Shwartz, Assaf, Davies, Zoe G., Macgregor, Nicholas A., Crick, Humphrey Q.P., Clarke, Donna, Eigenbrod, Felix, Gonner, Catherine, Hill, Chris T., Knight, Andrew T., Metcalfe, Kristian, and others. (2017) Scaling up from protected areas in England: The value of establishing large conservation areas. Biological Conservation, 212 (Part A). pp. 279-287. ISSN 0006-3207. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.016) (KAR id:62228)
PDF
Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
|
|
Download this file (PDF/1MB) |
Preview |
Request a format suitable for use with assistive technology e.g. a screenreader | |
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.016 |
Abstract
Protected areas (PAs) are vital for conserving biodiversity, but many PA networks consist of fragmented habitat patches that poorly represent species and ecosystems. One possible solution is to create conservation landscapes that surround and link these PAs. This often involves working with a range of landowners and agencies to develop large-scale conservation initiatives (LSCIs). These initiatives are being championed by both government and civil society, but we lack data on whether such landscape-level approaches overcome the limitations of more traditional PA networks. Here we expand on a previous gap analysis of England to explore to what extent LSCIs improve the representation of different ecoregions, land-cover types and elevation zones compared to the current PA system. Our results show the traditional PA system covers 6.37% of England, an addition of only 0.07% since 2001, and that it is an ecologically unrepresentative network that mostly protects agriculturally unproductive land. Including LSCIs in the analysis increases the land for conservation more than tenfold and reduces these representation biases. However, only 24% of land within LSCIs is currently under conservation management, mostly funded through agri-environment schemes, and limited monitoring data mean that their contribution to conservation objectives is unclear. There is also a considerable spatial overlap between LSCIs, which are managed by different organisations with different conservation objectives. Our analysis is the first to show how Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) can increase the representativeness of conservation area networks, and highlights opportunities for increased collaboration between conservation organisations and engagement with landowners.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
DOI/Identification number: | 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.016 |
Uncontrolled keywords: | Gap analysis; Biodiversity; Agri-environment schemes; Conservation planning |
Divisions: | Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > DICE (Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology) |
Depositing User: | Bob Smith |
Date Deposited: | 06 Jul 2017 15:00 UTC |
Last Modified: | 05 Nov 2024 10:56 UTC |
Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/62228 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
- Link to SensusAccess
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):