High and far: biases in the location of protected areas
- PMID: 20011603
- PMCID: PMC2788247
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008273
High and far: biases in the location of protected areas
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.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures


Similar articles
-
Methods for calculating Protection Equality for conservation planning.PLoS One. 2017 Feb 15;12(2):e0171591. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171591. eCollection 2017. PLoS One. 2017. PMID: 28199341 Free PMC article.
-
Global protected area impacts.Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Jun 7;278(1712):1633-8. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1713. Epub 2010 Nov 17. Proc Biol Sci. 2011. PMID: 21084351 Free PMC article.
-
Protected Areas' Impacts on Brazilian Amazon Deforestation: Examining Conservation-Development Interactions to Inform Planning.PLoS One. 2015 Jul 30;10(7):e0129460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129460. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 26225922 Free PMC article.
-
Quality of governance and effectiveness of protected areas: crucial concepts for conservation planning.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017 Jul;1399(1):27-41. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13284. Epub 2016 Dec 5. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017. PMID: 27918838 Review.
-
Reassessing the forest impacts of protection: the challenge of nonrandom location and a corrective method.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Jan;1185:135-49. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05162.x. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010. PMID: 20146766 Review.
Cited by
-
Representation of global and national conservation priorities by Colombia's Protected Area Network.PLoS One. 2010 Oct 12;5(10):e13210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013210. PLoS One. 2010. PMID: 20967270 Free PMC article.
-
Alarming decline of freshwater trigger species in western Mediterranean key biodiversity areas.Conserv Biol. 2021 Oct;35(5):1367-1379. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13810. Epub 2021 Aug 6. Conserv Biol. 2021. PMID: 34355419 Free PMC article.
-
Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands.PLoS One. 2015 Oct 14;10(10):e0140540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140540. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 26465155 Free PMC article.
-
Reply to: Causal claims, causal assumptions and protected area impact.Nature. 2025 Feb;638(8052):E42-E44. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08513-7. Epub 2025 Feb 26. Nature. 2025. PMID: 40011724 No abstract available.
-
The contribution of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) to protecting global biodiversity.Nat Commun. 2025 Aug 23;16(1):7886. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-63205-8. Nat Commun. 2025. PMID: 40849452 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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.
-
- 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
-
- Jenkins C, Joppa L. Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biological Conservation. 2009;142:2166–2174.
-
- Ball I, Possingham H. Marxan (v1. 8.2): Marine reserve design using spatially explicit annealing. A Manual. 2000
-
- 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
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources