Submit to Land Review for Land Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser

Biodiversity and Protected Areas

Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue
Published Papers

A special issue of Land (ISSN 2073-445X).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 November 2018) | Viewed by 106922

Printed Edition Available!
A printed edition of this Special Issue is available here.

Special issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas book cover image

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Karen Beazley

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, 6100 University Ave., P.O. Box 15000, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada
Interests: biodiversity conservation; protected area system design; conservation biology; landscape ecology; road ecology; indigenous perspectives; environmental justice

Prof. Dr. Robert Baldwin

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Forestry and Environmental Conservation Department, Clemson University, 261 Lehotsky Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
Interests: biodiversity; landscape-scale conservation planning; wetland landscapes; habitat connectivity
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Protected areas are key to biodiversity conservation. While the value of protected areas is generally undisputed, challenges remain. Many areas designated as protected were created for objectives other than biodiversity conservation, and those uses can conflict with biodiversity conservation. Protected area legal status is in many cases impermanent. Protected areas are generally too small, isolated and few to conserve biodiversity on their own, and thus there are calls for connected conservation areas between them, and for their integration into broader landscapes and seascapes [1]. There is general consensus that the current global suite of protected areas is insufficient to protect biodiversity. Although there is no precise prescription for how much is enough, systematic conservation planning studies have indicated that 25–75% of a region is required to capture key elements of biodiversity [2]. Studies that address range shifts and movement pathways in response to climate change reveal even more extensive area and connectivity requirements. These and other insights have contributed to recent calls for ‘half Earth’ [3]. There is increasing recognition that not all of the area required to maintain biodiversity is likely to be accommodated within protected areas. Other effective area-based measures, connectivity, and management of private lands offer potential complements to protected areas, but may also compete for scarce resources. Increased focus on framing biodiversity and protected area values in terms of ecosystem services and human well-being may not always lead to biodiversity conservation, particularly if narrowly focused on goods and services. There is increasing acknowledgement of the imperative to engage Indigenous communities and recognize their rights to self-governance, territorial lands and resources, including biodiversity and protected areas. These and other emergent issues demand transformed approaches to biodiversity and protected areas, which engage diverse communities and boundary spanning collaborations, and may require new conceptual framings.

This Special Issue seeks to assemble papers that explore these and other emerging issues around biodiversity and protected areas. We are seeking papers that examine approaches that show promise or demonstrate success as potential new models and applications that support progress on biodiversity conservation and protected areas in an increasingly challenging and complex context. Papers will be considered from all regions of the world. Our ultimate goal is to identify new ways of moving forward in a context of increasing urgency.

United Nations. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 including Aichi Biodiversity Targets. 2010. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/sp/.
Noss, R.F.; Cooperrider, A. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
Wilson, E.O. Half Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life; WW Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2016.

Prof. Karen Beazley
Prof. Robert Baldwin
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Land is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

biodiversity conservation
systematic conservation planning
protected areas
connectivity conservation
climate change
ecosystem services
Indigenous community conservation areas

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (13 papers)

Download All Papers

Order results

Result details

Show export options Show export options

Select all

Export citation of selected articles as:

Editorial

Jump to: Research, Review, Other

12 pages, 850 KiB

Open AccessEditorial

Emerging Paradigms for Biodiversity and Protected Areas

by Robert F. Baldwin and Karen F. Beazley

Land 2019, 8(3), 43; https://doi.org/10.3390/land8030043 - 1 Mar 2019

Cited by 10 | Viewed by 5591

Abstract

Despite significant investments in protected areas, biodiversity continues to show the negative influence of human domination of earth’s ecosystems with population reductions across many taxa (Dirzo et al [...] Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Research

Jump to: Editorial, Review, Other

20 pages, 332 KiB

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), Aichi Target 11 and Canada’s Pathway to Target 1: Focusing Conservation on Reconciliation

by Melanie Zurba, Karen F. Beazley, Emilie English and Johanna Buchmann-Duck

Land 2019, 8(1), 10; https://doi.org/10.3390/land8010010 - 7 Jan 2019

Cited by 71 | Viewed by 17502

Abstract

This article provides analysis of the issues relating to movement towards new models for Indigenous-led conservation in light of Canada’s initiatives for greater protected areas representation through Target 1. We provide a background on Canada’s Pathway to Target 1, which is based on Target 11 from the Aichi Biodiversity Targets set forth by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). We contemplate the past, present and future of colonization and reconciliation in Canada, and consider the influence of international declarations, programs and initiatives on the potential for the formation of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs). We then provide an analysis of “wicked problems” that Indigenous communities, governments, and other stakeholders in protected areas will need to navigate towards implementing the IPCA approach in Canada. We outline the different types of Indigenous involvement in protected areas and how they potentially fit within the principles for the development of IPCAs. We then turn our discussion to the need to refocus conservation on reconciliation by restoring nation-to-nation relationships and relationships between the land and peoples. The lessons we draw have potential parallels for other nation states, particularly those signatory to the CBD and with a colonial history, aiming for biodiversity conservation and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples through IPCAs. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

