4.6 Article

Warfare in Biodiversity Hotspots

Journal

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 578-587

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01166.x

Keywords

biodiversity conservation; biodiversity hotspots; conflict; protected areas; war; warfare ecology; areas protegidas; conflicto; conservacion de la biodiversidad; ecologia bElica; guerra; sitios de importancia para la biodiversidad

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [0114304]
  2. Division Of Graduate Education
  3. Direct For Education and Human Resources [0114304] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conservation efforts are only as sustainable as the social and political context within which they take place. The weakening or collapse of sociopolitical frameworks during wartime can lead to habitat destruction and the erosion of conservation policies, but in some cases, may also confer ecological benefits through altered settlement patterns and reduced resource exploitation. Over 90% of the major armed conflicts between 1950 and 2000 occurred within countries containing biodiversity hotspots, and more than 80% took place directly within hotspot areas. Less than one-third of the 34 recognized hotspots escaped significant conflict during this period, and most suffered repeated episodes of violence. This pattern was remarkably consistent over these 5 decades. Evidence from the war-torn Eastern Afromontane hotspot suggests that biodiversity conservation is improved when international nongovernmental organizations support local protected area staff and remain engaged throughout the conflict. With biodiversity hotspots concentrated in politically volatile regions, the conservation community must maintain continuous involvement during periods of war, and biodiversity conservation should be incorporated into military, reconstruction, and humanitarian programs in the world's conflict zones.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available