4.3 Article

Developing a nature recovery network using systematic conservation planning

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/csp2.578

关键词

conservation landscapes; ecological networks; England; local nature recovery strategy; restoration

资金

  1. Wildlife Trusts Strategic Development Fund [SDF223]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A wildlife organization in England used systematic conservation planning to identify a nature recovery network for three counties, aiming to conserve and connect 30% of land by 2030. The analysis showed successful results and pointed out the urgent need for government guidance and datasets to support local action.
Conservation area networks in most countries are fragmented and inadequate. To tackle this in England, government policies are encouraging stakeholders to create local-level nature recovery networks. Here, we describe work led by a wildlife organization that used the systematic conservation planning approach to identify a nature recovery network for three English counties and select focal areas within it where they will focus their work. The network was based on identifying core zones to maintain current biodiversity and recovery zones for habitat restoration, meeting area-based targets for 50 priority habitat, landscape, landcover, and ecosystem service types. It included the existing designated sites for conservation, which cover 6.05% of the study site, and identified an additional 11.6% of land as core zones and 18% as recovery zones, reflecting the organization's call for 30% of England to be conserved and connected by 2030. We found that systematic conservation planning worked well in this context, identifying a connected, adequate, representative, and efficient network and producing transparent and repeatable results. The analysis also highlighted the pressing need for government agencies to provide national-level guidance and datasets for setting targets and including species data in spatial planning, creating a national framework to inform local action.

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

4.3
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