当前位置: X-MOL 学术Ambio › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Reconsidering priorities for forest conservation when considering the threats of mining and armed conflict
Ambio ( IF 5.8 ) Pub Date : 2022-04-10 , DOI: 10.1007/s13280-022-01724-0
Brooke A Williams 1, 2, 3 , Hedley S Grantham 3 , James E M Watson 1, 2, 3 , Aurélie C Shapiro 4, 5 , Andrew J Plumptre 6, 7 , Samuel Ayebare 8 , Elizabeth Goldman 9 , Ayesha I T Tulloch 1, 2, 3, 10, 11
Affiliation  

Many threats to biodiversity can be predicted and are well mapped but others are uncertain in their extent, impact on biodiversity, and ability for conservation efforts to address, making them more difficult to account for in spatial conservation planning efforts, and as a result, they are often ignored. Here, we use a spatial prioritisation analysis to evaluate the consequences of considering only relatively well-mapped threats to biodiversity and compare this with planning scenarios that also account for more uncertain threats (in this case mining and armed conflict) under different management strategies. We evaluate three management strategies to address these more uncertain threats: 1. to ignore them; 2. avoid them; or 3. specifically target actions towards them, first individually and then simultaneously to assess the impact of their inclusion in spatial prioritisations. We apply our approach to the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and identify priority areas for conserving biodiversity and carbon sequestration services. We found that a strategy that avoids addressing threats of mining and armed conflict more often misses important opportunities for biodiversity conservation, compared to a strategy that targets action towards areas under threat (assuming a biodiversity benefit is possible). We found that considering mining and armed conflict threats to biodiversity independently rather than simultaneously results in 13 800–14 800 km2 and 15 700–25 100 km2 of potential missed conservation opportunities when undertaking threat-avoiding and threat-targeting management strategies, respectively. Our analysis emphasises the importance of considering all threats that can be mapped in spatial conservation prioritisation.



中文翻译:

在考虑采矿和武装冲突的威胁时重新考虑森林保护的优先事项

对生物多样性的许多威胁可以预测并绘制得很好,但其他威胁的程度、对生物多样性的影响以及保护工作解决的能力都不确定,这使得它们在空间保护规划工作中更加难以解释,因此,它们经常被忽视。在这里,我们使用空间优先级分析来评估仅考虑对生物多样性的相对良好映射的威胁的后果,并将其与在不同管理策略下也考虑到更多不确定威胁(在本例中为采矿和武装冲突)的规划方案进行比较。我们评估了三种管理策略来应对这些更不确定的威胁: 1. 忽略它们;2. 避免它们;或 3. 专门针对他们的行动,首先单独然后同时评估将它们包含在空间优先级中的影响。我们将我们的方法应用于刚果民主共和国东部 (DRC),并确定保护生物多样性和碳封存服务的优先领域。我们发现,与针对受威胁地区采取行动的战略(假设生物多样性受益是可能的)相比,避免解决采矿和武装冲突威胁的战略往往会错过保护生物多样性的重要机会。我们发现,单独考虑采矿和武装冲突对生物多样性的威胁而不是同时考虑会导致 13 800-14 800 公里 我们将我们的方法应用于刚果民主共和国东部 (DRC),并确定保护生物多样性和碳封存服务的优先领域。我们发现,与针对受威胁地区采取行动的战略(假设生物多样性受益是可能的)相比,避免解决采矿和武装冲突威胁的战略往往会错过保护生物多样性的重要机会。我们发现,单独考虑采矿和武装冲突对生物多样性的威胁而不是同时考虑会导致 13 800-14 800 公里 我们将我们的方法应用于刚果民主共和国东部 (DRC),并确定保护生物多样性和碳封存服务的优先领域。我们发现,与针对受威胁地区采取行动的战略(假设生物多样性受益是可能的)相比,避免解决采矿和武装冲突威胁的战略往往会错过保护生物多样性的重要机会。我们发现,单独考虑采矿和武装冲突对生物多样性的威胁而不是同时考虑会导致 13 800-14 800 公里 与针对受威胁地区采取行动的战略相比(假设生物多样性受益是可能的)。我们发现,单独考虑采矿和武装冲突对生物多样性的威胁而不是同时考虑会导致 13 800-14 800 公里 与针对受威胁地区采取行动的战略相比(假设生物多样性受益是可能的)。我们发现,单独考虑采矿和武装冲突对生物多样性的威胁而不是同时考虑会导致 13 800-14 800 公里2和 15 700–25 100 km 2在采取避免威胁和针对威胁的管理策略时可能错失的保护机会,分别。我们的分析强调了考虑所有可以在空间保护优先级中映射的威胁的重要性。

更新日期:2022-04-10
down
wechat
bug