Abstract
Expanding the global network of Protected and Conserved Areas (PCAs) to cover 30% of the planet by 2030 (30-by-30) is mandated in the Global Biodiversity Framework. However, if PCA expansion is undertaken hastily, it risks inadvertently overlooking important species or ecosystems and entrenching existing spatial and taxonomic biases. We investigate, across 28 countries, whether sites identified as important for biodiversity, specifically Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and Important Plant Areas (IPAs), capture environments and species outside the current PCA network, and thus the extent to which they could help build an ecologically representative pathway towards 30-by-30. We find that KBAs, IPAs and PCAs cover significantly different environments in 23 of 28 countries. Inclusion of KBAs and IPAs in PCA networks could increase mean national environmental representation from 62.4 to 81.4%. Per unit area, KBAs and IPAs were more effective than PCAs at encompassing threatened and endemic species. While PCAs covered the highest mean proportion of species’ ranges (23.4%), KBAs and IPAs together captured the ranges of 919 additional species, 575 of which are threatened and 539 nationally endemic. Encouragingly, comparing outcomes from 2010-2024, we find that cells inside KBAs or IPAs were 4.4 times more likely to become PCAs than cells outside. This suggests that programmes to identify important areas for biodiversity are already influencing PCA placement with potentially improved outcomes for representative biodiversity conservation.
Full text
2,500 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
You must log in to post a comment.
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed.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.
Expanding the global network of Protected and Conserved Areas (PCAs) to cover 30% of the planet by 2030 (30-by-30) is mandated in the Global Biodiversity Framework. However, if PCA expansion is undertaken hastily, it risks inadvertently overlooking important species or ecosystems and entrenching existing spatial and taxonomic biases. We investigate, across 28 countries, whether sites identified as important for biodiversity, specifically Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and Important Plant Areas (IPAs), capture environments and species outside the current PCA network, and thus the extent to which they could help build an ecologically representative pathway towards 30-by-30. We find that KBAs, IPAs and PCAs cover significantly different environments in 23 of 28 countries. Inclusion of KBAs and IPAs in PCA networks could increase mean national environmental representation from 62.4 to 81.4%. Per unit area, KBAs and IPAs were more effective than PCAs at encompassing threatened and endemic species. While PCAs covered the highest mean proportion of species’ ranges (23.4%), KBAs and IPAs together captured the ranges of 919 additional species, 575 of which are threatened and 539 nationally endemic. Encouragingly, comparing outcomes from 2010-2024, we find that cells inside KBAs or IPAs were 4.4 times more likely to become PCAs than cells outside. This suggests that programmes to identify important areas for biodiversity are already influencing PCA placement with potentially improved outcomes for representative biodiversity conservation.
https://doi.org/10.32942/X27S7C
Biodiversity, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
30-by-30, areas of particular importance for biodiversity, conservation planning, Global Biodiversity Framework, OECMs, threatened species, Protected areas
Published: 2025-04-24 03:09
Last Updated: 2025-04-24 03:09
CC BY Attribution 4.0 International
Conflict of interest statement:
None
Data and Code Availability Statement:
https://github.com/joeflangley/Ecological-Representation - R scripts will be uploaded to this repository
Language:
English
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.