IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i7p1323-d1184138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Decision-Support Tool to Augment Global Mountain Protection and Conservation, including a Case Study from Western Himalaya

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Jacobs

    (IUCN–WCPA Mountains Specialist Group, Bright, VIC 3741, Australia)

  • Clinton Carbutt

    (School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville 3209, South Africa
    Scientific Services, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Cascades 3202, South Africa)

  • Erik A. Beever

    (Northern Rocky Mountain Science Centre, U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, MT 59715, USA
    Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59715, USA)

  • J. Marc Foggin

    (School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
    Institute of Asian Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada)

  • Madeline Martin

    (Climate Research and Development Program, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192, USA)

  • Shane Orchard

    (School of Earth and Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand
    School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand)

  • Roger Sayre

    (Land Change Science Program, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192, USA)

Abstract

Mountains are remarkable storehouses of global biodiversity that provide a broad range of ecosystem services underpinning billions of livelihoods. The world’s network of protected areas includes many iconic mountain landscapes. However, only ca. 19% of mountain areas globally are protected (excluding Antarctica); many mountain areas are inadequately (<30% of their total terrestrial area) or completely unprotected. To support the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s Global Biodiversity Framework goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s lands by 2030, we have developed a strategic decision-support tool for identifying and prioritizing which candidate mountain areas most urgently require protection. To test its efficacy, we applied the tool to the Western Himalaya Case Study Area (WHCSA). The six-step algorithm harnesses multiple datasets including mountain Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), World Terrestrial Ecosystems, Biodiversity Hotspots, and Red List species and ecosystems. It also makes use of other key attributes including opportunities for disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, developing mountain tourism, maintaining elevational gradients and natural ecological corridors, and conserving flagship species. This method resulted in nine categories of potential action—four categories for follow-up action (ranked by order of importance and priority), and five categories requiring no further immediate action (either because countries are inadequately equipped to respond to protection deficits or because their KBAs are deemed adequately protected). An area-based analysis of the WHCSA identified 33 mountain KBAs regarded as inadequately protected, which included 29 inadequately protected World Mountain Ecosystems. All 33 inadequately protected KBAs in the WHCSA are Category A1: first-priority mountain KBAs (located in the Himalaya Biodiversity Hotspot in developing countries), requiring the most urgent attention for protection and conservation. Priorities for action can be fine-filtered by regional teams with sufficient local knowledge and country-specific values to finalize lists of priority mountain areas for protection. This rapid assessment tool ensures a repeatable, unbiased, and scientifically credible method for allocating resources and priorities to safeguard the world’s most biodiverse mountain areas facing myriad threats in the Anthropocene.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Jacobs & Clinton Carbutt & Erik A. Beever & J. Marc Foggin & Madeline Martin & Shane Orchard & Roger Sayre, 2023. "A Decision-Support Tool to Augment Global Mountain Protection and Conservation, including a Case Study from Western Himalaya," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:7:p:1323-:d:1184138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/7/1323/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/7/1323/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Marc Foggin & Daniele Brombal & Ali Razmkhah, 2021. "Thinking Like a Mountain: Exploring the Potential of Relational Approaches for Transformative Nature Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Clinton Carbutt & Dave I. Thompson, 2021. "Mountain Watch: How LT(S)ER Is Safeguarding Southern Africa’s People and Biodiversity for a Sustainable Mountain Future," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, September.
    3. Schirpke, Uta & Wang, Genxu & Padoa-Schioppa, Emilio, 2021. "Editorial: Mountain landscapes: Protected areas, ecosystem services, and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Dax & Oliver Tamme, 2023. "Attractive Landscape Features as Drivers for Sustainable Mountain Tourism Experiences," Tourism and Hospitality, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Eugenio Cejudo-García & Marilena Labianca & Francisco Navarro-Valverde & Angelo Belliggiano, 2022. "Protected Natural Spaces, Agrarian Specialization and the Survival of Rural Territories: The Cases of Sierra Nevada (Spain) and Alta Murgia (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-30, July.
    3. Clinton Carbutt & Kevin Kirkman, 2022. "Ecological Grassland Restoration—A South African Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-25, April.
    4. Robert A. Marchant & Aida Cuni-Sanchez, 2022. "Special Issue Editorial: Mountains under Pressure," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-5, August.
    5. Yayan Lu & Fang Han & Qun Liu & Zhaoguo Wang & Tian Wang & Zhaoping Yang, 2022. "Evaluation of Potential for Nature-Based Recreation in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: A Spatial-Temporal Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-16, May.
    6. Gunton, Richard M. & Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Basden, Andrew & van Asperen, Eline N. & Christie, Ian & Hanson, David R. & Hartley, Sue E., 2022. "Valuing beyond economics: A pluralistic evaluation framework for participatory policymaking," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    7. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    8. Lyu, Rongfang & Zhao, Wenpeng & Pang, Jili & Tian, Xiaolei & Zhang, Jianming & Wang, Naiang, 2022. "Towards a sustainable nature reserve management: Using Bayesian network to quantify the threat of disturbance to ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    9. Gaglio, M. & Lanzoni, M. & Goggi, F. & Fano, E.A. & Castaldelli, G., 2023. "Integrating payment for ecosystem services in protected areas governance: The case of the Po Delta Park," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    10. Ritzel, Christian & Hoop, Daniel & Portmann, Marco & Wallner, Astrid & Mack, Gabriele, 2023. "Swiss Parks of National Importance as model regions of sustainable development – An economic success story for farmers?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    11. Crouzat, Emilie & De Frutos, Angel & Grescho, Volker & Carver, Steve & Büermann, Andrea & Carvalho-Santos, Claudia & Kraemer, Roland & Mayor, Sarah & Pöpperl, Franziska & Rossi, Christian & Schröter, , 2022. "Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    12. Clinton Carbutt & Dave I. Thompson, 2021. "Mountain Watch: How LT(S)ER Is Safeguarding Southern Africa’s People and Biodiversity for a Sustainable Mountain Future," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:7:p:1323-:d:1184138. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.