“Protected areas are hugely important for conservation. Over the last 20 years there’s been a massive growth in the number of protected areas, both in the marine realm and the terrestrial realm.”
James Watson with the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Global Conservation Program and the University of Queensland.
“But what we’re noticing is that these protected areas aren’t well placed. They don’t really stop biodiversity loss in many places, because they’re not where important areas of biodiversity is. We also notice that protected areas aren’t well managed and therefore often protected areas don’t actually lead to any significant conservation outcome.”
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
To address these issues Watson and colleagues published a blueprint describing how “the scientific community can actually really help national governments and protected area managers really place protected areas that really prioritize important biodiversity areas and achieve ecological representation.”
Their report is in the journal Conservation Biology. [James E. M. Watson et al, Bolder science needed now for protected areas]
“Protected areas aren’t the only tool in the toolbox and we’ve got to make sure that other efforts actually work together holistically with protected areas. So scientists can help identify metrics that help allow us to assess this. In these three ways, scientists can really help the conservation movement ensure that the protected areas are in the right place and managed effectively and can achieve conservation outcomes in the long-term.”
—Steve Mirsky
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
