ArticleEcology and evolution2025
Conservation Planning for Promoting Ecosystem Service Provisioning Outside Protected Area Networks.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 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.
- Conservation Planning for Promoting Ecosystem Service Provisioning Outside Protected Area Networks.Ecology and evolution · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Among factors that contribute to global biodiversity loss, habitat loss through unsustainable land use and land cover changes has gained prominence, with impacts being exacerbated by increasing human populations. Establishing protected area networks (PANs) is strongly advocated by national and international mechanisms, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as a primary strategy to guide biodiversity conservation and management; however, this can undermine conservation efforts outside protected areas. Understanding how people and biodiversity overlap and interact outside protected area networks (OPAN areas) is essential for setting realistic, sustainable targets to guide biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision beyond PAN. However, how OPAN areas can sustain or enhance ecosystem services (ESs) through improved conservation and management remains unassessed. We applied a novel ecosystem-based conservation (EBC) framework, using data from Tanzania, to assess how biodiversity and land use/land cover (LULC) types shape the monetary value of selected ESs in OPAN areas, and in future scenarios where restoration of priority wildlife corridors is implemented by 2030. Across the six ecosystems and four LULC types assessed, waterbody delivered the highest ES value (US$12.8 billion) through water provision and flood control. OPAN areas in miombo woodland also yielded high value (US$12.4 billion), with 46% from flood control and 54% from water provision and carbon storage. ES values varied across OPANs, mainly driven by relative size and degradation level. Restoring 197,497 ha of degraded land within 53 prioritised wildlife corridors in Tanzania could generate up to US$62.8 million annually in ESs under full restoration, and US$31.4 million under partial restoration, with carbon storage contributing over 90% of total value. Policy implications: The spatial heterogeneity and ES overlap observed highlight the need to integrate OPANs into the EBC framework, linking local restoration gains with national policies and global biodiversity frameworks.
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.