Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26460136›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2015

Socio-economic and ecological impacts of global protected area expansion plans.

Piero Visconti, Michel Bakkenes, Robert J Smith, Lucas Joppa, Rachel E Sykes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Perspectives on area-based conservation and its meaning for future biodiversity policy.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021
    Review
  4. Changes in area and number of nature reserves in China.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2019
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Measuring the difference made by conservation initiatives: protected areas and their environmental and social impacts.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Article
  7. Making parks make a difference: poor alignment of policy, planning and management with protected-area impact, and ways forward.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Piero ViscontiMicrosoft Research, Computational Science Lab, 21 Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2FB, UK United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK pierovisconti@gmail.com.
Michel BakkenesPBL, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, PO Box 303, Bilthoven 3720 AH, The Netherlands.
Robert J SmithDurrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NR, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1599-9171
Lucas JoppaMicrosoft Research, 14820 Northeast 36th Street, Redmond, WA 98052, USA.
Rachel E SykesDurrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NR, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several global strategies for protected area (PA) expansion have been proposed to achieve the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi target 11 as a means to stem biodiversity loss, as required by the Aichi target 12. However, habitat loss outside PAs will continue to affect habitats and species, and PAs may displace human activities into areas that might be even more important for species persistence. Here we measure the expected contribution of PA expansion strategies to Aichi target 12 by estimating the extent of suitable habitat available for all terrestrial mammals, with and without additional protection (the latter giving the counterfactual outcome), under different socio-economic scenarios and consequent land-use change to 2020. We found that expanding PAs to achieve representation targets for ecoregions under a Business-as-usual socio-economic scenario will result in a worse prognosis than doing nothing for more than 50% of the world's terrestrial mammals. By contrast, targeting protection towards threatened species can increase the suitable habitat available to over 60% of terrestrial mammals. Even in the absence of additional protection, an alternative socio-economic scenario, adopting progressive changes in human consumption, leads to positive outcomes for mammals globally and to the largest improvements for wide-ranging species.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemEndangered SpeciesHuman ActivitiesHumansMammalsModels, EconomicModels, TheoreticalSocioeconomic FactorsConvention on Biological Diversitycounterfactualhabitat lossprotected areasSustainable Development Goals

Identifiers

PMID26460136
PMCPMC4614740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.