4.8 Article

More than $1 billion needed annually to secure Africa's protected areas with lions

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1805048115

关键词

budget; comanagement; conservation effectiveness; deficit; funding need

资金

  1. Panthera
  2. National Science Foundation Coupled Human and Natural Systems Grant [115057]
  3. US Agency for International Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protected areas (PAs) play an important role in conserving biodiversity and providing ecosystem services, yet their effectiveness is undermined by funding shortfalls. Using lions (Panthera leo) as a proxy for PA health, we assessed available funding relative to budget requirements for PAs in Africa's savannahs. We compiled a dataset of 2015 funding for 282 state-owned PAs with lions. We applied three methods to estimate the minimum funding required for effective conservation of lions, and calculated deficits. We estimated minimum required funding as $978/km(2) per year based on the cost of effectively managing lions in nine reserves by the African Parks Network; $1,271/km(2) based on modeled costs of managing lions at >= 50% carrying capacity across diverse conditions in 115 PAs; and $2,030/km(2) based on Packer et al.'s [Packer et al. (2013) Ecol Lett 16:635-641] cost of managing lions in 22 unfenced PAs. PAs with lions require a total of $1.2 to $2.4 billion annually, or similar to$1,000 to 2,000/km(2), yet received only $381 million annually, or a median of $200/km(2). Ninety-six percent of range countries had funding deficits in at least one PA, with 88 to 94% of PAs with lions funded insufficiently. In funding-deficit PAs, available funding satisfied just 10 to 20% of PA requirements on average, and deficits total $0.9 to $2.1 billion. African governments and the international community need to increase the funding available for management by three to six times if PAs are to effectively conserve lions and other species and provide vital ecological and economic benefits to neighboring communities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据