In the tenth Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in Nagoya in 2010, it was decided that 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine areas should be protected globally by 2020. It was also stated that conservation decision-making should be based on sound science. Here, we review how recent scientific literature about spatial conservation prioritization analyses and macro-ecology corresponds to the information needs posed by the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. A literature search was performed in Web of Science to identify potentially relevant research articles published in 2010-2012. Additionally, we searched all articles published since 2000 in five high-profile scientific journals. The studies were classified by extent and resolution, and we evaluated the type and breadth of data that was utilized (This information is included in a supplementary table to facilitate further research). Implementation of the Aichi Targets would best be supported by broad-extent, high-resolution, and data-rich studies that can directly support realistic decision-making about allocation of conservation efforts at sub-continental to global extents. When looking at all evaluation criteria simultaneously, we found little research that directly supports the analytical needs of the CBD. There are many narrow- extent, low-resolution, narrow-scope, or theoretically-aimed studies that are important in developing theory and local practices, but which are not adequate for guiding conservation management at a continental scale. Even national analyses are missing for many countries. Global-extent, high-resolution analyses using broad biodiversity and anthropogenic data are needed in order to inform decision making under the CBD resolutions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kullberg et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: