Full text
1,952 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This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed.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This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed.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.
Protected areas (PAs) are fundamental in preserving ecological diversity, supporting ecosystem services, and mitigating human impacts in today’s world. However, the mere designation of PAs is insufficient for achieving conservation goals. It needs to be ensured through employment of robust management practices and the deployment of scientifically sound monitoring methodologies.
This systematic map aims to collate and synthesize global evidence on the methods and metrics used to assess the effectiveness of terrestrial PAs in biodiversity conservation. By doing so, we seek to identify the consistency of monitoring schemes across different geographies and determine how well standardized monitoring methods have been adopted. This broad evidence base will not only inform the management and evaluation of PAs within Europe but also contribute to the global discourse on biodiversity conservation, facilitating the exchange of knowledge and best practices.
https://doi.org/10.32942/X2762M
Biodiversity, Life Sciences
Biodiversity conservation monitoring and evaluation, impact evaluation, protected area effectiveness, evidence synthesis, evidence mapping, biodiversity conservation, Monitoring and evaluation, Impact evaluation, protected area effectiveness, evidence synthesis, evidence mapping
Published: 2024-05-16 13:55
Last Updated: 2024-05-16 17:55
CC-By Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Conflict of interest statement:
None
Data and Code Availability Statement:
Not applicable
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.