Private protected areas exhibit greater bias towards unproductive land compared to public protected areas

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.

Add a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.


Comments

There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.

Downloads

Download Preprint

Authors

Roshan Sharma, Simon Jones, Lucy Bastin, Ascelin Gordon

Abstract

Globally, private protected areas (PPAs) have become an important tool for
biodiversity conservation. While they are expanding in size and number, there is
limited evidence on their potential impact on avoiding biodiversity loss, and how this
impact compares to the public protected areas (PAs). The impact of protection is
measured as the actual biodiversity outcome within the area protected relative to the
hypothetical outcome without protection. To maximise this positive impact, PAs need
to be placed strategically on land that both harbours biodiversity and would be at risk
of losing some of the biodiversity if it were not protected. We evaluate and compare
the locations of PPAs and public PAs relative to random sites of similar governance
type, and a range of covariates that capture biodiversity and the risk of biodiversity
loss. We utilised data from a national PA database, and high-resolution data on
nationally significant threatened species and indicators that capture risk of biodiversity
loss at a continental scale in Australia. We find that PPAs tend to target areas of high
threatened species richness. However, on average, PPAs are placed in areas that
have lower risk of being cleared compared to randomly selected private land. We
observe that this bias towards unproductive land is more prominent in PPAs when
compared to public PAs. As nations work towards effectively conserving and
managing at least 30% of the world's lands by 2030 under the new Kunming-Montreal
Global Biodiversity Framework, it becomes essential to prioritise PAs and PPAs that
deliver impacts on avoiding biodiversity loss rather than solely focusing on areas that
represent biodiversity.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.31223/X55T4R

Subjects

Biodiversity, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Environmental Studies, Geography, Life Sciences, Social and Behavioral Sciences

Keywords

biodiversity conservation, Biodiversity Loss Risk, Conservation Impact, Conservation Strategy, Kunming-Montreal Framework, Land Suitability, Land Use Bias, Private Protected Areas, protected areas, Threatened Species

Dates

Published: 2024-09-13 14:07

Last Updated: 2024-09-13 18:07

License

CC BY Attribution 4.0 International

Additional Metadata

Conflict of interest statement:
None

Data Availability (Reason not available):
The data for this manuscript are publicly available.