4.7 Article

Identifying ecosystem service value and potential loss of wilderness areas in China to support post-2020 global biodiversity conservation

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 846, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157348

Keywords

Landscape planning; Wilderness; Protected areas; Biodiversity conservation; Ecosystem services

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Founda- tion of China [51978365]
  2. Tsinghua University Initia- tive Scienti fi c Research Program [20223080018, 20223080017]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study developed a methodological framework to evaluate the ecosystem service values, potential loss, and conservation priorities of wilderness areas in China, providing guidance for wilderness conservation.
Preserving wilderness areas is one of the key goals in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework(GBF). However, far too little attention has been paid to identifying wilderness conservation priorities on the national scale. In this study, we developed a methodological framework to evaluate the ecosystem service values, potential loss and conser-vation priorities of wilderness areas in China, providing guidance for wilderness conservation. First, we assessed the conservation value of wilderness areas and found that wilderness areas provided more ecosystem services than non -wilderness areas per unit area in most ecoregions. Then we identified threatened wilderness areas under multiple scenarios due to land use and land cover change. We found that 5.82 % of the existing wilderness areas were projected to be lost by 2100. Finally, wilderness conservation priorities were identified considering both conservation values and potential loss, and 11.24 % of existing wilderness areas were highlighted as conservation priorities. This methodological framework could be applied to other countries to support post-2020 global biodiversity conservation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available