Weighing the benefits of expanding protected areas versus managing existing ones

Abstract

Protected areas are a fundamental mechanism for conserving global biodiversity. Given limited conservation funds and shortfalls in funding for existing protected area management needs, a critical question is: should countries and states spend new funds on purchasing more land or managing existing protected areas to an acceptable standard? We used a non-spatial dynamic landscape model to compare the relative importance of expansion of protected areas versus improved protected area management in diverse contexts. We provide guidance on how to allocate funding across these two actions, and the order in which these actions should be prioritized. We discover that, in contrast with spending patterns, which focus on expansion rather than management, management is often the better first investment. The relative priority of expansion and management is determined by observable factors: the relative costs of the two actions and rates of degradation in protected and unprotected areas. Importantly, regardless of these factors, the final recommended action is always to split the budget across expansion and management such that there is adequate money for management. This highlights that, while our existing protected areas are an important asset, increased investment in management is essential to maximize their potential to protect biodiversity.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Flow chart of the six potential system states and the possible pathways between those states.
Fig. 2: An example of the optimum pattern of spending for managing a landscape transformer in the Succulent Karoo hotspot.
Fig. 3: Starting action (manage or expand) when considering landscape-transforming threats.
Fig. 4: Proportion of budget dedicated to management in the first year when managing selective pressures, assuming management and acquisition costs are equal (r = 1).

Data availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supplementary Information.

Code availability

The MATLAB code is available from the authors on request.

References

  1. 1.

    Brooks, T. M. et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58–61 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164–1168 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    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 

  4. 4.

    Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Convention on Biological Diversity—Aichi Biodiversity Targets (CBD, 2010).

  6. 6.

    Woodley, S. et al. Meeting Aichi target 11: what does success look like for protected area systems. Parks 18, 23–36 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conserv. Lett. 8, 329–337 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Leverington, F., Costa, K. L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A. & Hockings, M. A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environ. Manage. 46, 685–698 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Barnes, M. D., Craigie, I. D., Dudley, N. & Hockings, M. Understanding local-scale drivers of biodiversity outcomes in terrestrial protected areas. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1399, 42–60 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Coad, L. et al. Progress towards the CBD protected area management effectiveness targets. Parks 19, 13–24 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Geldmann, J. et al. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 161, 230–238 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Preparations for the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2018); https://www.cbd.int/post2020/

  13. 13.

    Mascia, M. B. & Pailler, S. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conserv. Lett 4, 9–20 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mascia, M. B. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, 1900–2010. Biol. Conserv. 169, 355–361 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Jones, K. R. et al. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360, 788–791 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Joppa, L. N. & Pfaff, A. Global protected area impacts. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 1633–1638 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ferraro, P. J. et al. More strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 025011 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bowker, J. N., De Vos, A., Ament, J. M. & Cumming, G. S. Effectiveness of Africa’s tropical protected areas for maintaining forest cover. Conserv. Biol. 31, 559–569 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Barnes, M. D. et al. Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size. Nat. Commun. 7, 12747 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Geldmann, J. et al. Changes in protected area management effectiveness over time: a global analysis. Biol. Conserv. 191, 692–699 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R., Brooks, T. & Watson, J. The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Nicholson, E. et al. Making robust policy decisions using global biodiversity indicators. PLoS ONE 7, e41128 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Geldmann, J. et al. A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12434 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Barnes, M. D., Glew, L., Wyborn, C. & Craigie, I. D. Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 759–762 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    McCarthy, D. P. et al. Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs. Science 338, 946–949 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E. & Balmford, A. Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries. Bioscience 54, 1119–1126 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Radeloff, V. C. et al. Hot moments for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Lett. 6, 58–65 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Public Law 96-487 (Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, 1980); (http://dnr.alaska.gov/commis/opmp/anilca/pdf/PublicLaw-96-487.pdf

  29. 29.

