4.7 Article

Recent increases in human pressure and forest loss threaten many Natural World Heritage Sites

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 206, 期 -, 页码 47-55

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.011

关键词

World Heritage; Habitat loss; Habitat fragmentation; Human Footprint; Forest loss; Monitoring; Cumulative threat mapping; Biodiversity conservation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural World Heritage Sites (NWHS), via their formal designation through the United Nations, are globally recognized as containing some of the Earth's most valuable natural assets. Understanding changes in their ecological condition is essential for their ongoing preservation. Here we use two newly available globally consistent data sets that assess changes in human pressure (Human Footprint) and forest loss (Global Forest Watch) over time across the global network of terrestrial NWHS. We show that human pressure has increased in 63% of NWHS since 1993 and across all continents except Europe. The largest increases in pressure occurred in Asian NWHS, many of which were substantially damaged such as Manas Wildlife Sanctuary. Forest loss occurred in 91% of NWHS that contain forests, with a global mean loss of 1.5% per site since 2000, with the largest areas of forest lost occurring in the Americas. For example Wood Buffalo National Park and Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve lost 2581 km(2) (11.7%) and 365 km2 (8.5%) of their forest respectively. We found that on average human pressure increased faster and more forest loss occurred in areas surrounding NWHS, suggesting they are becoming increasingly isolated and are under threat from processes occurring outside their borders. While some NWHS such as the Sinharaja Forest Reserve and Mana Pools National Park showed minimal change in forest loss or human pressure, they are in the minority and our results also suggest many NWHS are rapidly deteriorating and are more threatened than previously thought. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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