iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36646696
A bolder conservation future for Indonesia by prioritising biodiversity, carbon and unique ecosystems in Sulawesi - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 16;13(1):842.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-21536-2.

A bolder conservation future for Indonesia by prioritising biodiversity, carbon and unique ecosystems in Sulawesi

Wulan Pusparini  1 , Andi Cahyana  2 , Hedley S Grantham  3 , Sean Maxwell  4 , Carolina Soto-Navarro  5 , David W Macdonald  6
Affiliations

A bolder conservation future for Indonesia by prioritising biodiversity, carbon and unique ecosystems in Sulawesi

Wulan Pusparini et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

As more ambitious protected area (PA) targets for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework are set beyond Aichi Target 11, renew thinking into spatial prioritisation is required to enable PA expansion that maximises environmental values. Our study focuses on the biodiverse and forest-rich Indonesian island of Sulawesi, which has a terrestrial PA network that covers 10% of the island. We used Marxan to investigate trade-offs in the design of an expanded PA network that prioritised different conservation features (biodiversity, forest cover, carbon stock, karst and valuable metal-rich areas) under varying island-wide coverage targets (17%, 30%, and 50%). Our first scenario, which required existing PAs to be selected, required larger areas to meet these coverage targets, in contrast to our second scenario, which allowed for any part of the island to be chosen, irrespective of PA status. The vast Mekongga and Bangkiriang Landscapes, and Gorontalo corridor were consistently identified as a high priority for protection under all scenarios. To meet our conservation targets through expanding current PAs, creating new PAs, and creating corridors that connect existing PAs, we used a spatially explicit three-phase approach. Our findings identified 26,508 km2 of priority areas to be included in the current PA network, potentially assisting Indonesia in meeting its post-2020 GBF target, if our approach is replicated across Indonesia as a national or sub-national analysis. We discuss various land management options through other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) and the costs to deliver this strategy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Workflow for identifying priority conservation areas in Sulawesi under three protection scenarios.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Geographic regions we used to define and identify new priority areas in Sulawesi.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Sulawesi priority area size under six scenarios (two scenarios, ‘a’ and ‘b’, for protected area selection and three protection targets of 17%, 30%, and 50%). The dashed line denotes the total size of Sulawesi's current protected area network.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Sulawesi conservation features representativeness for all target scenarios (17%, 30%, and 50% protection target). The dashed line denotes the current protected area network on Sulawesi (18,602.4 km2).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Priority areas in Sulawesi based on scenarios ‘a’ (in which the current PA network had to be included in the selection) and ‘b’ (in which any area could be selected), as well as the proposed order of selection for protecting these areas.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jepson PR, et al. Protected area asset stewardship. Biol. Conserv. 2017;212:183–190. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.032. - DOI
    1. Joppa LN, Loarie SR, Pimm SL. On the protection of “protected areas”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2008;105:6673–6678. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0802471105. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rija AA, Critchlow R, Thomas CD, Beale CM. Global extent and drivers of mammal population declines in protected areas under illegal hunting pressure. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0227163. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227163. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tyrrell P, du Toit JT, Macdonald DW. Conservation beyond protected areas: Using vertebrate species ranges and biodiversity importance scores to inform policy for an East African country in transition. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2019 doi: 10.1111/csp2.136. - DOI
    1. Gaveau DLA, et al. Evaluating whether protected areas reduce tropical deforestation in Sumatra. J. Biogeogr. 2009;36:2165–2175. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02147.x. - DOI

Publication types