Built-up areas within and around protected areas: Global patterns and 40-year trends

Protected areas (PAs) are a key strategy in global efforts to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services that are critical for human well-being. Most PAs have some built-up structures within their boundaries or in surrounding areas, ranging from individual buildings to villages, towns and cities. These structures, and the associated human activities, can exert direct and indirect pressures on PAs. Here we present the first global analysis of current patterns and observed long-term trends in built-up areas within terrestrial PAs and their immediate surroundings. We calculate for each PA larger than 5 km2 and for its 10-km unprotected buffer zone the percentage of land area covered by built-up areas in 1975, 1990, 2000 and 2014. We find that globally built-up areas cover only 0.12% of PA extent and a much higher 2.71% of the unprotected buffers as of 2014, compared to 0.6% of all land (protected or unprotected). Built-up extent in and around PAs is highest in Europe and Asia, and lowest in Africa and Oceania. Built-up area percentage is higher in coastal and small PAs, and lower in older PAs and in PAs with stricter management categories. From 1975 to 2014, the increase in built-up area was 23 times larger in the 10-km unprotected buffers than within PAs. Our findings show that the development of built-up structures remains limited within the boundaries of PAs but highlight the need to carefully manage the considerable pressure that PAs face from their immediate surroundings

Mapping Status and Conservation of Global At-Risk Marine Biodiversity

To conserve marine biodiversity, we must first understand the spatial distribution and status of at‐risk biodiversity. We combined range maps and conservation status for 5,291 marine species to map the global distribution of extinction risk of marine biodiversity. We find that for 83% of the ocean, \u3e25% of assessed species are considered threatened, and 15% of the ocean shows \u3e50% of assessed species threatened when weighting for range‐limited species. By comparing mean extinction risk of marine biodiversity to no‐take marine reserve placement, we identify regions where reserves preferentially afford proactive protection (i.e., preserving low‐risk areas) or reactive protection (i.e., mitigating high‐risk areas), indicating opportunities and needs for effective future protection at national and regional scales. In addition, elevated risk to high seas biodiversity highlights the need for credible protection and minimization of threatening activities in international waters

Conservation Performance of Tropical Protected Areas: How Important is Management?

Increasing the coverage of effectively managed protected areas (PAs) is a key focus of the 2020 Aichi biodiversity targets. PA management has received considerable attention, often based on the widely-held, but rarely examined, assumption that positive conservation outcomes will result from increased PA management inputs. To shed light on this assumption, we integrated data on PA management factors with 2006-2011 avoided forest degradation and deforestation across the Peruvian Amazon, using a counterfactual approach, combined with interviews and ranking exercises. We show that while increasing PA management input to Amazonian PAs tended to reduce likelihoods of forest degradation and deforestation, the associations were weak. Key challenges facing PAs ranked by PA managers included wider law enforcement, corruption and land title issues, rather than local management factors. We therefore encourage the post-2020 conservation targets to adopt holistic approaches beyond PA management, incorporating political, institutional and governance contexts across scales.This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/I019650/1); Cambridge Political Economy Society; Cambridge Philosophical Society; St John’s College; and the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge

Benthic habitat modelling and mapping as a conservation tool for marine protected areas: A seamount in the western Mediterranean

1. An ecologically representative, well‐connected, and effectively managed system of marine protected areas (MPAs) has positive ecological and environmental effects as well as social and economic benefits. Although progress in expanding the coverage of MPAs has been made, the application of management tools has not yet been implemented in most of these areas. 2. In this work, distribution models were applied to nine benthic habitats on a Mediterranean seamount within an MPA for conservation purposes. Benthic habitat occurrences were identified from 55 remotely operated vehicle (ROV) transects, at depths from 76 to 700 m, and data derived from multibeam bathymetry. Generalized additive models (GAMs) were applied to link the presence of each benthic habitat to local environmental proxies (depth, slope, backscatter, aspect, and bathymetric position index, BPI). 3. The main environmental drivers of habitat distribution were depth, slope, and BPI. Based on this result, five different geomorphological areas were distinguished. A full coverage map indicating the potential benthic habitat distribution on the seamount was obtained to inform spatial management. 4. The distribution of those habitats identified as vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) was used to make recommendations on zonation for developing the management plan of the MPA. This process reveals itself as an appropriate methodological approach that can be developed in other areas of the Natura 2000 marine networkEn prensa1,92

