Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70217649

Identification of Global Priorities for New Mountain Protected and Conserved Areas

Peter Jacobs·Erik A. Beever·Clinton Carbutt·Marc Foggin·Diego Juffe-Bignoli·Madeline Thomas Martin·Shane Orchard·Roger Sayre
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Mountain ecosystems are extremely diverse and fragile. They include astonishing biodiversity in terms of number of taxa and endemicity, and globally provide the most diverse range of ecosystem services. The world’s system of protected and conserved areas includes many outstanding areas within the earth’s mountainous landscape: about 19% of mountain areas are protected or conserved, globally. Furthermore, approximately 90% of the most-strongly-protected conservation estate occurs in mountains. Nevertheless, significant mountain areas are not adequately protected, and many mountain ranges are completely unprotected. Of over 6000 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) in mountains worldwide, 40.4% are entirely unprotected. As the world conservation movement advocates to expand the global coverage of terrestrial protected areas over the next decade toward 30%, identifying priorities for new mountain protected and conserved areas will be most efficacious if it takes a strategic approach to ensure areas of highest value and most in need of protection are identified. This paper introduces an iterative six-step decision support tool for identifying and prioritizing candidate areas for conserving inadequately protected mountain ecosystems, species, and habitats. The tool begins with quantitative analyses of the adequacy of protection of mountain KBAs, world terrestrial ecosystems, biodiversity hotspots, and red-listed species. It then guides regional teams through qualitative assessments of other values to develop lists of priority areas to give heightened consideration for protection or conservation. The tool is framed on the notion that any of the more than 6000 mountain KBAs can be allocated into one of nine categories: four that identify inadequately protected areas prioritised for heightened consideration, two for which no further action is required unless circumstances change, and three not requiring further action due to being deemed adequately protected.

Explore related subjects

Final ReportReport

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Peter Jacobs, Erik A. Beever, Clinton Carbutt, Marc Foggin, Diego Juffe-Bignoli, Madeline Thomas Martin, Shane Orchard, Roger Sayre. 2021. Identification of Global Priorities for New Mountain Protected and Conserved Areas. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70217649

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Future of the Colorado River phase 2: Integrated operation of the Powell/Grand Canyon/Mead segment for water supply, hydropower, and river ecosystems

State and federal agencies are negotiating water-supply agreements that may govern water supply and storage in the Colorado River Basin through 2046. Current operating policies in the Colorado River primarily focus on water supply implications with less focus on the potential effects to other resources. Models that forecast the response of multiple resources over the short- and long-term term to water supply decisions could lead to greater consideration of these resources in future water supply decision making. In this project, we developed a dynamic programming tool to identify potential release decisions that help maximize different management objectives under different scenarios for storing water in Lake Mead and Lake Powell in attempt to inform efforts to consider multiple resources. We ask, “ How can decisions under different reservoir storage scenarios affect river resource management objectives, what are the trade-offs among these objectives, and how can we consider more resources when making water supply decisions? ”.

Colorado River↗
USGS2026

Future aquatic invaders of the Northeast U.S.: How climate change, human vectors, and natural history could bring southern and western species north

As environmental conditions change, land managers are increasingly concerned about the potential for new aquatic invasive species to move into their jurisdictions. Because managers may have limited resources, detecting invasive species early is important as prevention is more effective and less costly than ongoing mitigation of established populations. Tools built to assist early detection efforts often use information on pathways of spread (how species move through a landscape) and maps of suitability (where habitat allows a species to live and reproduce). While each is useful, information on pathways or suitability alone provides only a part of the story of invasion risk. To better anticipate the risk of invasive species expanding their ranges into the Northeast U.S., there is a need to improve the way we combine and use pathways and suitability information, especially across large areas (e.g., states, regions). To fill this need, we took a new approach that combines estimates of current and future suitability with a diverse variety of pathways that gives us invasion risk scores for more than 100 freshwater invaders (fishes, plants, and invertebrates) across the Northeast U.S. In this report, we provide an overview of our methodology, results, and a description of the ongoing work to make the data publicly available. This work can be used to aid early detection efforts and associated management activities at state and local levels, including the identification of invasion risk hotspots and ranking of individual species risk to help anticipate and prevent invader establishment.

northeast United States↗