Reconsidering priorities for forest conservation when considering the threats of mining and armed conflict.

Autor: Williams BA; School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia. brooke.williams@uq.edu.au.; Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia. brooke.williams@uq.edu.au.; Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY, 10460-1068, USA. brooke.williams@uq.edu.au., Grantham HS; Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY, 10460-1068, USA., Watson JEM; School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.; Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.; Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY, 10460-1068, USA., Shapiro AC; Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität-zu-Berlin, Berlin, Germany.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy., Plumptre AJ; Key Biodiversity Areas Secretariat, c/o BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, UK.; Conservation Science Group, Zoology Department, Cambridge University, Pembroke St, Cambridge, UK., Ayebare S; Albertine Rift Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, PO Box 7487, Kampala, Uganda., Goldman E; World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 20002, USA., Tulloch AIT; School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.; Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.; Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY, 10460-1068, USA.; School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.; School of Biology and Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Ambio [Ambio] 2022 Sep; Vol. 51 (9), pp. 2007-2024. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Apr 10.
DOI: 10.1007/s13280-022-01724-0
Abstrakt: Many threats to biodiversity can be predicted and are well mapped but others are uncertain in their extent, impact on biodiversity, and ability for conservation efforts to address, making them more difficult to account for in spatial conservation planning efforts, and as a result, they are often ignored. Here, we use a spatial prioritisation analysis to evaluate the consequences of considering only relatively well-mapped threats to biodiversity and compare this with planning scenarios that also account for more uncertain threats (in this case mining and armed conflict) under different management strategies. We evaluate three management strategies to address these more uncertain threats: 1. to ignore them; 2. avoid them; or 3. specifically target actions towards them, first individually and then simultaneously to assess the impact of their inclusion in spatial prioritisations. We apply our approach to the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and identify priority areas for conserving biodiversity and carbon sequestration services. We found that a strategy that avoids addressing threats of mining and armed conflict more often misses important opportunities for biodiversity conservation, compared to a strategy that targets action towards areas under threat (assuming a biodiversity benefit is possible). We found that considering mining and armed conflict threats to biodiversity independently rather than simultaneously results in 13 800-14 800 km 2 and 15 700-25 100 km 2 of potential missed conservation opportunities when undertaking threat-avoiding and threat-targeting management strategies, respectively. Our analysis emphasises the importance of considering all threats that can be mapped in spatial conservation prioritisation.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: