ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1191-7610
Current Organisations
IT University of Copenhagen
,
Københavns Universitet
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 25-11-2021
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 20-04-2022
DOI: 10.1038/S41586-022-04617-0
Abstract: International policy is focused on increasing the proportion of the Earth's surface that is protected for nature
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 08-02-2018
DOI: 10.1111/CONL.12434
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 30-08-2021
DOI: 10.1038/S41559-021-01542-9
Abstract: The Anthropocene is characterized by unparalleled human impact on other species, potentially ushering in the sixth mass extinction. Yet mitigation efforts remain h ered by limited information on the spatial patterns and intensity of the threats driving global bio ersity loss. Here we use expert-derived information from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List on threats to 23,271 species, representing all terrestrial hibians, birds and mammals, to generate global maps of the six major threats to these groups: agriculture, hunting and trapping, logging, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. Our results show that agriculture and logging are pervasive in the tropics and that hunting and trapping is the most geographically widespread threat to mammals and birds. Additionally, current representations of human pressure underestimate the overall pressure on bio ersity, due to the exclusion of threats such as hunting and climate change. Alarmingly, this is particularly the case in areas of the highest bio ersity importance.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 29-04-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S13750-020-00191-Y
Abstract: Establishing protected areas is a key approach to protecting nature. However, protected areas are often biased towards remote and less productive lands. It is important to evaluate the impacts protected areas have had, or in other words, what changes in outcomes of interest are attributable to protected areas. Studies that evaluate the impact of protected areas on vegetation—the state and processes that support bio ersity—are scarce and published in a range of disciplines. This systematic review will scope, identify, and synthesize studies that quantitatively measure the impact of protected areas on vegetation extent and condition. The findings will be useful for researchers and policy makers and provide important knowledge for setting post 2020 targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This review will also identify research gaps in the current evidence base and provide direction for future research. This review follows the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence guidelines for evidence synthesis and complies with the ROSES (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Synthesis) reporting framework. We will use a comprehensive search strategy developed through several rounds of scoping review to cover databases Web of Science, Scopus and CAB Abstracts, 16 organizational websites, google scholar and existing review documents. Our search terms and strategies aim to find impact evaluation studies (both peer-reviewed and grey literature) in English from protected areas globally. The search results will be screened at title, abstract, and then full text by two independent reviewers. A quality appraisal of evidence will be conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) risk of bias tool. Review results will be presented in the form of narrative synthesis, as well as in meta-analysis form, where data quality and amount allow.
Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Date: 22-04-2016
Abstract: Only 5% of global threat data sets meet a “gold standard”
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 25-03-2020
DOI: 10.20944/PREPRINTS202003.0370.V1
Abstract: Work has begun in earnest to formulate a post-2020 Global Bio ersity Framework which will outline the vision and targets for the next decade of bio ersity conservation and beyond. However, the performance of the 2011-2020 Strategic Plan for Bio ersity suggests that even a meaningful target can fail to deliver if not accompanied by fit-for-purpose indicators. Here we provide a review of how & lsquo rotected area& rsquo effectiveness was addressed in the 2011-2020 plan and based on this, provide recommendations for fit-for-purpose indicators that will measure how such efforts contribute to the conservation of bio ersity. Indicators need to be built on quantitative data from site-level bio ersity monitoring of species and ecosystems combined with measurements of the state of nature in near-time, informed by remote-sensed products and other technologies. Additionally, indicators need to capture whether the essential elements of good management are in place including the identification of ecological values, threats, and objectives, equitable governance, and sufficient management resources and capacity. These fit-for-purpose indicators will require multilateral collaboration to galvanize support for, and resources to develop, the necessary infrastructure to collate and store information from countries.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2021
Publisher: PeerJ
Date: 21-06-2019
DOI: 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.27741V2
Abstract: There is increasing interest in the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) for supporting populations of wildlife. While there are a number of association studies showing a relationship between protected areas and abundance or trends in wild species, studies with an appropriate counterfactual (what would have happened in the absence of protection) are rare. We use the world’s largest database on waterbird counts (covering 587 species at 21,989 sites globally) to answer three questions: 1) Do PAs have a positive impact on waterbird population trends relative to a counterfactual (this includes cases where a PA has lessened, but not halted, a population decline)? 2) are PAs performing successfully by maintaining or increasing populations? and 3) what factors contribute to PA impact and performance? We selected 15,703 waterbird populations (here defined as a site species combination), consisting of 311 species at 870 protected sites, where PA designation occurred at least 5 years after the first survey date, and 5 years before the last. We will use this to compare trends before PA designation to those afterwards. We then matched these sites to unprotected sites with similar covariates in the years before PA designation, resulting in a matching dataset of 6,451 populations pairs consisting of 39 species at 769 pairs of protected and unprotected sites. We will use this to compare trends both before and after PA designation and inside and outside of PAs. Our results will shed light on the impact of PA on hundreds of waterbird species, providing much needed evidence regarding PA effectiveness. As PA performance is a sensitive subject and it is important to develop hypotheses before knowing the results (especially for the relatively complex data analysis used in matching protected and unprotected sites), we present a pre-analysis plan. This will ensure that the final paper’s analyses are hypotheses testing, rather than generating, and avoids the risk of, or perception of, data dredging.
Publisher: Research Square Platform LLC
Date: 05-06-2023
DOI: 10.21203/RS.3.RS-2861352/V1
Abstract: Globally, vertebrate abundance has declined, and species’ extinction rates have increased, at unprecedented rates over recent decades 1,2. In response, targeted species interventions, such as conservation breeding programmes, legislative measures or species-specific habitat management, have been used to help address population declines and reduce and reverse the loss of bio ersity 3,4. Until now, assessments of conservation actions have focused on the extent to which they reduce extinction risk or focus on the impact of protected areas 4–9. Here, we extend our knowledge of conservation efficacy by quantifying the impact of targeted conservation actions on vertebrate abundance, analyzing data from 26,904 vertebrate populations across 4,629 species worldwide. Using a counterfactual approach to represent population trends in the absence of conservation, we show that targeted actions have delivered substantial positive effects on the abundance of recipient vertebrate populations worldwide. Positive trends were especially observed in vertebrate populations subject to species or habitat management. Our results provide compelling evidence that, with sufficient and sustained resourcing and commitment, successful implementation of Target 4 of the recently adopted Kunming-Montreal Global Bio ersity Framework can readily help reverse global bio ersity loss and put nature on a path to recovery.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 06-05-2019
DOI: 10.1002/FEE.2042
Publisher: PeerJ
Date: 17-05-2019
DOI: 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.27741V1
Abstract: There is increasing interest in the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) for supporting populations of wildlife. While there are a number of association studies showing a relationship between protected areas and abundance or trends in wild species, studies with an appropriate counterfactual (what would have happened in the absence of protection) are rare. We use the world’s largest database on waterbird counts (covering 587 species at 21,989 sites globally) to answer three questions: 1) Do PAs have a positive impact on waterbird population trends relative to a counterfactual (this includes cases where a PA has lessened, but not halted, a population decline)? 2) are PAs performing successfully by maintaining or increasing populations? and 3) what factors contribute to PA impact and performance? We selected 9,650 waterbird populations (here defined as a site species combination), consisting of 262 species at 546 protected sites, where PA designation occurred at least 5 years after the first survey date, and 5 years before the last. We will use this to compare trends before PA designation to those afterwards. We then matched these sites to unprotected sites with similar covariates in the years before PA designation, resulting in a matching dataset of 3,677 populations consisting of 94 species at 514 pairs of protected and unprotected sites. We will use this to compare trends both before and after PA designation and inside and outside of PAs. Our results will shed light on the impact of PA on hundreds of waterbird species, providing much needed evidence regarding PA effectiveness. As PA performance is a sensitive subject and it is important to develop hypotheses before knowing the results (especially for the relatively complex data analysis used in matching protected and unprotected sites), we present a pre-analysis plan. This will ensure that the final paper’s analyses are hypotheses testing, rather than generating, and avoids the risk of, or perception of, data dredging.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 09-12-2021
DOI: 10.1038/S41598-021-03188-W
Abstract: Protected areas aim to conserve nature, ecosystem services, and cultural values however, they have variable success in doing so under high development pressure. Southeast Asian protected areas faced the highest level of human pressure at the turn of the twenty-first century. To estimate their effectiveness in conserving forest cover and forest carbon stocks for 2000–2018, we used statistical matching methods to control for the non-random location of protected areas, to compare protection against a matched counterfactual. We found Southeast Asian protected areas had three times less forest cover loss than similar landscapes without protection. Protected areas that had completed management reporting using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) conserved significantly more forest cover and forest carbon stocks than those that had not. Management scores were positively associated with the level of carbon emissions avoided, but not the level of forest cover loss avoided. Our study is the first to find that METT scores could predict the level of carbon emissions avoided in protected areas. Given that only 11% of protected areas in Southeast Asia had completed METT surveys, our results illustrate the need to scale-up protected area management effectiveness reporting programs to improve their effectiveness for conserving forests, and for storing and sequestering carbon.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 24-02-2015
DOI: 10.1111/CONL.12158
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2021
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 04-02-2021
DOI: 10.1111/CONL.12792
Abstract: Work on the post‐2020 global bio ersity framework is now well advanced and will outline a vision, goals, and targets for the next decade of bio ersity conservation and beyond. For the effectiveness of Protected areas and Other Effective area‐based Conservation Measures, an indicator has been proposed for “areas meeting their documented ecological objectives.” However, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has not identified or agreed on what data should inform this indicator. Here we draw on experiences from the assessment of protected area effectiveness in the CBD's previous strategic plan to provide recommendations on the essential elements related to bio ersity outcomes and management that need to be captured in this updated indicator as well as how this could be done. Our proposed protected area effectiveness indicators include a combination of remotely derived products for all protected areas, combined with data from monitoring of both protected area management and trends in species and ecosystems based on field observations. Additionally, we highlight the need for creating a digital infrastructure to operationalize national‐level data‐capture. We believe these steps are critical and urge the adoption of suitable protected area effectiveness indicators before the post‐2020 framework is agreed in 2021.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Jonas Geldmann.