Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Dec 14;4(12):e8273.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008273.

High and far: biases in the location of protected areas

Affiliations

High and far: biases in the location of protected areas

Lucas N Joppa et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: About an eighth of the earth's land surface is in protected areas (hereafter "PAs"), most created during the 20(th) century. Natural landscapes are critical for species persistence and PAs can play a major role in conservation and in climate policy. Such contributions may be harder than expected to implement if new PAs are constrained to the same kinds of locations that PAs currently occupy.

Methodology/principal findings: Quantitatively extending the perception that PAs occupy "rock and ice", we show that across 147 nations PA networks are biased towards places that are unlikely to face land conversion pressures even in the absence of protection. We test each country's PA network for bias in elevation, slope, distances to roads and cities, and suitability for agriculture. Further, within each country's set of PAs, we also ask if the level of protection is biased in these ways. We find that the significant majority of national PA networks are biased to higher elevations, steeper slopes and greater distances to roads and cities. Also, within a country, PAs with higher protection status are more biased than are the PAs with lower protection statuses.

Conclusions/significance: In sum, PAs are biased towards where they can least prevent land conversion (even if they offer perfect protection). These globally comprehensive results extend findings from nation-level analyses. They imply that siting rules such as the Convention on Biological Diversity's 2010 Target [to protect 10% of all ecoregions] might raise PA impacts if applied at the country level. In light of the potential for global carbon-based payments for avoided deforestation or REDD, these results suggest that attention to threat could improve outcomes from the creation and management of PAs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Numbers of countries and the percent of their ecoregions with greater than 10% protection.
A, B, C, D, E, F, G each plots the cumulative number of countries at 20 year increments. PAs with no date of creation in the database occur first in 1900, and remain in each preceding temporal increment. H) Number of ecoregions versus the percent of a country's ecoregions protected. No trend is found for countries with many ecoregions to differ greatly from those with few.
Figure 2
Figure 2. A full description of the IUCN I/VI protected area network for the United States.
Variables include elevation, slope, distance to roads, distance to urban areas, species richness, and agricultural suitability. The x-axis corresponds to the variable being measured. The y-axis is the difference between the proportion of the country at each interval and the proportion of the network at the same interval. Values greater than zero (dashed horizontal line) indicate a disproportionate level of protection, while values less than zero indicate a disproportionate absence of protection. Visualizing network distributions in this way allows one to see discrepancies in protection across wide ranges of variables at a high resolution.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rodrigues ASL, Akcakaya H, Andelman S, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, et al. Global Gap Analysis: Priority Regions for Expanding the Global Protected-Area Network. Bioscience. 2004;54:1092–1100.
    1. Rodrigues A, Andelman S, Bakarr M, Boitani L, Brooks T, et al. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature. 2004;428:640–643. - PubMed
    1. Jenkins C, Joppa L. Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biological Conservation. 2009;142:2166–2174.
    1. Ball I, Possingham H. Marxan (v1. 8.2): Marine reserve design using spatially explicit annealing. A Manual. 2000
    1. Naughton-Treves L, Holland MB, Brandon K. The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2005;30:219–252.

Publication types