Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorAngelstam, Per Krister
dc.contributor.authorAlbulescu, Andra-Cosmina
dc.contributor.authorAndrianambinina, Ollier Duranton F.
dc.contributor.authorAszalós, Réka
dc.contributor.authorBorovichev, Eugene
dc.contributor.authorCardona, Walter Cano
dc.contributor.authorDobrynin, Denis
dc.contributor.authorFedoriak, Mariia
dc.contributor.authorFirm, Dejan
dc.contributor.authorHunter, Malcolm L.
dc.contributor.authorde Jong, Wil
dc.contributor.authorLindenmayer, David
dc.contributor.authorManton, Michael
dc.contributor.authorMonge, Juan J.
dc.contributor.authorMezei, Pavel
dc.contributor.authorMichailova, Galina
dc.contributor.authorBrenes, Carlos L. Muñoz
dc.contributor.authorPetrova, Olga V.
dc.contributor.authorPastur, Guillermo Martínez
dc.contributor.authorPetrov, Victor
dc.contributor.authorPokorny, Benny
dc.contributor.authorRafanoharana, Serge C.
dc.contributor.authorRosas, Yamina Micaela
dc.contributor.authorSeymour, Bob Robert
dc.contributor.authorWaeber, Patrick O.
dc.contributor.authorWilmé, Lucienne
dc.contributor.authorYamelynets, Taras
dc.contributor.authorZlatanov, Tzvetan
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-21T11:08:35Z
dc.date.available2022-06-21T11:08:35Z
dc.date.created2021-12-03T15:04:33Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationAmbio. 2021, 50 (12), 2286-2310.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0044-7447
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2999804
dc.description.abstractExploitation of natural forests forms expanding frontiers. Simultaneously, protected area frontiers aim at maintaining functional habitat networks. To assess net effects of these frontiers, we examined 16 case study areas on five continents. We (1) mapped protected area instruments, (2) assessed their effectiveness, (3) mapped policy implementation tools, and (4) effects on protected areas originating from their surroundings. Results are given as follows: (1) conservation instruments covered 3–77%, (2) effectiveness of habitat networks depended on representativeness, habitat quality, functional connectivity, resource extraction in protected areas, time for landscape restoration, ‘‘paper parks’’, ‘‘fortress conservation’’, and data access, (3) regulatory policy instruments dominated over economic and informational, (4) negative matrix effects dominated over positive ones (protective forests, buffer zones, inaccessibility), which were restricted to former USSR and Costa Rica. Despite evidence-based knowledge about conservation targets, the importance of spatial segregation of conservation and use, and traditional knowledge, the trajectories for biodiversity conservation were generally negative.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectBiodiversity conservation targetsen_US
dc.subjectGreen infrastructureen_US
dc.subjectGovernance effectivenessen_US
dc.subjectLandscape approachen_US
dc.subjectMatrix effectsen_US
dc.subjectPolicy instrumentsen_US
dc.titleFrontiers of protected areas versus forest exploitation: Assessing habitat network functionality in 16 case study regions globallyen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber2286-2310en_US
dc.source.volume50en_US
dc.source.journalAmbioen_US
dc.source.issue12en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s13280-021-01628-5
dc.identifier.cristin1964512
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal