Extract from DOPA Factsheet: API can be used to assess the potential impact that agriculture may have on the biodiversity and ecological integrity of a protected area. There are several reasons why agricultural land use in a protected area may be of concern and lead to negative outcomes for the conservation of many of the habitats, species and ecological processes therein (see e.g. Green et al., 2005; Balmford, Green & Phalan, 2012; Cai & Pettenella, 2013). First, agriculture expansion is one of the main drivers of deforestation and habitat loss worldwide. Second, the input of pesticides and fertilizers may decrease habitat quality and cause declines in population sizes for many species, even at significant distances from the croplands. Third, agricultural activities such as tillage may affect soil structure and biodiversity. Fourth, agricultural land use can favor the abundance of more generalist, cosmopolitan species in detriment of the specialist species that are associated to largely undisturbed habitats, which are usually those species of higher conservation concern, as well as promote the spread of invasive alien species. Although the API does not separately evaluate each of these pressures or potential effects, it provides a general assessment of the potential combined magnitude of all these impacts that may be associated to agricultural land use in a protected area.

Extract from DOPA Factsheet:

PPI can be used to assess the relative potential impact that human population may have on the biodiversity and ecological integrity of a protected area, while CPPI is useful as a proxy of the changes in the potential impacts of human population in a protected area over the last 15 years. Because about 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometers of the coast, a figure that is constantly increasing, this indicator is particularly useful to assess pressures on coastal protected areas. There are several reasons why a high or increasing human population density in a protected area may be of concern and lead to negative outcomes for the conservation of the habitats, species and ecological processes therein (see e.g. Mcdonald et al., 2009; Güneralp & Seto, 2013). First, human activities may increase pollution, noise and light disturbance in marine and terrestrial protected areas. Second, human settlements and built-up areas may cause, by themselves, some habitat loss and degradation, as well as trigger additional unregulated land cover and land use changes or extractive activities within the protected area. Third, human presence in the protected area may in some cases, if not properly regulated, directly reduce wildlife populations through poaching and overfishing. Fourth, some species may avoid or be found at lower abundances near human settlements, as related to the impacts just mentioned. Fifth, a higher human population density may increase the number and the spread rates of invasive species, including new diseases to which native species may have no or may only have a weak immunity response, as well as of disturbances like forest fires. Even if no invasions of alien species occur, humans may also indirectly favor the abundance of more generalist, cosmopolitan species in detriment of the specialist species that are associated to largely undisturbed habitats, which are usually those species of higher conservation concern. Although the PPI and CPPI do not separately evaluate each of these pressures or potential effects, they provide a general assessment of the potential combined magnitude of all these impacts that may be associated to human populations living in a protected area. These impacts are exacerbated in protected areas with poor management, enforcement or institutional support, and are likely to be significantly lower in effectively managed protected areas in which the impacts of humans on biodiversity and ecosystems are minimized through appropriate regulation and support to the activities, such as traditional ones, that are compatible with the conservation objectives. Protected areas can in many cases, if they are well managed, supported and funded, provide opportunities for enhancing the livelihoods of local communities, promoting job creation and reducing poverty, as well as help to maintain the ecosystem services on which many communities depend, thereby contributing both to biodiversity conservation and to the long-term sustainability of human activities in and around protected areas (Scherl et al., 2004; EU 2015). For further discussions on population growth near protected areas, we also refer to Wittemyer et al. (2008) and Joppa, Loarie & Pimm (2009) who obtain contradicting conclusions.

The chart shows the percentage of the forest cover (measured in the year 2000) that has been lost to deforestation between the years 2001 and 2016 separately for areas outside and inside protected areas. The definition for 'forest' is taken as >10% canopy cover in the year 2000. Protected areas have been filtered to exclude those that are not designated, inscribed or established or those that are UNESCO-MAB Biosphere Reserves. Where protected areas overlap, they have been combined into a single feature to avoid duplication of area figures. All protected areas have been clipped to terrestrial boundaries.

The areas in pink on the map are areas of deforestation between 2001 and 2014 and are provided by Global Forest Watch (Source: Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA).

The data sources used are the Global Forest Change dataset (Source: Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA) and the World Database of Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2018), Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) July 2018, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN Available at: www.protectedplanet.net.).