    Budget 2016-17: Budget Measures Budget Paper No. 2 (Australian Government, 2016); https://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-12.htm.

  30. 30.

    Redford, K. H. The empty forest. Bioscience 42, 412–422 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Venter, O. et al. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001891 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Gill, D. A. et al. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543, 665–669 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Schulze, K. et al. An assessment of threats to terrestrial protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12435 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bode, M. et al. Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 6498–6501 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Gurevitch, J. & Padilla, D. K. Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 470–474 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Levine, J. M. et al. Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 775–781 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Grice, A. C. The impacts of invasive plant species on the biodiversity of Australian rangelands. Rangeland J. 28, 27–35 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Holt, R. D., Lawton, J. H., Polis, G. A. & Martinez, N. D. Trophic rank and the species–area relationship. Ecology 80, 1495–1504 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Benchimol, M. & Peres, C. A. Anthropogenic modulators of species–area relationships in Neotropical primates: a continental-scale analysis of fragmented forest landscapes. Divers. Distrib. 19, 1339–1352 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Sreekar, R. et al. The use of species–area relationships to partition the effects of hunting and deforestation on bird extirpations in a fragmented landscape. Divers. Distrib. 21, 441–450 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Kuempel, C. D., Adams, V. M., Possingham, H. P. & Bode, M. Bigger or better: the relative benefits of protected area network expansion and enforcement for the conservation of an exploited species. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12433 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Rapid Review of Conservation Trust Funds (Conservation Finance Alliance, 2008).

  44. 44.

    Bladon, A., Mohammed, E. Y. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. A Review of Conservation Trust Funds for Sustainable Marine Resources Management: Conditions for Success (International Institute for Environment and Development, 2014).

  45. 45.

    Bonham, C. et al. Conservation trust funds, protected area management effectiveness and conservation outcomes: lessons from the Global Conservation Fund. Parks 20, 89–101 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Iacona, G., Hall, I. & Wilson, K. in Decision Point Vol. 64 4–5 (EDG, 2015).

  47. 47.

    Financing Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers (IUCN, 2000).

  48. 48.

    Maron, M., Simmonds, J. S. & Watson, J. E. M. Bold nature retention targets are essential for the global environment agenda. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1194–1195 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wilson, K. A. et al. Conserving biodiversity in production landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 20, 1721–1732 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Possingham, H. P., Bode, M. & Klein, C. J. Optimal conservation outcomes require both restoration and protection. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002052 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Rodrigues, A. S. L. et al. Spatially explicit trends in the global conservation status of vertebrates. PLoS ONE 9, e113934 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Armsworth, P. R. Inclusion of costs in conservation planning depends on limited datasets and hopeful assumptions. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1322, 61–76 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Burgman, M. A., Keith, D., Hopper, S. D., Widyatmoko, D. & Drill, C. Threat syndromes and conservation of the Australian flora. Biol. Conserv. 134, 73–82 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Kuussaari, M. et al. Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 564–571 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Knapp, E. J., Rentsch, D., Schmitt, J., Lewis, C. & Polasky, S. A tale of three villages: choosing an effective method for assessing poaching levels in western Serengeti, Tanzania. Oryx 44, 178–184 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Marshall, A. R. et al. The species–area relationship and confounding variables in a threatened monkey community. Am. J. Primatol. 72, 325–336 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

V.M.A., G.D.I. and H.P.P. were funded by the Australian Research Council (http://www.arc.gov.au). H.P.P. was funded by an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

V.M.A., G.D.I. and H.P.P. developed the initial idea. V.M.A. designed and ran the simulations. V.M.A., G.D.I. and H.P.P. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanessa M. Adams.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods, Supplementary Figs. 1–5, Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary references 1–6

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adams, V.M., Iacona, G.D. & Possingham, H.P. Weighing the benefits of expanding protected areas versus managing existing ones. Nat Sustain 2, 404–411 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0275-5

Download citation

Further reading

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