A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas
Protecting important sites is a key strategy for halting the loss of biodiversity. However, our understanding of the relationship between management inputs and biodiversity outcomes in protected areas (PAs) remains weak. Here, we examine biodiversity outcomes using species population trends in PAs d...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | Inglés |
| Published: |
Wiley
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/112077 |
| _version_ | 1855513551287877632 |
|---|---|
| author | Geldmann, J. Coad, L.M. Barnes, M.D. Craigie, I.D. Woodley, S. Balmford, A. Brooks, T.M. Hockings, M. Knights, K. Mascia, M.B. McRae, L. Burgess, Neil D. |
| author_browse | Balmford, A. Barnes, M.D. Brooks, T.M. Burgess, Neil D. Coad, L.M. Craigie, I.D. Geldmann, J. Hockings, M. Knights, K. Mascia, M.B. McRae, L. Woodley, S. |
| author_facet | Geldmann, J. Coad, L.M. Barnes, M.D. Craigie, I.D. Woodley, S. Balmford, A. Brooks, T.M. Hockings, M. Knights, K. Mascia, M.B. McRae, L. Burgess, Neil D. |
| author_sort | Geldmann, J. |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | Protecting important sites is a key strategy for halting the loss of biodiversity. However, our understanding of the relationship between management inputs and biodiversity outcomes in protected areas (PAs) remains weak. Here, we examine biodiversity outcomes using species population trends in PAs derived from the Living Planet Database in relation to management data derived from the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) database for 217 population time‐series from 73 PAs. We found a positive relationship between our METT‐based scores for Capacity and Resources and changes in vertebrate abundance, consistent with the hypothesis that PAs require adequate resourcing to halt biodiversity loss. Additionally, PA age was negatively correlated with trends for the mammal subsets and PA size negatively correlated with population trends in the global subset. Our study highlights the paucity of appropriate data for rigorous testing of the role of management in maintaining species populations across multiple sites, and describes ways to improve our understanding of PA performance. |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | CGSpace112077 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2018 |
| publishDateRange | 2018 |
| publishDateSort | 2018 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| publisherStr | Wiley |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace1120772024-06-26T09:36:32Z A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas Geldmann, J. Coad, L.M. Barnes, M.D. Craigie, I.D. Woodley, S. Balmford, A. Brooks, T.M. Hockings, M. Knights, K. Mascia, M.B. McRae, L. Burgess, Neil D. biodiversity protected areas species databases ecology Protecting important sites is a key strategy for halting the loss of biodiversity. However, our understanding of the relationship between management inputs and biodiversity outcomes in protected areas (PAs) remains weak. Here, we examine biodiversity outcomes using species population trends in PAs derived from the Living Planet Database in relation to management data derived from the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) database for 217 population time‐series from 73 PAs. We found a positive relationship between our METT‐based scores for Capacity and Resources and changes in vertebrate abundance, consistent with the hypothesis that PAs require adequate resourcing to halt biodiversity loss. Additionally, PA age was negatively correlated with trends for the mammal subsets and PA size negatively correlated with population trends in the global subset. Our study highlights the paucity of appropriate data for rigorous testing of the role of management in maintaining species populations across multiple sites, and describes ways to improve our understanding of PA performance. 2018-05 2021-03-08T08:17:38Z 2021-03-08T08:17:38Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/112077 en Open Access Wiley Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M.D., Craigie, I.D., Woodley, S., Balmford, A., Brooks, T.M., Hockings, M., Knights, K., Mascia, M.B., McRae, L., Burgess, N.D. 2018. A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas. Conservation Letters, 11 (3): e12434. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12434 |
| spellingShingle | biodiversity protected areas species databases ecology Geldmann, J. Coad, L.M. Barnes, M.D. Craigie, I.D. Woodley, S. Balmford, A. Brooks, T.M. Hockings, M. Knights, K. Mascia, M.B. McRae, L. Burgess, Neil D. A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas |
| title | A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas |
| title_full | A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas |
| title_fullStr | A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas |
| title_full_unstemmed | A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas |
| title_short | A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas |
| title_sort | global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas |
| topic | biodiversity protected areas species databases ecology |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/112077 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT geldmannj aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT coadlm aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT barnesmd aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT craigieid aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT woodleys aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT balmforda aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT brookstm aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT hockingsm aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT knightsk aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT masciamb aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT mcrael aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT burgessneild aglobalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT geldmannj globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT coadlm globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT barnesmd globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT craigieid globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT woodleys globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT balmforda globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT brookstm globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT hockingsm globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT knightsk globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT masciamb globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT mcrael globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas AT burgessneild globalanalysisofmanagementcapacityandecologicaloutcomesinterrestrialprotectedareas |