Author
Listed:
- Ana S. L. Rodrigues
(Conservation International)
- Sandy J. Andelman
(University of California)
- Mohamed I. Bakarr
(World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF))
- Luigi Boitani
(Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’)
- Thomas M. Brooks
(Conservation International)
- Richard M. Cowling
(University of Port Elizabeth)
- Lincoln D. C. Fishpool
(BirdLife International)
- Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca
(Conservation International
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais)
- Kevin J. Gaston
(University of Sheffield)
- Michael Hoffmann
(Conservation International)
- Janice S. Long
(Conservation International)
- Pablo A. Marquet
(Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)
- John D. Pilgrim
(Conservation International)
- Robert L. Pressey
(New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation)
- Jan Schipper
(University of Idaho)
- Wes Sechrest
(Conservation International)
- Simon N. Stuart
(Conservation International)
- Les G. Underhill
(University of Cape Town)
- Robert W. Waller
(Conservation International)
- Matthew E. J. Watts
- Xie Yan
(Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences)
Abstract
The Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, announced in September 2003 that the global network of protected areas now covers 11.5% of the planet's land surface1. This surpasses the 10% target proposed a decade earlier, at the Caracas Congress2, for 9 out of 14 major terrestrial biomes1. Such uniform targets based on percentage of area have become deeply embedded into national and international conservation planning3. Although politically expedient, the scientific basis and conservation value of these targets have been questioned4,5. In practice, however, little is known of how to set appropriate targets, or of the extent to which the current global protected area network fulfils its goal of protecting biodiversity. Here, we combine five global data sets on the distribution of species and protected areas to provide the first global gap analysis assessing the effectiveness of protected areas in representing species diversity. We show that the global network is far from complete, and demonstrate the inadequacy of uniform—that is, ‘one size fits all’—conservation targets.
Suggested Citation
Ana S. L. Rodrigues & Sandy J. Andelman & Mohamed I. Bakarr & Luigi Boitani & Thomas M. Brooks & Richard M. Cowling & Lincoln D. C. Fishpool & Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca & Kevin J. Gaston & Michael Hoff, 2004.
"Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity,"
Nature, Nature, vol. 428(6983), pages 640-643, April.
Handle:
RePEc:nat:nature:v:428:y:2004:i:6983:d:10.1038_nature02422
DOI: 10.1038/nature02422
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:nat:nature:v:428:y:2004:i:6983:d:10.1038_nature02422. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.