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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Anthropogenic vulnerability assessment of global terrestrial protected areas with a new framework. / Meng, Jiahui; Li, Yaoqi; Feng, Yuhao; Hua, Fangyuan; Shen, Xiaoli; Li, Sheng; Shrestha, Nawal; Peng, Shijia ; Rahbek, Carsten; Wang, Zhiheng.

In: Biological Conservation, Vol. 283, 110064, 2023.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Meng, J, Li, Y, Feng, Y, Hua, F, Shen, X, Li, S, Shrestha, N, Peng, S, Rahbek, C & Wang, Z 2023, 'Anthropogenic vulnerability assessment of global terrestrial protected areas with a new framework', Biological Conservation, vol. 283, 110064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110064

APA

Meng, J., Li, Y., Feng, Y., Hua, F., Shen, X., Li, S., Shrestha, N., Peng, S., Rahbek, C., & Wang, Z. (2023). Anthropogenic vulnerability assessment of global terrestrial protected areas with a new framework. Biological Conservation, 283, [110064]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110064

Vancouver

Meng J, Li Y, Feng Y, Hua F, Shen X, Li S et al. Anthropogenic vulnerability assessment of global terrestrial protected areas with a new framework. Biological Conservation. 2023;283. 110064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110064

Author

Meng, Jiahui ; Li, Yaoqi ; Feng, Yuhao ; Hua, Fangyuan ; Shen, Xiaoli ; Li, Sheng ; Shrestha, Nawal ; Peng, Shijia ; Rahbek, Carsten ; Wang, Zhiheng. / Anthropogenic vulnerability assessment of global terrestrial protected areas with a new framework. In: Biological Conservation. 2023 ; Vol. 283.

Bibtex

@article{253ba316e2794209b19ab4d8b465329f,
title = "Anthropogenic vulnerability assessment of global terrestrial protected areas with a new framework",
abstract = "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 post-2020 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.",
author = "Jiahui Meng and Yaoqi Li and Yuhao Feng and Fangyuan Hua and Xiaoli Shen and Sheng Li and Nawal Shrestha and Shijia Peng and Carsten Rahbek and Zhiheng Wang",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110064",
language = "English",
volume = "283",
journal = "Biological Conservation",
issn = "0006-3207",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Anthropogenic vulnerability assessment of global terrestrial protected areas with a new framework

AU - Meng, Jiahui

AU - Li, Yaoqi

AU - Feng, Yuhao

AU - Hua, Fangyuan

AU - Shen, Xiaoli

AU - Li, Sheng

AU - Shrestha, Nawal

AU - Peng, Shijia

AU - Rahbek, Carsten

AU - Wang, Zhiheng

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - 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 post-2020 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.

AB - 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 post-2020 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.

U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110064

DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110064

M3 - Journal article

VL - 283

JO - Biological Conservation

JF - Biological Conservation

SN - 0006-3207

M1 - 110064

ER -

ID: 355126427