Coverage Provided by the Global Protected-Area System: Is It Enough?

By T. Brooks, M. Bakarr, T. Boucher, Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca, C. Hilton‐Taylor, J. Hoekstra, T. Moritz, S. Olivieri, J. Parrish, R. Pressey and 5 more. 2004

307 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3c13b3bfb06c6c2fcfed108384d0164e1604ece6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

A comparison of methods for mapping species ranges and species richness (2006, background): “Such range maps can be expert-drawn (Rahbek & Graves, 2001; Burgess et al ., 2002; Brooks et al ., 2004; Orme et al ., 2005) or predicted with species distribution models (Ferrier, 1997; Loiselle et al ., 2003).”
Emptying the Forest: Hunting and the Extirpation of Wildlife from Tropical Nature Reserves (2011, background): “However, national parks and other totally protected areas now cover over 18% of tropical rainforests (Brooks et al. 2004).”
Species, Data, and Conservation Planning (2004, unknown): “Our statement (Brooks et al. 2004a) that techniques for mapping and measuring ecological processes are still in their infancy was not intended to suggest that the aim of representing process should be abandoned because it is too difficult.”
Status of a protected area system in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: An analysis of PA coverage (2008, background): “Many researchers (Brooks et al. 2002, 2004; Chape et al. 2005; Rodrigues et al. 2004) consider that several important habitat types and species are far from covered by the current PA network, and many existing PAs face severe habitat loss and fragmentation.”
Conservation priorities for freshwater biodiversity: the key biodiversity area approach refined and tested for continental Africa (2012, unknown): “Once sites qualifying as KBAs have been identified, gap analysis (e.g. Rodrigues et al., 2004a; Burgess et al., 2005) can be employed to examine the shortfall in representation of species within the existing PA network.”
Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions:Comparison of three programs from Cambodia? (2010, unknown): “The Cambodian PA systemwas also declared based on relatively little information and consequently excludes many areas of importance for biodiversity conservation, again not an uncommon situation (Brooks et al., 2004), emphasising the importance of working both inside and outside PAs.”
Species richness as criterion for global conservation area placement leads to large losses in coverage of biodiversity (2017, background): “Much of the work to understand broad scale biodiversity patterns has used species richness of all, small- range and threatened species to map ‘hot spots’ of species richness (Brooks et al., 2004; Ceballos & Ehrlich, 2006; Grenyer et al., 2006; Jenkins, Pimm, & Joppa, 2013; Jenkins, Van Houtan, Pimm,”
Mapping More of Terrestrial Biodiversity for Global Conservation Assessment (2004, background): “Surrogates employed in recent global assessments of terrestrial biodiversity include mapped ranges of vertebrate species (Rodrigues et al. 2004a, 2004b), major habitat types or biomes (Gaston et al. 2003, Brooks et al. 2004), and biogeographical regions or ecoregions (Olson and Dinerstein 2002).”
Conservation planning and the IUCN Red List (2008, background): “Range maps representing extent of occurrence (EOO1) are now available for nearly all the world’s mammals, birds, and amphibians (Brooks et al. 2004).”