21 pages, 1396 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Context and Opportunities for Expanding Protected Areas in Canada

by Michael A. Wulder, Jeffrey A. Cardille, Joanne C. White and Bronwyn Rayfield

Land 2018, 7(4), 137; https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040137 - 15 Nov 2018

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 7226

Abstract

At present, 10.5% of Canada’s land base is under some form of formal protection. Recent developments indicate Canada aims to work towards a target of protecting 17% of its terrestrial and inland water area by 2020. Canada is uniquely positioned globally as one of the few nations that has the capacity to expand the area under its protection. In addition to its formally protected areas, Canada’s remote regions form de facto protected areas that are relatively free from development pressure. Opportunities for expansion of formally protected areas in Canada include official delineation and designation of de facto protected areas and the identification and protection of land to improve connectivity between protected areas (PAs). Furthermore, there are collaborative opportunities for expanding PA through commitments from industry and provincial and territorial land stewards. Other collaborative opportunities include the contributions of First Nations aligning with international examples of Indigenous Protected Areas, or the incorporation and cultivation of private protection programs with documented inclusion in official PA networks. A series of incremental additions from multiple actors may increase the likelihood for achieving area-based targets, and expands stakeholder engagement and representation in Canada’s PA system. Given a generational opportunity and high-level interest in expansion of protected areas in Canada and elsewhere, it is evident that as a diverse number of stakeholders and rights holders collaboratively map current and future land uses onto forest landscapes, science-based conservation targets and spatial prioritizations can inform this process. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 3654 KiB

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle

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

by Caitlin Cunningham and Karen F. Beazley

Land 2018, 7(4), 136; https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040136 - 15 Nov 2018

Cited by 35 | Viewed by 9716

Abstract

Biodiversity hotspots are rich in endemic species and threatened by anthropogenic influences and, thus, considered priorities for conservation. In this study, conservation achievements in 36 global biodiversity hotspots (25 identified in 1988, 10 added in 2011, and one in 2016) were evaluated in relation to changes in human population density and protected area coverage between 1995 and 2015. Population densities were compared against 1995 global averages, and percentages of protected area coverage were compared against area-based targets outlined in Aichi target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (17% by 2020) and calls for half Earth (50%). The two factors (average population density and percent protected area coverage) for each hotspot were then plotted to evaluate relative levels of threat to biodiversity conservation. Average population densities in biodiversity hotspots increased by 36% over the 20-year period, and were double the global average. The protected area target of 17% is achieved in 19 of the 36 hotspots; the 17 hotspots where this target has not been met are economically disadvantaged areas as defined by Gross Domestic Product. In 2015, there are seven fewer hotspots (22 in 1995; 15 in 2015) in the highest threat category (i.e., population density exceeding global average, and protected area coverage less than 17%). In the lowest threat category (i.e., population density below the global average, and a protected area coverage of 17% or more), there are two additional hotspots in 2015 as compared to 1995, attributable to gains in protected area. Only two hotspots achieve a target of 50% protection. Although conservation progress has been made in most global biodiversity hotspots, additional efforts are needed to slow and/or reduce population density and achieve protected area targets. Such conservation efforts are likely to require more coordinated and collaborative initiatives, attention to biodiversity objectives beyond protected areas, and support from the global community. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 10283 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Assessing Local Indigenous Knowledge and Information Sources on Biodiversity, Conservation and Protected Area Management at Khuvsgol Lake National Park, Mongolia

by Christopher McCarthy, Hitoshi Shinjo, Buho Hoshino and Erdenebuyan Enkhjargal

Land 2018, 7(4), 117; https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040117 - 11 Oct 2018