The chart shows the forest cover loss (measured in Km2) within protected areas between the years 2001 and 2016. The areas in pink on the map are areas of deforestation between 2001 and 2014 and are provided by Global Forest Watch (Source: Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA). The data sources used are the Global Forest Change dataset (Source: Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA) and the World Database of Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2018), Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) July 2018, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN Available at: www.protectedplanet.net.).

Extract from the DOPA Factsheet:

PPI can be used to assess the relative potential impact that human population may have on the biodiversity and ecological integrity of a protected area, while CPPI is useful as a proxy of the changes in the potential impacts of human population in a protected area over the last 15 years. Because about 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometers of the coast, a figure that is constantly increasing, this indicator is particularly useful to assess pressures on coastal protected areas. There are several reasons why a high or increasing human population density in a protected area may be of concern and lead to negative outcomes for the conservation of the habitats, species and ecological processes therein (see e.g. Mcdonald et al., 2009; Güneralp & Seto, 2013). First, human activities may increase pollution, noise and light disturbance in marine and terrestrial protected areas. Second, human settlements and built-up areas may cause, by themselves, some habitat loss and degradation, as well as trigger additional unregulated land cover and land use changes or extractive activities within the protected area. Third, human presence in the protected area may in some cases, if not properly regulated, directly reduce wildlife populations through poaching and overfishing. Fourth, some species may avoid or be found at lower abundances near human settlements, as related to the impacts just mentioned. Fifth, a higher human population density may increase the number and the spread rates of invasive species, including new diseases to which native species may have no or may only have a weak immunity response, as well as of disturbances like forest fires. Even if no invasions of alien species occur, humans may also indirectly favor the abundance of more generalist, cosmopolitan species in detriment of the specialist species that are associated to largely undisturbed habitats, which are usually those species of higher conservation concern. Although the PPI and CPPI do not separately evaluate each of these pressures or potential effects, they provide a general assessment of the potential combined magnitude of all these impacts that may be associated to human populations living in a protected area. These impacts are exacerbated in protected areas with poor management, enforcement or institutional support, and are likely to be significantly lower in effectively managed protected areas in which the impacts of humans on biodiversity and ecosystems are minimized through appropriate regulation and support to the activities, such as traditional ones, that are compatible with the conservation objectives. Protected areas can in many cases, if they are well managed, supported and funded, provide opportunities for enhancing the livelihoods of local communities, promoting job creation and reducing poverty, as well as help to maintain the ecosystem services on which many communities depend, thereby contributing both to biodiversity conservation and to the long-term sustainability of human activities in and around protected areas (Scherl et al., 2004; EU 2015). For further discussions on population growth near protected areas, we also refer to Wittemyer et al. (2008) and Joppa, Loarie & Pimm (2009) who obtain contradicting conclusions.

Extract from DOPA Factsheet:

RPI can be used to assess the relative potential impact that roads may have on the biodiversity and ecological integrity of a protected area. There are several reasons why an increased number and density of roads in a protected area, as assessed by RPI, may lead to negative outcomes for the conservation of the habitats, species and ecological processes in the protected area (see e.g. Laurance, Goosem & Laurance 2009; Laurance et al., 2014; Haddad et al., 2015). First, there is the direct effect of habitat loss by road construction. Second, many species avoid or are found at reduced population densities in the proximity of roads, in some cases up to several kilometers of distance from the infrastructure. Third, and related to the just mentioned population responses, roads increase chemical pollution, noise and light disturbance, and wildlife mortality due to collisions with vehicles. Fourth, roads can fragment habitats and act as barriers that reduce functional connectivity in and around the protected areas. Fifth, roads provide an intrusion of edge effects in natural areas, which tends to favor more generalist, cosmopolitan species in detriment of the specialist species that are associated to large core areas of intact habitats, which are usually those species of higher conservation concern. Sixth, roads facilitate human access to natural areas, which may be accompanied by an increase in poaching, deforestation, mining or other activities that are potentially harmful for wildlife and ecosystem functioning. Finally, roads can act as an entry point and expansion gateway for invasive species, which are frequently aided by human transportation. Although the RPI does not separately evaluate each of these pressures, it provides a general assessment of the potential combined magnitude of all these road-related effects in a given protected area.