1. Introduction
Nature protection is one of the main pillars of sustainable development, striking a proper balance between anthropocentric and ecocentric justifications [1]. Numerous authors highlighted the importance of the conservation of both inanimate and animate natural resources [2]. The protection of animate resources focuses mainly on the conservation of biodiversity, understood as the diversity of all living organisms found on Earth concerning genes, species, and ecosystems [3]. Biodiversity is essential for human existence and well-being and is adversely affected by many different anthropogenic factors such as habitat loss, pollution, global warming, overexploitation of species, or biological invasions that have been increasing in recent decades [4]. The lack of proper management of natural resources leads to a rapid loss of biodiversity and, consequently, deepens the ecological and economic crisis in the world [5,6]. Achieving sustainable development is impossible without effective conservation of natural resources and integrated environmental education [7]. Making the public aware of the threats to biodiversity and introducing modern methods of its protection are important tasks that should be particularly promoted by government authorities and scientists.
2. Papers in This Special Issue
This Special Issue covers different aspects related to nature conservation. It contains four original papers and one review paper. Three original papers were devoted to endangered and protected species, namely, the Yellow-spotted mountain newt (Neurergus derjugini), Green peafowl (Pavo muticus), and the Eastern pasqueflower (Pulsatilla patens). Somaye Vaissi (Contribution 1) reconstructed both recent and future potential distributions (2050 and 2070) of Neurergus derjugini by tracking and excluding the effects of climate and landscape changes in western Iran and northeastern Iraq. Mingxiao Yan and Co-authors (Contribution 2) investigated the changes in the distribution of Pavo muticus in China through historical periods. Monika Podgórska and Grzegorz Łazarski (Contribution 3) investigated the impact of secondary succession in xerothermic grasslands on the number, distribution, structure, and morphology of individuals of Pulsatilla patens in Poland. The fourth original paper was devoted to the importance of phytosociological data in the assessment of anthropogenic changes in vegetation. Maria Ziaja and Co-authors (Contribution 4) presented the changes in species composition and abiotic conditions in aquatic and marsh vegetation in Rzeszów Reservoir (Poland) over 22 years (1994–2016). The review paper was devoted to the role of the local wisdom of indigenous people in nature conservation. Azlan Abas and Co-authors (Contribution 5) concluded that their findings offer some basics on how academics can adopt and adapt the existing local wisdom of indigenous people in nature conservation into a scientific framework and design answers to the Sustainable Development 2030 Agenda.
3. List of Contributors
- Vaissi, S. Design of Protected Area by Tracking and Excluding the Effects of Climate and Landscape Change: A Case Study Using Neurergus derjugini. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5645. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1310564.
- Yan, M.; Gu, B.; Zhang, M.; Wang, W.; Quan, R.-C.; Li, J.; Wang, L. The Range Contraction and Future Conservation of Green Peafowl (Pavo muticus) in China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11723. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111723.
- Podgórska, M.; Łazarski, G. Impact of Secondary Succession in the Xerothermic Grassland on the Population of the Eastern Pasque Flower (Pulsatilla patens)—Preliminary Studies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12575. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212575.
- Ziaja, M.; Wójcik, T.; Wrzesień, M. Phytosociological Data in Assessment of Anthropogenic Changes in Vegetation of Rzeszów Reservoir. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169071.
- Abas, A.; Aziz, A.; Awang, A. A Systematic Review on the Local Wisdom of Indigenous People in Nature Conservation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3415. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063415.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, K.K.-G. and A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.-G. and A.P.; writing—review and editing, K.K.-G. and A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
We address an acknowledgment to the participating authors and reviewers for their support, critical remarks and constructive comments that have remarkably improved the quality of the manuscripts. We are also grateful to the editorial assistance office of MDPI for their support throughout the review and publication process of this Special Issue.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Westing, A.H. Core values for sustainable development. Environ. Conserv. 1996, 23, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasey, D.E.; Fredericks, S.E.; Lei, S.; Thompson, S. (Eds.) Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability. Natural Resources and Sustainability; Berkshire Publishing Group: Great Barrington, MA, USA, 2012; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
- The Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992 (1760 U.N.T.S. 69). Available online: https://cil.nus.edu.sg/databasecil/1992-convention-on-biological-diversity/ (accessed on 25 March 2022).
- Singh, V.; Shukla, S.; Singh, A. The principal factors responsible for biodiversity loss. Open J. Plant Sci. 2021, 6, 011–014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora, C.; Sale, P.F. Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: A review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2011, 434, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johnson, C.N.; Balmford, A.; Brook, B.W.; Buettel, J.C.; Galetti, M.; Guangchun, L.; Wilmshurst, J.M. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science 2017, 356, 270–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ardoin, N.M.; Bowers, A.W.; Gaillard, E. Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 241, 108224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).