Cited by 12 | Viewed by 4815

Abstract

Indigenous knowledge about biodiversity and conservation is valuable and can be used to sustainably manage protected areas; however, indigenous communities continue to be marginalized due to the belief that their values and behaviors do not align with the overarching mission of conservation. This paper explores the extent of local knowledge and awareness of biodiversity, conservation and protected area management of indigenous communities at Khuvsgol Lake National Park, Mongolia. We investigate current levels of biodiversity awareness and explore perceptions toward conservation values and park management governance. Most respondents had a high awareness of existing biodiversity and held positive attitudes toward nature conservation and protected areas; however, insufficient knowledge of park rules and low levels of trust between local residents and park authorities may undermine conservation objectives in the long run. We identify an unequal share of economic benefits from tourism and preferential treatment toward elite business owners as a source of conflict. Limited information channels and poor communication between local residents and park authorities are also a source for low-level participation in conservation activities. Leveraging the increasing use of information communication technology, such as mobile phones, can serve as a new mechanism for improved information sharing and transparent reporting between local communities, conservationists and protected area authorities. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 4113 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Setting and Implementing Standards for Management of Wild Tigers

by M. K. S. Pasha, Nigel Dudley, Sue Stolton, Michael Baltzer, Barney Long, Sugoto Roy, Michael Belecky, Rajesh Gopal and S. P. Yadav

Land 2018, 7(3), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/land7030093 - 31 Jul 2018

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 5887

Abstract

Tiger numbers have collapsed so dramatically that conservationists are adopting a strategy of securing populations in priority conservation landscapes. This includes improving management effectiveness in these sites. The Conservation Assured|Tiger Standards (CA|TS) are designed to help ensure effectiveness and provide a benchmark against which to measure progress. CA|TS is a distillation of best practice and a roadmap to management effectiveness, linking management to expert-driven standards covering all aspects of management, including those which are tiger-specific (monitoring, maintenance of prey, control of poaching). Sites are audited against a set of standards and if met, are accredited as CA|TS Approved. We describe CA|TS in the context of tiger conservation, describe the evolution and philosophy of the system and consider its application across the tiger range, before drawing on lessons learned from 5 years of development. Important benefits include the independence of CA|TS from existing governmental or NGO institutions, the emphasis on regional governance and the existence of active support groups. Conversely, the participatory approach has slowed implementation. CA|TS remains more attractive to well managed sites than to sites that are struggling, although building capacity in the latter is its key aim. The close connections between people working on tiger conservation make some aspects of independent assessment challenging. Finally, if CA|TS is to succeed in its long term aims, it needs to go hand in hand with secure and adequate funding to increase management capacity in many tiger conservation areas. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 1974 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Tropical Protected Areas Under Increasing Threats from Climate Change and Deforestation

by Karyn Tabor, Jennifer Hewson, Hsin Tien, Mariano González-Roglich, David Hole and John W. Williams

Land 2018, 7(3), 90; https://doi.org/10.3390/land7030090 - 28 Jul 2018

Cited by 31 | Viewed by 9384

Abstract

Identifying protected areas most susceptible to climate change and deforestation represents critical information for determining conservation investments. Development of effective landscape interventions is required to ensure the preservation and protection of these areas essential to ecosystem service provision, provide high biodiversity value, and serve a critical habitat connectivity role. We identified vulnerable protected areas in the humid tropical forest biome using climate metrics for 2050 and future deforestation risk for 2024 modeled from historical deforestation and global drivers of deforestation. Results show distinct continental and regional patterns of combined threats to protected areas. Eleven Mha (2%) of global humid tropical protected area was exposed to the highest combined threats and should be prioritized for investments in landscape interventions focused on adaptation to climate stressors. Global tropical protected area exposed to the lowest deforestation risk but highest climate risks totaled 135 Mha (26%). Thirty-five percent of South America’s protected area fell into this risk category and should be prioritized for increasing protected area size and connectivity to facilitate species movement. Global humid tropical protected area exposed to a combination of the lowest deforestation and lowest climate risks totaled 89 Mha (17%), and were disproportionately located in Africa (34%) and Asia (17%), indicating opportunities for low-risk conservation investments for improved connectivity to these potential climate refugia. This type of biome-scale, protected area analysis, combining both climate change and deforestation threats, is critical to informing policies and landscape interventions to maximize investments for environmental conservation and increase ecosystem resilience to climate change. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 2808 KiB

Open AccessCommunication

Proposed Release of Wilderness Study Areas in Montana (USA) Would Demote the Conservation Status of Nationally-Valuable Wildlands

by R. Travis Belote

Land 2018, 7(2), 69; https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020069 - 1 Jun 2018