Invasion of freshwater ecosystems is promoted by network connectivity to hotspots of human activity

Aim: Hotspots of human activity are focal points for ecosystem disturbance and non‐native introduction, from which invading populations disperse and spread. As such, connectivity to locations used by humans may influence the likelihood of invasion. Moreover, connectivity in freshwater ecosystems may follow the hydrological network. Here we tested whether multiple forms of connectivity to human recreational activities promotes biological invasion of freshwater ecosystems. Location: England, UK. Time period: 1990–2018. Major taxa studied: One hundred and twenty‐six non‐native freshwater birds, crustaceans, fish, molluscs and plants. Methods: Machine learning was used to predict spatial gradients in human recreation and two high risk activities for invasion (fishing and water sports). Connectivity indices were developed for each activity, in which human influence decayed from activity hotspots according to Euclidean distance (spatial connectivity) or hydrological network distance (downstream, upstream and along‐channel connectivity). Generalized linear mixed models identified the connectivity type most associated to invasive species richness of each group, while controlling for other anthropogenic and environmental drivers. Results: Connectivity to humans generally had stronger positive effects on invasion than all other drivers except recording effort. Recreation had stronger influence than urban land cover, and for most groups high risk activities had stronger effects than general recreation. Downstream human connectivity was most important for invasion by most of the groups, potentially reflecting predominantly hydrological dispersal. An exception was birds, for which spatial connectivity was most important, possibly because of overland dispersal capacity. Main conclusions: These findings support the hypothesis that freshwater invasion is partly determined by an interaction between human activity and species dispersal in the hydrological network. By comparing alternative connectivity types for different human activities, our approach could enable robust inference of specific pathways and spread mechanisms associated with particular taxa. This would provide evidence to support better prioritization of surveillance and management for invasive non‐native species

New Tools to Identify the Location of Seagrass Meadows: Marine Grazers as Habitat Indicators

Seagrasses are hugely valuable to human life, but the global extent of seagrass meadows remains unclear. As evidence of their value, a United Nations program exists (http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/7) to try and assess their distribution and there has been a call from 122 scientists across 28 countries for more work to manage, protect and monitor seagrass meadows (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37606827). Emerging from the 12th International Seagrass Biology Workshop, held in October2016, has been the view that grazing marine megafauna may play a useful role in helping to identify previously unknown seagrass habitats. Here we describe this concept,showing how detailed information on the distribution of both dugongs (Dugong dugon) and green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) obtained, for example, by aerial surveys and satellite tracking, can reveal new information on the location of seagrass meadows. We show examples of how marine megaherbivores have been effective habitat indicators,revealing major, new, deep-water seagrass meadows and offering the potential for more informed estimates of seagrass extent in tropical and sub-tropical regions where currentinformation is often lacking

Purpose vs performance : what does marine protected area success look like?

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an increasingly deployed spatial management tool. MPAs are primarily designed for biodiversity conservation, with their success commonly measured using a narrow suite of ecological indicators. However, for MPAs to achieve their biodiversity conservation goals they require community support, which is dependent on wider social, economic and political factors. Despite this, research into the human dimensions of MPAs continues to lag behind our understanding of ecological responses to MPA protection. Here, we explore stakeholders’ perceptions of what MPA success is. We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a diverse group of stakeholders local to a South Australian MPA. What constitutes success varied by stakeholder group, and stakeholders’ stated understanding of the purpose of the MPA differed from how they would choose to measure the MPA’s success. Indeed, all interviewees stated that the primary purpose of the MPA was ecological, yet almost all (>90%) would measure the success of the MPA using social and economic measures, either exclusively or in conjunction with ecological ones. Many respondents also stated that social and economic factors were key to the MPA achieving ongoing/future success. Respondents generated a large range of novel socio-economic measures of MPA success, many of which could be incorporated into monitoring programs for relatively little additional cost. These findings also show that success is not straightforward and what constitutes success depends on who you ask. Even where an MPA’s primary ecological purpose is acknowledged by stakeholders, stakeholders are likely to only consider the MPA a success if its designation also demonstrates social and economic benefits to their communities. To achieve local stakeholder support MPAs and associated monitoring programs need to be designed for a variety of success criteria in mind, criteria which reflect the priorities and needs of the adjacent communities as well as national and international conservation objectives