Cost-effective priorities for the expansion of global terrestrial protected areas: Setting post-2020 global and national targets

Abstract

Biodiversity loss is a social and ecological emergency, and calls have been made for the global expansion of protected areas (PAs) to tackle this crisis. It is unclear, however, where best to locate new PAs to protect biodiversity cost-effectively. To answer this question, we conducted a spatial meta-analysis by overlaying seven global biodiversity templates to identify conservation priority zones. These are then combined with low human impact areas to identify cost-effective zones (CEZs) for PA designation. CEZs cover around 38% of global terrestrial area, of which only 24% is currently covered by existing PAs. To protect more CEZs, we propose three scenarios with conservative, moderate, and ambitious targets, which aim to protect 19, 26, and 43% of global terrestrial area, respectively. These three targets are set for each Convention on Biological Diversity party with spatially explicit CEZs identified, providing valuable decision support for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Maximizing the effectiveness of national commitments to protected area expansion for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem carbon under climate change

“…Previous analyses concerning global conservation priorities under climate change (Dinerstein et al, 2019(Dinerstein et al, , 2020Jung et al, 2020;Maxwell et al, 2020;Yang et al, 2020) have largely lacked information on refugia locations due to limitations of globally available datasets, and have been only tenuously linked to the policy contexts of individual nations and regions. In this essay, we provide recommendations that can inform commitments for protected area network expansion at various scales so that they encompass areas that contribute to achieving climate and biodiversity targets.…”

Five Steps to Inject Transformative Change into the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

“…, and How best can we work with local people as equals in design and decision making? These practical questions can serve as the basis to solve problems, prioritize investments, and sort through inevitable tradeoffs between resource mobilization benefits and costs (Kuempel et al 2020 , Yang et al 2020 ).…”

Identifying Potential Cropland Losses When Conserving 30% and 50% Earth with Different Approaches and Spatial Scales

“…Human-driven biodiversity crisis caused by humankind is one of the most severe challenges to sustainable development [1][2][3][4]. To bend the curve of biodiversity loss, calls have been made for expanding protected areas and leaving more space for nature [5,6]. In this context, increasingly ambitious, area-based conservation targets (e.g., 30% or 50% of all land) are being promoted globally to stem the rising tide of biodiversity loss, such as the Nature Needs Half initiative (2009) [7] and the Half-Earth project (2016) [8].…”

“…Relevant discussion is going on and what we have learned is that: the current protected areas system is not enough to bend the curve of biodiversity loss and we need bold conservation targets [9]. However, what we do not know is where we should expand protected areas Land 2021, 10, 704 2 of 15 and what are the potential impacts of those bold conservation targets [6]. Although the feasibility of bold conservation targets has been analyzed from a certain perspective [10], few spatial analyses exist in assessing its potential impacts on cropland [11].…”