Cited by 2 | Viewed by 6339

Abstract

Wildlands are increasingly lost to human development. Conservation scientists repeatedly call for protecting the remaining wildlands and expanding the land area protected in reserves. Despite these calls, conservation reserves can be eliminated through legislation that demotes their conservation status. For example, legislation introduced to the Congress of the United States recently would demote 29 Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) from the protections afforded by their existing status. The proposed legislation suggests that the 29 areas are not suitable for a promotion and future inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System based on decades-old local evaluations. Local evaluations, notwithstanding, it may be important to consider the value of lands from a national perspective. Without a national perspective, local evaluations alone may lead to overlooking the national significance of lands. With this in mind, I used five qualities of wildland value (wildness, intactness of night sky, lack of human-generated noises, intactness of mammals, and intactness of mammal carnivores of conservation concern) to compare the 29 WSAs to all national parks and wilderness areas located within the contiguous United States. The pool of 29 WSAs was similar to the pool of national parks and wilderness areas with respect to the five qualities assessed, and some of the WSAs were characterized by higher values than most of national parks and wilderness areas. This analysis demonstrates the national significance of the WSAs targeted for demotion of their existing conservation status. Such an approach could be used in future land management legislation and planning to ensure that a national perspective on conservation value is brought to bear on decisions facing federally-managed lands. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 3422 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Post-War Land Cover Changes and Fragmentation in Halgurd Sakran National Park (HSNP), Kurdistan Region of Iraq

by Rahel Hamad, Kamal Kolo and Heiko Balzter

Land 2018, 7(1), 38; https://doi.org/10.3390/land7010038 - 19 Mar 2018

Cited by 14 | Viewed by 6309

Abstract

Context: The fundamental driving force of land use and land cover (LULC) change is related to spatial and temporal processes caused by human activities such as agricultural expansion and demographic change. Landscape metrics were used to analyze post-war changes in a rural mountain landscape, the protected area of Halgurd-Sakran National Park (HSNP) in north-east Iraq. Therefore, the present work attempts to identify the temporal trends of the most fragmented land cover types between two parts of the national park. Objectives: The objectives of this study are to compare two land cover classification algorithms, maximum likelihood classification (MLC) and random forest (RF) in the upper and lower parts of HSCZ, and to examine whether landscape configuration in the park has changed over time by comparing the fragmentation, connectivity and diversity of LULC classes. Methods: Two Landsat images were used to analyze LULC fragmentation and loss of habitat connectivity (before and after the Fall of Baghdad in 2003). Seven landscape pattern metrics, percentage of land (PLAND), number of patch (NP), largest patch index (LPI), mean patch size (MPS), euclidian nearest neighborhood distance (ENN_AM), interspersion and juxtaposition (IJI) and cohesion at class level were selected to assess landscape composition and configuration. Results: A significant change in LULC classes was noticed in the lower part of the park, especially for pasture, cultivated and forest-lands. The fragmentation trends and their changes were observed in both parts of the park, however, more were observed in the lower part. The inherent causes of these changes are the socio-economic factors created by the 1991–2003 UN post-war economic sanctions. The changes increased during sanctions and decreased afterwards. The fall of Baghdad in 2003, followed by rapid economic boom, marked the greatest cause in land use change, especially in changes-susceptible cultivated areas. Conclusions: Shrinkage of forest patches in the lower part of the park increases the distance between them, which contributes to a decline in biological diversity from decreasing habitat area. Lastly, the results confirm the applicability of the combined method of remote sensing and landscape metrics. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Editorial, Research, Other

15 pages, 1638 KiB

Open AccessReview

Conservation through Biocultural Heritage—Examples from Sub-Saharan Africa

by Anneli Ekblom, Anna Shoemaker, Lindsey Gillson, Paul Lane and Karl-Johan Lindholm

Land 2019, 8(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/land8010005 - 2 Jan 2019

Cited by 31 | Viewed by 11640

Abstract

In this paper, we review the potential of biocultural heritage in biodiversity protection and agricultural innovation in sub-Saharan Africa. We begin by defining the concept of biocultural heritage into four interlinked elements that are revealed through integrated landscape analysis. This concerns the transdisciplinary methods whereby biocultural heritage must be explored, and here we emphasise that reconstructing landscape histories and documenting local heritage values needs to be an integral part of the process. Ecosystem memories relate to the structuring of landscape heterogeneity through such activities as agroforestry and fire management. The positive linkages between living practices, biodiversity and soil nutrients examined here are demonstrative of the concept of ecosystem memories. Landscape memories refer to built or enhanced landscapes linked to specific land-use systems and property rights. Place memories signify practices of protection or use related to a specific place. Customary protection of burial sites and/or abandoned settlements, for example, is a common occurrence across Africa with beneficial outcomes for biodiversity and forest protection. Finally, we discuss stewardship and change. Building on local traditions, inclusivity and equity are essential to promoting the continuation and innovation of practices crucial for local sustainability and biodiversity protection, and also offer new avenues for collaboration in landscape management and conservation. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Other

