LerouxKrawchukSchmiegelowEtAl2010

Reference

Leroux, S.J., Krawchuk, M.A., Schmiegelow, F., Cumming, S.G., Lisgo, K., Anderson, L.G., Petkova, M. (2010) Global protected areas and IUCN designations: Do the categories match the conditions? Biological Conservation, 143(3):609-616. (Scopus )

Abstract

Protected areas are considered fundamental to the preservation of nature. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has standardized categories for protected areas designation, which are intended to represent varying levels of regulatory protection. We evaluate whether the present assignment of protected areas to IUCN categories corresponds to the expected gradient of naturalness in a globally consistent manner. Our proxy of naturalness was a global map of human influence known as Human Footprint (HF). Higher HF values represent less intact natural areas. Our final sample of protected areas included 21,186 IUCN-designated sites that were ?1 km<sup>2</sup>. We used multiple linear regression to test for the effect of IUCN categories on mean HF while accounting for biome and protected area size. The present assignment of protected areas to IUCN categories does not correspond to the expected gradient of naturalness. We observed that IUCN Category Ia areas have higher HF than expected and Category VI protected areas have unexpectedly low HF; Category VI protected areas also are generally larger than protected areas of other categories. Reporting of area protected in different IUCN categories is one measure of progress towards meeting commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, yet because IUCN categories are not interpreted consistently across the globe, this is not a reliable metric. Further, despite the social, economic and ecological importance of protected areas with a very low HF, our results suggest that the availability of such areas within the global protected areas network is very limited. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

EndNote Format

You can import this reference in EndNote.

BibTeX-CSV Format

You can import this reference in BibTeX-CSV format.

BibTeX Format

You can copy the BibTeX entry of this reference below, orimport it directly in a software like JabRef .

@ARTICLE { LerouxKrawchukSchmiegelowEtAl2010,
    AUTHOR = { Leroux, S.J. and Krawchuk, M.A. and Schmiegelow, F. and Cumming, S.G. and Lisgo, K. and Anderson, L.G. and Petkova, M. },
    TITLE = { Global protected areas and IUCN designations: Do the categories match the conditions? },
    JOURNAL = { Biological Conservation },
    YEAR = { 2010 },
    VOLUME = { 143 },
    PAGES = { 609-616 },
    NUMBER = { 3 },
    ABSTRACT = { Protected areas are considered fundamental to the preservation of nature. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has standardized categories for protected areas designation, which are intended to represent varying levels of regulatory protection. We evaluate whether the present assignment of protected areas to IUCN categories corresponds to the expected gradient of naturalness in a globally consistent manner. Our proxy of naturalness was a global map of human influence known as Human Footprint (HF). Higher HF values represent less intact natural areas. Our final sample of protected areas included 21,186 IUCN-designated sites that were ?1 km<sup>2</sup>. We used multiple linear regression to test for the effect of IUCN categories on mean HF while accounting for biome and protected area size. The present assignment of protected areas to IUCN categories does not correspond to the expected gradient of naturalness. We observed that IUCN Category Ia areas have higher HF than expected and Category VI protected areas have unexpectedly low HF; Category VI protected areas also are generally larger than protected areas of other categories. Reporting of area protected in different IUCN categories is one measure of progress towards meeting commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, yet because IUCN categories are not interpreted consistently across the globe, this is not a reliable metric. Further, despite the social, economic and ecological importance of protected areas with a very low HF, our results suggest that the availability of such areas within the global protected areas network is very limited. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. },
    COMMENT = { Export Date: 26 February 2010 Source: Scopus CODEN: BICOB doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.11.018 },
    ISSN = { 00063207 (ISSN) },
    KEYWORDS = { Biodiversity, Conservation, Human Footprint, Intactness, Naturalness, Protected-areas management },
    OWNER = { Luc },
    TIMESTAMP = { 2010.02.26 },
    URL = { http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-76449098852&partnerID=40&md5=6fd6a9ef7db3f631a6be2e4d29c63266 },
}

********************************************************** ***************** Facebook Twitter *********************** **********************************************************

Abonnez-vous à
l'Infolettre du CEF!

********************************************************** ***************** Pub - Symphonies_Boreales ****************** **********************************************************

********************************************************** ***************** Boîte à trucs *************** **********************************************************

CEF-Référence
La référence vedette !

Jérémie Alluard (2016) Les statistiques au moments de la rédaction 

  • Ce document a pour but de guider les étudiants à intégrer de manière appropriée une analyse statistique dans leur rapport de recherche.

Voir les autres...