Estimating the benefit of well-managed protected areas for threatened species conservation

Abstract

Protected areas are central to global efforts to prevent species extinctions, with many countries investing heavily in their establishment. Yet the designation of protected areas alone can only abate certain threats to biodiversity. Targeted management within protected areas is often required to achieve fully effective conservation within their boundaries. It remains unclear what combination of protected area designation and management is needed to remove the suite of processes that imperil species. Here, using Australia as a case study, we use a dataset on the pressures facing threatened species to determine the role of protected areas and management in conserving imperilled species. We found that protected areas that are not resourced for threat management could remove one or more threats to 1,185 (76%) species and all threats to very few (n = 51, 3%) species. In contrast, a protected area network that is adequately resourced to manage threatening processes within their boundary could remove one or more threats to almost all species (n = 1,551; c. 100%) and all threats to almost half (n = 740, 48%). However, 815 (52%) species face one or more threats that require coordinated conservation actions that protected areas alone could not remove. This research shows that investing in the continued expansion of Australia's protected area network without providing adequate funding for threat management within and beyond the existing protected area network will benefit few threatened species. These findings highlight that as the international community expands the global protected area network in accordance with the 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, a greater emphasis on the effectiveness of threat management is needed.

Planning for success: Why conservation programs need a strategic program for recovering species

“…The Australian ghost bat, woylie, and grass wren have also suffered similar fates (Department of Environment and Energy, 2018). Ensuring that an adequate and representative proportion of the species range is within secure conservation-orientated land tenure-such as protected areas-maximizes the likelihood that the status of commonly occurring threats are monitored and managed as required (Kearney, Adams, Fuller, Possingham, & Watson, 2018). Protected areas remain the cornerstone of threatened species conservation and (in Australia) generally offer effective protection against key threats including land clearing and livestock grazing where the exclusion of these activities is upheld (Taylor et al, 2011).…”

“…Such failures have resulted, at least in part, from inadequate monitoring and measurement of the species' recovery and/or inadequate quantification of the ongoing security of the (Anderson, 2013;Groom, 2010). For example, in Australia, IUCN-classified Types I-IV reserves offer protection from stressors including recreational hunting, land clearing, and livestock grazing, which cannot be guaranteed within other land tenures (Dudley, 2008;Kearney et al, 2018;Watson et al, 2011). Most recovering and recovered species will depend on the ongoing management of landscape-wide pervasive threats, such as weeds, herbivores, and predators (Akçakaya et al, 2018;Goble, Wiens, Scott, Male, & Hall, 2012;Groom, 2010).…”

“…Most recovering and recovered species will depend on the ongoing management of landscape-wide pervasive threats, such as weeds, herbivores, and predators (Akçakaya et al, 2018;Goble, Wiens, Scott, Male, & Hall, 2012;Groom, 2010). Ensuring that an adequate and representative proportion of the species range is within secure conservation-orientated land tenure-such as protected areas-maximizes the likelihood that the status of commonly occurring threats are monitored and managed as required (Kearney, Adams, Fuller, Possingham, & Watson, 2018). For example, in Australia, IUCN-classified Types I-IV reserves offer protection from stressors including recreational hunting, land clearing, and livestock grazing, which cannot be guaranteed within other land tenures (Dudley, 2008;Kearney et al, 2018;Watson et al, 2011).…”

“…Ensuring that an adequate and representative proportion of the species range is within secure conservation-orientated land tenure-such as protected areas-maximizes the likelihood that the status of commonly occurring threats are monitored and managed as required (Kearney, Adams, Fuller, Possingham, & Watson, 2018). For example, in Australia, IUCN-classified Types I-IV reserves offer protection from stressors including recreational hunting, land clearing, and livestock grazing, which cannot be guaranteed within other land tenures (Dudley, 2008;Kearney et al, 2018;Watson et al, 2011). Considering regional differences in both legislative protections and the level of protection offered within protected areas, estimating the potential impact of the loss of legislative protections should be an essential component of any delisting assessment (Akçakaya et al, 2018;Goble, 2009).…”

Aligning citizen science with best practice: Threatened species conservation in Australia

“…Australia currently has the fourth‐highest level of animal species extinction (IUCN Red List, ) and the highest rate of modern mammalian extinctions globally, with 29 species declared extinct since European settlement (Woinarski, Burbidge, & Harrison, ). The top three threats to Australia's biodiversity are habitat loss due primarily to agriculture, introduced species, and ecosystem degradation caused by inappropriate fire regimes (Evans et al, ; Kearney, Adams, Fuller, Possingham, & Watson, ).…”