Relative efforts of countries to conserve world's megafauna

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Lindsey, Peter Andrew
dc.contributor.author Chapron, Guillaume
dc.contributor.author Petracca, Lisanne S.
dc.contributor.author Burnham, Dawn
dc.contributor.author Hayward, Matt W.
dc.contributor.author Henschel, Philipp
dc.contributor.author Hinks, Amy E.
dc.contributor.author Garnett, Stephen T.
dc.contributor.author Macdonald, David W.
dc.contributor.author Macdonald, Ewan A.
dc.contributor.author Ripple, William J.
dc.contributor.author Zander, Kerstin
dc.contributor.author Dickman, Amy
dc.date.accessioned 2017-08-15T08:42:54Z
dc.date.available 2017-08-15T08:42:54Z
dc.date.issued 2017-04
dc.description.abstract Surprisingly little attention has been paid to variation among countries in contributions to conservation. As a first step, we developed a Megafauna Conservation Index (MCI) that assesses the spatial, ecological and financial contributions of 152 nations towards conservation of the world’s terrestrial megafauna. We chose megafauna because they are particularly valuable in economic, ecological and societal terms, and are challenging and expensive to conserve. We categorised these 152 countries as being above- or belowaverage performers based on whether their contribution to megafauna conservation was higher or lower than the global mean; ‘major’ performers or underperformers were those whose contribution exceeded 1 SD over or under the mean, respectively. Ninety percent of countries in North/Central America and 70% of countries in Africa were classified as major or above-average performers, while approximately one-quarter of countries in Asia (25%) and Europe (21%) were identified as major underperformers. We present our index to emphasise the need for measuring conservation performance, to help nations identify how best they could improve their efforts, and to present a starting point for the development of more robust and inclusive measures (noting how the IUCN Red List evolved over time). Our analysis points to three approaches that countries could adopt to improve their contribution to global megafauna conservation, depending on their circumstances: (1) upgrading or expanding their domestic protected area networks, with a particular emphasis on conserving large carnivore and herbivore habitat, (2) increase funding for conservation at home or abroad, or (3) ‘rewilding’ their landscapes. Once revised and perfected, we recommend publishing regular conservation rankings in the popular media to recognise major-performers, foster healthy pride and competition among nations, and identify ways for governments to improve their performance. en_ZA
dc.description.department Centre for Wildlife Management en_ZA
dc.description.department Zoology and Entomology en_ZA
dc.description.librarian am2017 en_ZA
dc.description.uri http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco en_ZA
dc.identifier.citation Lindsey, P.A., Chapron G., Petracca L.S., Burnham D., Hayward, M.W., Henschel P., Hinks A.E., Garnett S.T., Macdonald D.W., Macdonald E.A., Ripple W.J., Zander K. & Dickman A. 2017, 'Relative efforts of countries to conserve world’s megafauna', Global Ecology and Conservation, vol. 10, pp. 243-252. en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn 2351-9894 (online)
dc.identifier.other 10.1016/j.gecco.2017.03.003
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2263/61646
dc.language.iso en en_ZA
dc.publisher Elsevier en_ZA
dc.rights © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license. en_ZA
dc.subject Carnivore en_ZA
dc.subject Herbivore en_ZA
dc.subject Index en_ZA
dc.subject Global en_ZA
dc.subject Donor en_ZA
dc.subject Funding en_ZA
dc.subject Protected areas (PAs) en_ZA
dc.subject Terrestrial en_ZA
dc.subject Re-wilding en_ZA
dc.title Relative efforts of countries to conserve world's megafauna en_ZA
dc.type Article en_ZA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record