Key Biodiversity Areas as Site Conservation Targets

By G. Eken, L. Bennun, T. Brooks, W. Darwall, L. Fishpool, Matt Foster, D. Knox, P. Langhammer, P. Matiku, Elizabeth A. Radford and 5 more. 2004

483 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Spatial scale and the conservation of threatened species (2008, background): “…the entire global population is restricted to, and able to be conserved at, a single site (Figure 1A), where a “site” is a homogenous area that can be delineated and actually or potentially managed for conservation as a single unit (Fishpool & Evans 2001; Eken et al. 2004; Ricketts et al. 2005).”
Coverage Provided by the Global Protected-Area System: Is It Enough? (2004, background): “The Red List does, however, include comprehensive evaluations of all conifer (Farjon and Page 1999) and cycad (Donaldson 2003) species.”
Status of a protected area system in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: An analysis of PA coverage (2008, background): “Most of the information available is on the larger vertebrates that are easily observed and inventoried (Myers et al. 2000; Eken et al. 2004; Mittermeier et al. 2004; CEPF 2005, 2007), and the criteria used mainly refer to threatened and endemic species (Myers et al.”
Identifying priority sites and gaps for the conservation of migratory waterbirds in China's coastal wetlands (2017, background): “…of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership (EAAFP; http://www.eaaflyway.net) are quantitative and criteria-driven approaches that can be applied on a regional level to plan protected areas for wetland and waterbird conservation (Ambal et al., 2012; Eken et al., 2004; Wells et al., 2005).”