Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Replacing underperforming protected areas achieves better conservation outcomes


Protected areas vary enormously in their contribution to conserving biodiversity, and the inefficiency of protected area systems is widely acknowledged1,2,3. However, conservation plans focus overwhelmingly on adding new sites to current protected area estates4. Here we show that the conservation performance of a protected area system can be radically improved, without extra expenditure, by replacing a small number of protected areas with new ones that achieve more for conservation. Replacing the least cost-effective 1% of Australia’s 6,990 strictly protected areas could increase the number of vegetation types that have 15% or more of their original extent protected from 18 to 54, of a maximum possible of 58. Moreover, it increases markedly the area that can be protected, with no increase in overall spending. This new paradigm for protected area system expansion could yield huge improvements to global conservation at a time when competition for land is increasingly intense.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Cost effectiveness in Australia’s protected areas.
Figure 2: Conservation outcomes delivered by protected area replacement.


  1. Rodrigues, A. S. L. et al. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428, 640–643 (2004)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wiersma, Y. F. & Nudds, T. D. Efficiency and effectiveness in representative reserve design in Canada: the contribution of existing protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 142, 1639–1646 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ceballos, G. Conservation priorities for mammals in megadiverse Mexico: the efficiency of reserve networks. Ecol. Appl. 17, 569–578 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Scott, J. M. et al. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildl. Monogr. 123, 1–41 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  5. World Database on Protected Areas. 〈〉 (2009)

  6. Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. & Solow, A. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279, 2126–2128 (1998)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mora, C. et al. Coral reefs and the global network of marine protected areas. Science 312, 1750–1751 (2006)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jaffre, T., Bouchet, P. & Veillon, J.-M. Threatened plants of New Caledonia: is the system of protected areas adequate? Biodivers. Conserv. 7, 109–135 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rodrigues, A. S. L. et al. Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience 54, 1092–1100 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carwardine, J. et al. Cost-effective priorities for global mammal conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11446–11450 (2008)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Underwood, E. C. et al. Expanding the global network of protected areas to save the imperiled Mediterranean biome. Conserv. Biol. 23, 43–52 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Naidoo, R. et al. Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 681–687 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Strange, N., Thorsen, B. J. & Bladt, J. Optimal reserve selection in a dynamic world. Biol. Conserv. 131, 33–41 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; Australian Government. Australia’s Strategy for the National Reserve System 2009–2030〉 (2009)

  15. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; Australian Government. Collaborative Australia Protected Area Database〉 (2009)

  16. Stein, J. in Linking Rivers to Landscapes (eds Rutherford, I., Wiszniewski, I., Askey-Doran, M. & Glazik, R.) 448–552 (Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Roberts, C. M., Bohnsack, J. A., Gell, F., Hawkins, J. P. & Goodridge, R. Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science 294, 1920–1923 (2001)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Vane-Wright, R. I., Humphries, C. J. & Williams, P. H. What to protect?—Systematics and the agony of choice. Biol. Conserv. 55, 235–254 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Meir, E., Andelman, S. & Possingham, H. P. Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol. Lett. 7, 615–622 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vandergeest, P. Property rights in protected areas: obstacles to community involvement as a solution in Thailand. Environ. Conserv. 23, 259–268 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dearden, P., Chettamart, S. & Emphandu, D. Protected areas and property rights in Thailand. Environ. Conserv. 25, 195–197 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vandergeest, P. Reply: Protected areas and property rights in Thailand. Environ. Conserv. 26, 7–9 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hardin, G. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248 (1968)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Veit, P. G., Nshala, R., Ochieng' Odhiambo, M. & Manyindo, J. Protected Areas and Property Rights: Democratizing Eminent Domain in East Africa (World Resources Institute, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Child, K. Civil society in Uganda: the struggle to save the Mabira Forest Reserve. J. East. Afr. Stud. 3, 240–258 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sussman, R. W., Green, G. M. & Sussman, L. K. Satellite imagery, human ecology, anthropology, and deforestation in Madagascar. Hum. Ecol. 22, 333–354 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Norton-Griffiths, M. & Southey, C. The opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation in Kenya. Ecol. Econ. 12, 125–139 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Emerton, L., Bishop, J. & Thomas, L. Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas: A Global Review of Challenges and Options (IUCN, 2006)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank J. Stein for providing subcatchment data, and L. Barr, C. Fuller, B. Kendall, T. Martin and H. Wilson for discussion. This work was funded by the Centre for Applied Environmental Decision Analysis, an Australian Commonwealth Environment Research Facility.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors designed the research. E.M.-M., D.C.G. and R.A.F. performed the analysis, and R.A.F. wrote the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard A. Fuller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Figures S1-S3 with legends, Supplementary Methods and References. (PDF 167 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fuller, R., McDonald-Madden, E., Wilson, K. et al. Replacing underperforming protected areas achieves better conservation outcomes. Nature 466, 365–367 (2010).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing