CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 495Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets

Open access
Butchart, Stuart H.M., Clarke, Martin, Smith, Robert J., Sykes, Rachel E., Scharlemann, Jörn P.W., Harfoot, Mike, Buchanan, Graeme M., Angulo, Ariadne +32 more·2015·Conservation Letters
DOI 10.1111/conl.12158
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Governments have committed to conserving ≥17% of terrestrial and ≥10% of marine environments globally, especially “areas of particular importance for biodiversity” through “ecologically representative” Protected Area (PA) systems or other “area‐based conservation measures”, while individual countries have committed to conserve 3–50% of their land area. We estimate that PAs currently cover 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but 59–68% of ecoregions, 77–78% of important sites for biodiversity, and 57% of 25,380 species have inadequate coverage. The existing 19.7 million km 2 terrestrial PA network needs only 3.3 million km 2 to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, it would require nearly doubling to achieve, cost‐efficiently, coverage targets for all countries, ecoregions, important sites, and species. Poorer countries have the largest relative shortfalls. Such extensive and rapid expansion of formal PAs is unlikely to be achievable. Greater focus is therefore needed on alternative approaches, including community‐ and privately managed sites and other effective area‐based conservation measures.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/conl.12158

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Protected areas offer inadequate coverage of the ranges of threatened birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles at continental and global scales.

    “However, analysis of threatened birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles at both continental and global scales suggests that protected areas offer inadequate coverage of the ranges of these groups (De Klerk et al., ; Rodrigues et al., ; Beresford et al., a,b; Butchart et al., ).”

    From A mix of community-based conservation and protected forests is needed for the survival of the Endangered pygmy hippopotamus<i>Choeropsis liberiensis</i> (2017) · cites this paper as Butchart et al., 2015

    The Results (page not provided) report that fewer than half of assessed mammals and amphibians have enough of their distributions protected to meet species-specific targets. The paper also identifies a global shortfall for mapped threatened species. Our copy does not establish the same finding for reptiles or at continental scales, so it supports only part of the cited claim. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Expansion of the protected area network is not always feasible, especially in regions where conservation efforts compete with other land uses such as logging, mineral extraction and agriculture.

    “In some cases the expansion of the protected area network is recommended for more effective protection (Forrest et al., ; Tweh et al., ) but this may not always be feasible (Butchart et al., ), especially in regions where conservation efforts compete with other land uses, such as logging, mineral extraction and agriculture.”

    From A mix of community-based conservation and protected forests is needed for the survival of the Endangered pygmy hippopotamus<i>Choeropsis liberiensis</i> (2017) · cites this paper as Butchart et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Ball, I.R., Possingham, H.P. & Watts, M. (2009). Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritisation. pages 185-195 in A. Moilanen, K.A. Wilson, H.P. Possingham, editors. Spatial conservation prioritisation: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  2. Chape, S., Spalding, M.D., Jenkins, M.D., editors. (2008). The World's protected areas: status, values, and prospects in the twenty-first century. University California Press, Berkeley.
  3. Hurlbert, A.H. & Jetz, W. (2007). Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 13384- 13389.
  4. Juffe-Bignoli, D., Burgess, N.D., Bingham, H. et al. (2014). Protected Planet Report 2014. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
  5. Mora, C. & Sale, P.F. (2011). Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser., 434, 251-266.
  6. Pouzols, F.M., Toivonen, T., Di Minin, E. et al. (2014). Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature, doi:10.1038/ nature14032. · DOI
  7. Ricketts, T.H., Dinerstein, E., Boucher, T. et al. (2005). Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102, 18497-18501.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Butchart, S. H. M., Clarke, M., Smith, R. J., Sykes, R. E., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Harfoot, M., Buchanan, G. M., Angulo, A., Balmford, A., Bertzky, B., Brooks, T. M., Carpenter, K. E., Comeros‐Raynal, M. T., Cornell, J., Ficetola, G. F., Fishpool, L. D. C., Fuller, R. A., Geldmann, J., Harwell, H., Hilton‐Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Joolia, A., Joppa, L., Kingston, N., May, I., Milam, A., Polidoro, B., Ralph, G., Richman, N., Rondinini, C., Segan, D. B., Skolnik, B., Spalding, M. D., Stuart, S. N., Symes, A., Taylor, J., Visconti, P., Watson, J. E. M., Wood, L., & Burgess, N. D.
Affiliations
  • BirdLife international (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (GB)
  • Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (GB)
  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (CH)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of the Philippines Los Baños (PH)
  • Old Dominion University (US)
  • Laboratoire d'Écologie Alpine (FR)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Christopher Newport University (US)
  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Zoological Society of London (GB)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Wildlife Conservation Society (US)
  • American Bird Conservancy (US)
Corresponding author
Butchart, Stuart H.M.
ORCID
Venue
Conservation Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-02-24
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
329-337
ISSN
1755-263X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/conl.12158
OpenAlex
W2164623622
Cited by
495
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 23
FWCI
42.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Conservation Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Arcadia Fund
  • Cambridge Conservation Initiative
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
protected area coverage, biodiversity conservation targets, area-based conservation, ecoregions, species coverage, protected area expansion, community-based conservation, private land conservation, marine protected areas, developing countries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review