Jump to: Editorial, Research, Review

8 pages, 596 KiB

Open AccessPerspective

Globalization and Biodiversity Conservation Problems: Polycentric REDD+ Solutions

by Mwangi Githiru and Josephine W. Njambuya

Land 2019, 8(2), 35; https://doi.org/10.3390/land8020035 - 19 Feb 2019

Cited by 13 | Viewed by 7802

Abstract

Protected areas are considered the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation, but face multiple problems in delivering this core objective. The growing trend of framing biodiversity and protected area values in terms of ecosystem services and human well-being may not always lead to biodiversity conservation. Although globalization is often spoken about in terms of its adverse effects to the environment and biodiversity, it also heralds unprecedented and previously inaccessible opportunities linked to ecosystem services. Biodiversity and related ecosystem services are amongst the common goods hardest hit by globalization. Yet, interconnectedness between people, institutions, and governments offers a great chance for globalization to play a role in ameliorating some of the negative impacts. Employing a polycentric governance approach to overcome the free-rider problem of unsustainable use of common goods, we argue here that REDD+, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) climate change mitigation scheme, could be harnessed to boost biodiversity conservation in the face of increasing globalization, both within classic and novel protected areas. We believe this offers a timely example of how an increasingly globalized world connects hitherto isolated peoples, with the ability to channel feelings and forces for biodiversity conservation. Through the global voluntary carbon market, REDD+ can enable and empower, on the one hand, rural communities in developing countries contribute to mitigation of a global problem, and on the other, individuals or societies in the West to help save species they may never see, yet feel emotionally connected to. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 3556 KiB

Open AccessPerspective

Understanding the Biodiversity Contributions of Small Protected Areas Presents Many Challenges

by Robert F. Baldwin and Nakisha T. Fouch

Land 2018, 7(4), 123; https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040123 - 20 Oct 2018

Cited by 23 | Viewed by 4701

Abstract

Small protected areas dominate some databases and are common features of landscapes, yet their accumulated contributions to biodiversity conservation are not well known. Small areas may contribute to global biodiversity conservation through matrix habitat improvement, connectivity, and preservation of localized ecosystems, but there is relatively little literature regarding this. We review one database showing that the average size of nearly 200,000 protected areas in the United States is ~2000 ha and the median is ~20 ha, and that small areas are by far the most frequent. Overall, 95% and 49% of the records are less than the mean (1648 ha) and median (16 ha), respectively. We show that small areas are prevalent features of landscapes, and review literature suggesting how they should be studied and managed at multiple scales. Applying systematic conservation planning in a spatially hierarchical manner has been suggested by others and could help insure that small, local projects contribute to global goals. However, there are data and financial limitations. While some local groups practice ecosystem management and conservation planning, they will likely continue to protect what is “near and dear” and meet site-based goals unless there is better coordination and sharing of resources by larger organizations. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 492 KiB

Open AccessPerspective

Fairness and Transparency Are Required for the Inclusion of Privately Protected Areas in Publicly Accessible Conservation Databases

by Hayley S. Clements, Matthew J. Selinske, Carla L. Archibald, Benjamin Cooke, James A. Fitzsimons, Julie E. Groce, Nooshin Torabi and Mathew J. Hardy

Land 2018, 7(3), 96; https://doi.org/10.3390/land7030096 - 13 Aug 2018

Cited by 26 | Viewed by 7614

Abstract

There is a growing recognition of the contribution that privately-owned land makes to conservation efforts, and governments are increasingly counting privately protected areas (PPAs) towards their international conservation commitments. The public availability of spatial data on countries’ conservation estates is important for broad-scale conservation planning and monitoring and for evaluating progress towards targets. Yet there has been limited consideration of how PPA data is reported to national and international protected area databases, particularly whether such reporting is transparent and fair (i.e., equitable) to the landholders involved. Here we consider PPA reporting procedures from three countries with high numbers of PPAs—Australia, South Africa, and the United States—illustrating the diversity within and between countries regarding what data is reported and the transparency with which it is reported. Noting a potential tension between landholder preferences for privacy and security of their property information and the benefit of sharing this information for broader conservation efforts, we identify the need to consider equity in PPA reporting processes. Unpacking potential considerations and tensions into distributional, procedural, and recognitional dimensions of equity, we propose a series of broad principles to foster transparent and fair reporting. Our approach for navigating the complexity and context-dependency of equity considerations will help strengthen PPA reporting and facilitate the transparent integration of PPAs into broader conservation efforts. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Protected Areas)

► Show Figures

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Biodiversity and Protected Areas

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Published Papers (13 papers)

Editorial

Research

Review

Other

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI