Abstract
AbstractBiodiversity indicators are used to assess progress towards conservation and sustainability goals. However, the spatial scales, methods and assumptions of the underlying reporting metrics can affect the provided information. Using mountain ecosystems as an example, we compare biodiversity protection at subnational scale using the site-based approach of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDG indicator 15.4.1) with an area-based approach compatible with the targets of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation,Urban Studies,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Ecology,Geography, Planning and Development,Food Science,Global and Planetary Change
Reference23 articles.
1. Evans, M. C., Davila, F., Toomey, A. & Wyborn, C. Embrace complexity to improve conservation decision making. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1588 (2017).
2. Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Conservation needs to integrate knowledge across scales. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 118–119 (2022).
3. Wyborn, C. & Evans, M. C. Conservation needs to break free from global priority mapping. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1322–1324 (2021).
4. Klasen, S. & Fleurbaey, M. Leaving no one behind: some conceptual and empirical issues. J. Glob. Dev. 9, 20180045 (2019).
5. Körner, C. Mountain biodiversity, its causes and function. Ambio 13, 11–17 (2004).
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献