Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Minding the protection gap: estimates of species' range sizes and holes in the Protected Area network

Minding the protection gap: estimates of species' range sizes and holes in the Protected Area... In a paper in this issue ( Beresford ., 2011 ), we set out to quantify the extent to which site‐based conservation initiatives overlapped with the ranges of globally threatened bird species in Africa, using a GIS approach. We considered Protected Areas and Important Bird Areas (IBAs), both of which cover c . 7% of the land surface of Africa. The former, as noted by both Brooks & Matiku (2011) and Rodrigues (2011) , carry significant governmental weight despite not necessarily being identified for their conservation value, while the latter (which are of conservation value to other taxa in addition to birds – Pain ., 2005 ) have no legal standing, but are identified using objective criteria that include their value for globally threatened species ( Fishpool & Evans, 2001 ). We find that Protected Areas perform poorly at protecting the ranges of Africa's most threatened birds, covering just 13.9% on average, and even where a Protected Area overlaps part of an IBA, the part excluded from the Protected Area has higher value for these species than the protected part. As Rodrigues (2011) notes, the limitations of GIS studies that utilize Extent of Occurrence (EOO) maps are well http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Animal Conservation Wiley

Minding the protection gap: estimates of species' range sizes and holes in the Protected Area network

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/minding-the-protection-gap-estimates-of-species-range-sizes-and-holes-ZnltwnmBd3

References (19)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2011 The Authors. Animal Conservation © 2011 The Zoological Society of London
ISSN
1367-9430
eISSN
1469-1795
DOI
10.1111/j.1469-1795.2011.00453.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In a paper in this issue ( Beresford ., 2011 ), we set out to quantify the extent to which site‐based conservation initiatives overlapped with the ranges of globally threatened bird species in Africa, using a GIS approach. We considered Protected Areas and Important Bird Areas (IBAs), both of which cover c . 7% of the land surface of Africa. The former, as noted by both Brooks & Matiku (2011) and Rodrigues (2011) , carry significant governmental weight despite not necessarily being identified for their conservation value, while the latter (which are of conservation value to other taxa in addition to birds – Pain ., 2005 ) have no legal standing, but are identified using objective criteria that include their value for globally threatened species ( Fishpool & Evans, 2001 ). We find that Protected Areas perform poorly at protecting the ranges of Africa's most threatened birds, covering just 13.9% on average, and even where a Protected Area overlaps part of an IBA, the part excluded from the Protected Area has higher value for these species than the protected part. As Rodrigues (2011) notes, the limitations of GIS studies that utilize Extent of Occurrence (EOO) maps are well

Journal

Animal ConservationWiley

Published: Apr 1, 2011

There are no references for this article.