Cargando…
Do Private Conservation Activities Match Science-Based Conservation Priorities?
BACKGROUND: Private land conservation is an essential strategy for biodiversity protection in the USA, where half of the federally listed species have at least 80% of their habitat on private lands. We investigated the alignment between private land protection conducted by the world's largest l...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3460893/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23029516 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046429 |
_version_ | 1782245007263006720 |
---|---|
author | Fisher, Jonathan R. B. Dills, Benjamin |
author_facet | Fisher, Jonathan R. B. Dills, Benjamin |
author_sort | Fisher, Jonathan R. B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Private land conservation is an essential strategy for biodiversity protection in the USA, where half of the federally listed species have at least 80% of their habitat on private lands. We investigated the alignment between private land protection conducted by the world's largest land trust (The Nature Conservancy) and the science driven identification of priority areas for conservation. This represents the first quantitative assessment of the influence of defining priority areas on the land acquisitions of a conservation non-governmental organization (NGO). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The lands acquired by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) were analyzed using GIS to determine to what extent they were in areas defined as priorities for conservation. The spatial analysis of TNC lands was broken up into land known to be acquired in the last five years, five to ten years ago, prior to ten years ago, and anytime during the last sixty years (including previous sets of data plus acquisitions lacking a date). For the entire history of TNC the proportion of TNC lands within the priority areas was 74%. Prior to 10 years ago it was 80%, 5–10 years ago it was 76%, and in the last five years it was 81%. Conservation easements were found to have lower alignment with priority areas (64%) than outright fee simple acquisitions (86%). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Overall the location of lands acquired was found to be well aligned with the priority areas. Since there was comparable alignment in lands acquired before and after formalized conservation planning had been implemented as a standard operating procedure, this analysis did not find evidence that defining priority areas has influenced land acquisition decisions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3460893 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34608932012-10-01 Do Private Conservation Activities Match Science-Based Conservation Priorities? Fisher, Jonathan R. B. Dills, Benjamin PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Private land conservation is an essential strategy for biodiversity protection in the USA, where half of the federally listed species have at least 80% of their habitat on private lands. We investigated the alignment between private land protection conducted by the world's largest land trust (The Nature Conservancy) and the science driven identification of priority areas for conservation. This represents the first quantitative assessment of the influence of defining priority areas on the land acquisitions of a conservation non-governmental organization (NGO). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The lands acquired by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) were analyzed using GIS to determine to what extent they were in areas defined as priorities for conservation. The spatial analysis of TNC lands was broken up into land known to be acquired in the last five years, five to ten years ago, prior to ten years ago, and anytime during the last sixty years (including previous sets of data plus acquisitions lacking a date). For the entire history of TNC the proportion of TNC lands within the priority areas was 74%. Prior to 10 years ago it was 80%, 5–10 years ago it was 76%, and in the last five years it was 81%. Conservation easements were found to have lower alignment with priority areas (64%) than outright fee simple acquisitions (86%). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Overall the location of lands acquired was found to be well aligned with the priority areas. Since there was comparable alignment in lands acquired before and after formalized conservation planning had been implemented as a standard operating procedure, this analysis did not find evidence that defining priority areas has influenced land acquisition decisions. Public Library of Science 2012-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3460893/ /pubmed/23029516 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046429 Text en © 2012 Fisher, Dills http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Fisher, Jonathan R. B. Dills, Benjamin Do Private Conservation Activities Match Science-Based Conservation Priorities? |
title | Do Private Conservation Activities Match Science-Based Conservation Priorities? |
title_full | Do Private Conservation Activities Match Science-Based Conservation Priorities? |
title_fullStr | Do Private Conservation Activities Match Science-Based Conservation Priorities? |
title_full_unstemmed | Do Private Conservation Activities Match Science-Based Conservation Priorities? |
title_short | Do Private Conservation Activities Match Science-Based Conservation Priorities? |
title_sort | do private conservation activities match science-based conservation priorities? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3460893/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23029516 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046429 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fisherjonathanrb doprivateconservationactivitiesmatchsciencebasedconservationpriorities AT dillsbenjamin doprivateconservationactivitiesmatchsciencebasedconservationpriorities |