e t hey fit for purpose in t he 21st cent ury?Land Use Policy, 26S, S142-S153. This is a post-peer-review draft, prior to publisher formatting doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.005 Conservation Designations -are they fit for purpose in the 21 st century?Paul Selman, Department of Landscape, University of SheffieldThe designation of tracts of land for nature and landscape conservation has been a mainstay of countryside policy. However, its continued relevance in the light of policy trends towards sectoral and spatial integration has been questioned. Focusing principally on experience in the United Kingdom, this review considers the impact and effectiveness of designations from a number of perspectives. It concludes that, whilst on balance they remain broadly fit for purpose and good value for money, they will increasingly need to be embedded in land-use strategies which are more responsive to changing social needs and environmental conditions. Abstract This paper considers past experience and future prospects of countryside designations as a means of protecting ecological and landscape assets in the face of land use change. Broadly, the designation approach relies on protecting 'special' tracts of countryside by identifying candidate areas, selecting them on the basis of criteria, designating boundaries based on legal-administrative instruments, notifying landowners and other stakeholder in the areas, and applying controls and incentives within the selected area. Although the recognition of sites with spiritual or symbolic significance stretches back millennia, the modern approach stems from the creation of national parks in the USA from the late 19 th century. The current review is focused principally on the cultural landscapes of the United Kingdom, and on areas of importance for biodiversity and landscape, whilst acknowledging the wider international and policy context (Appendix 1). Despite their well-established position in the panoply of land use instruments, the continuing relevance of designations has been questioned.There is a suspicion that some may be relatively ineffectual or in the wrong places, or may need to be supplemented by complementary strategies in the wider countryside. Current evidence of

show abstract

Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets

Cited by 864 publications

References 6 publications

Buffer zone use by mammals in a Cerrado protected area

Buffer zone use by mammals in a Cerrado protected area

An effective regional Marine Protected Area network for the ROPME Sea Area: Unrealistic vision or realistic possibility?

Conservation designations—Are they fit for purpose in the 21st century?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About