Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 2, pages 759–762 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Aichi Target 11 has galvanized expansion of the global protected area network, but there is little evidence that this brings real biodiversity gains. We argue that area-based prioritization risks unintended perverse consequences and that the focus of protected area target development should shift from quantity to quality.

Global biodiversity conservation goals are catalytic, shaping behaviours of individuals, governments and non-governmental organizations. The Aichi Targets set the current framework for The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). At first glance, Target 11 on protected areas (PAs) might seem ‘on track’ to be achieved by 20201 (Supplementary Fig. 1). Yet, this characterization focuses solely on PA expansion, neglecting other elements of the target that are critical to halting biodiversity decline.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Perverse outcomes of pursuing percentage targets.

References

  1. Tittensor, D. P. et al. Science 346, 241–244 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fukuda-Parr, S. J. Hum. Dev. Capabil. 15, 118–131 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. COP 10 Decision X/2: Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010).

  4. Butchart, S. H. et al. Conserv. Lett. 8, 329–337 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuempel, C. D., Chauvenet, A. L. M. & Possingham, H. P. Conserv. Lett. 9, 422–428 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Protected Planet Report 2016 (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2016).

  7. Venter, O. et al. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001891 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. McCarthy, D. P. et al. Science 338, 946–949 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gill, D. A. et al. Nature 543, 665–669 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mascia, M. B. et al. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1399, 93–115 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Edgar, G. Aquat. Conserv. 27, 4–9 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Merry, S. E. Curr. Anthropol. 52, S83–S95 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pressey, R. L., Weeks, R. & Gurney, G. G. Biol. Conserv. 212, 337–348 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Barnes, M. D., Craigie, I. D., Dudley, N. & Hockings, M. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1399, 42–60 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barnes, M. D., Glew, L., Craigie, I. D. & Wyborn, C. Nature 526, 195–195 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Barnes, M. D. et al. Nat. Commun. 7, 12747 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Dudley, N. & Stolton, S. Conversion of Paper Parks to Effective Management: Developing a Target (IUCN/WWF Forest Innovation Project, 1999).

  18. Craigie, I. D., Pressey, R. L. & Barnes, M. Biol. Conserv. 172, 221–222 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Joppa, L. N. & Pfaff, A. PLoS ONE 4, e8273 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Joppa, L. & Pfaff, A. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1185, 135–149 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. IUCN and World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas: User Manual, Version 1.0 (IUCN, Gland, 2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge J. Ringma for graphic design support and H. E. Fox, B. Pressey and P. J. Stephenson for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. This research was conducted under the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CE11001000104) and funded by the Australian Government.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Megan D. Barnes and Louise Glew.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ARC Centre of Excellence for Conservation Decisions, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

    Megan D. Barnes

  2. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, College of Tropical Resources and Agriculture, University of Hawaii Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA

    Megan D. Barnes

  3. World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC, USA

    Louise Glew

  4. Luc Hoffmann Institute, WWF International, Gland, Switzerland

    Carina Wyborn

  5. College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA

    Carina Wyborn

  6. ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia

    Ian D. Craigie

Authors
  1. Megan D. Barnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louise Glew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carina Wyborn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ian D. Craigie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megan D. Barnes.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1 and Figure 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barnes, M.D., Glew, L., Wyborn, C. et al. Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy. Nat Ecol Evol 2, 759–762 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0501-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0501-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

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