ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Ability of new protected areas to counteract losses from downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ability of new protected areas to counteract losses from downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) is a common occurrence. Although PADDD is expected to weaken biodiversity protection, PADDD offsets and new unrelated protected areas (PAs) could help restore representation of biodiversity features to the reserve network affected by PADDD. Globally, we analyzed 16 territories with terrestrial PADDD and 4 territories with marine PADDD from 2011 to 2020. Our objective was to evaluate whether PADDD offsets and new PAs could restore the PAs, key biodiversity areas (KBAs), ecoregions, and threatened amphibian, mammal, bird, and reptile species ranges where PADDD had occurred. In our studied territories, offsets of PADDD were rare (enacted in 3 [19%] terrestrial territories and one [25%] marine territory). One territory had PADDD losses that were compensated fully by PADDD offsets in terms of area coverage and ecoregions represented. All other territories failed to achieve compensation goals. In territories affected by PADDD, PADDD offsets and new PAs partially restored area representation (63%) and KBA coverage (57%). However, only 38% of ecoregion representation and 20%, 33%, 31%, and 21% of threatened amphibian, mammal, bird, and reptile representation, respectively, were restored. Overall, we found a large shortfall in PADDD offsets, even when unrelated PAs were included in the calculus. There is an urgent need to expand PADDD offsets and PAs to advance biodiversity conservation and achieve the Global Biodiversity Framework's 30×30 target. Future planning of newly enacted conservation areas needs to prioritize biodiversity conservation and consider the purpose of restoring reserve networks affected by PADDD, rather than solely focusing on areal targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.