4.8 Article

Protected area personnel and ranger numbers are insufficient to deliver global expectations

Journal

NATURE SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 5, Issue 12, Pages 1100-+

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41893-022-00970-0

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The 2020 global spatial targets for protected areas set by the Convention on Biological Diversity have almost been achieved, but management effectiveness remains deficient. Personnel shortages are widely cited as major contributing factors but have not previously been quantified. Expansion of protected areas to 30% coverage by 2030 will require a significant increase in personnel, including rangers or equivalents, for effective management.
The 2020 global spatial targets for protected areas set by the Convention on Biological Diversity have almost been achieved, but management effectiveness remains deficient. Personnel shortages are widely cited as major contributing factors but have not previously been quantified. Using data from 176 countries and territories, we estimate a current maximum of 555,000 terrestrial protected area personnel worldwide (one per 37 km(2)), including 286,000 rangers (one per 72 km(2)), far short of published guidance on required densities. Expansion by 2030 to 30% coverage of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures is widely agreed as a minimum for safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services. We project that effective management of this expanded system will require approximately 3 million personnel (one per 13 km(2)), including more than 1.5 million rangers or equivalents (one per 26 km(2)). Parallel improvements in resourcing, working conditions and capacity are required for effective, equitable and sustainable management. Achievement of global spatial targets for protected areas is not being matched by quality of management. This study quantifies current shortfalls in numbers of rangers and other personnel for those areas and assesses future requirements as more areas are set aside.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available