Anthropogenic vulnerability assessment of global terrestrial protected areas with a new framework

被引:8
|
作者
Meng, Jiahui [1 ,2 ]
Li, Yaoqi [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Feng, Yuhao [1 ,2 ]
Hua, Fangyuan [1 ,2 ]
Shen, Xiaoli [4 ]
Li, Sheng [1 ,5 ]
Shrestha, Nawal [1 ,2 ]
Peng, Shijia [1 ,2 ]
Rahbek, Carsten [6 ,7 ,8 ]
Wang, Zhiheng [1 ,2 ,9 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ, Inst Ecol, Coll Urban & Environm Sci, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China
[2] Peking Univ, Coll Urban & Environm Sci, Key Lab Earth Surface Proc, Minist Educ, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China
[3] Xian Jiaotong Liverpool Univ, Dept Hlth & Environm Sci, Suzhou 215123, Peoples R China
[4] Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Bot, State Key Lab Vegetat & Environm Change, Beijing, Peoples R China
[5] Peking Univ, Sch Life Sci, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China
[6] Univ Copenhagen, Ctr Macroecol Evolut & Climate, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
[7] Univ Southern Denmark, Danish Inst Adv Study, Odense, Denmark
[8] Imperial Coll London, Dept Life Sci, Ascot SL5 7PY, England
[9] Peking Univ, Inst Ecol, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Anthropogenic vulnerability; Conservation assessment; Human pressure; Human modification; Protected area; Socioeconomic factor; LAND-USE; CONSERVATION; BIODIVERSITY; DEGRADATION; POPULATIONS; PERFORMANCE; OUTCOMES; FUTURE; LEVEL; BIRDS;
D O I
10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110064
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Protected areas (PAs) are the major conservation tool for ecosystem conservation, but function unequally in mitigating human pressures in practice. Assessing PA vulnerability caused by human pressures and its association with socioeconomic and PA characteristic factors is vital for improving conservation effectiveness and the post2020 PA expansion. Here, using a new framework integrating the intensity and temporal changes of human pressures in PAs and their matched unprotected areas, we categorize global terrestrial PAs into four anthropogenic vulnerability levels: high (11.7 %), moderate (18.6 %) and low (21.9 %) vulnerability and wilderness (47.8 %). We find significant variations in the anthropogenic vulnerability of PAs between countries, continents, and IUCN categories. Europe has the highest proportion of high-vulnerability PAs (ca. 19.7 % of protected areas in Europe), while South America and Oceania have the highest proportions of low-vulnerability PAs and wilderness PAs, respectively (33.2 % and 75.0 % respectively). The vulnerability of PAs is not significantly associated with socioeconomic factors at the country level, which might reflect the trade-offs between positive and negative outcomes of development. With a new framework that integrated four significant factors for anthropogenic vulnerability assessment, this study demonstrates that global PAs have different anthropogenic vulnerability levels and suggest that some PAs function effectively in mitigating human pressures despite currently intense human pressures within them. Our results also suggest that future evaluations on the conservation status should pay attention not only to PA coverage but also to the anthropogenic vulnerability levels within PAs to achieve higher conservation effectiveness.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] An assessment of threats to terrestrial protected areas
    Schulze, Katharina
    Knights, Kathryn
    Coad, Lauren
    Geldmann, Jonas
    Leverington, Fiona
    Eassom, April
    Marr, Melitta
    Butchart, Stuart H. M.
    Hockings, Marc
    Burgess, Neil D.
    CONSERVATION LETTERS, 2018, 11 (03):
  • [2] A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures
    Geldmann, Jonas
    Manica, Andrea
    Burgess, Neil D.
    Coad, Lauren
    Balmford, Andrew
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2019, 116 (46) : 23209 - 23215
  • [3] Extent of the Global Network of Terrestrial Protected Areas
    Soutullo, Alvaro
    CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2010, 24 (02) : 362 - 363
  • [4] Assessment of Night-Time Lighting for Global Terrestrial Protected and Wilderness Areas
    Fan, Liangxian
    Zhao, Jianjun
    Wang, Yeqiao
    Ren, Zhoupeng
    Zhang, Hongyan
    Guo, Xiaoyi
    REMOTE SENSING, 2019, 11 (22)
  • [5] Anticipating anthropogenic threats in acquiring new protected areas
    Albers, Heidi J.
    Chang, Charlotte H.
    Dissanayake, Sahan T. M.
    Helmstedt, Kate J.
    Kroetz, Kailin
    Dilkina, Bistra
    Zapata-Moran, Irene
    Nolte, Christoph
    Ochoa-Ochoa, Leticia M.
    Spencer, Gwen
    CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2024, 38 (02)
  • [6] Keeping pace with climate change in global terrestrial protected areas
    Elsen, Paul R.
    Monahan, William B.
    Dougherty, Eric R.
    Merenlender, Adina M.
    SCIENCE ADVANCES, 2020, 6 (25)
  • [7] Global terrestrial distribution of penguins (Spheniscidae) and their conservation by protected areas
    Hickcox, Rachel P.
    Jara, Manuel
    Deacon, Laura A. K.
    Harvey, Lilly P.
    Pincheira-Donoso, Daniel
    BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2019, 28 (11) : 2861 - 2876
  • [8] Global correlates of terrestrial and marine coverage by protected areas on islands
    David Mouillot
    Laure Velez
    Eva Maire
    Alizée Masson
    Christina C. Hicks
    James Moloney
    Marc Troussellier
    Nature Communications, 11
  • [9] Global terrestrial distribution of penguins (Spheniscidae) and their conservation by protected areas
    Rachel P. Hickcox
    Manuel Jara
    Laura A. K. Deacon
    Lilly P. Harvey
    Daniel Pincheira-Donoso
    Biodiversity and Conservation, 2019, 28 : 2861 - 2876
  • [10] Global correlates of terrestrial and marine coverage by protected areas on islands
    Mouillot, David
    Velez, Laure
    Maire, Eva
    Masson, Alizee
    Hicks, Christina C.
    Moloney, James
    Troussellier, Marc
    NATURE COMMUNICATIONS, 2020, 11 (01)