Identifying priority areas for conservation to promote connectivity and mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance

As nations seek to expand protected area (PA) networks to cover 30% of land and seas by 2030 (30×30), there is an urgent need for systematic conservation planning and spatial prioritization that considers the broad range of ecological and socioeconomic factors influencing the persistence of biodiversity. A remaining challenge in spatial prioritization is identifying areas that not only contribute to ecological connectivity but also are vulnerable to isolation and connectivity decline caused by anthropogenic disturbance. We devised an approach to assess PA networks and prioritize areas for conservation action and applied it to the Swedish coastal Baltic Sea area as an example. We developed connectivity models for 16 key fish species to identify habitats that provide the greatest contributions to maintaining network connectivity. We then incorporated spatial data on anthropogenic disturbance into the connectivity models to identify habitats for which human activities may hinder dispersal and recruitment, making them vulnerable to local population declines. We assessed the adequacy of the marine protected area (MPA) network in protecting these biodiversity features. Using spatial prioritization with explicit objectives to protect these biodiversity features, we then identified important areas for future protection. Although the Swedish MPA network provided a reasonable level of protection for these key habitats, their protection in stricter MPA categories (International Union for Conservation of Nature categories Ia, Ib, and II) was poor. Expanding the MPA network from its current coverage (10.5% of the study area) to 11%, the mean protection level across features increased from 25% to 48%. Expanding to 15% coverage increased mean protection across features to over 90%. Our approach to conservation planning incorporated not only biodiversity data (e.g., habitats and connectivity) but also the pressures these elements of biodiversity are susceptible to from human activities.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conservation Biology
Published
2025-05-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70083
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.87

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Identifying priority areas for conservation to promote connectivity and mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance

Ulf Bergström, Charlotte Berkström, Edmond Sacre
4 citations
Conservation Biology
Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
6.87
article

Identifying priority areas for conservation to promote connectivity and mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance

Ulf Bergström, Charlotte Berkström, Edmond Sacre
article en
4 citations

Abstract

As nations seek to expand protected area (PA) networks to cover 30% of land and seas by 2030 (30×30), there is an urgent need for systematic conservation planning and spatial prioritization that considers the broad range of ecological and socioeconomic factors influencing the persistence of biodiversity. A remaining challenge in spatial prioritization is identifying areas that not only contribute to ecological connectivity but also are vulnerable to isolation and connectivity decline caused by anthropogenic disturbance. We devised an approach to assess PA networks and prioritize areas for conservation action and applied it to the Swedish coastal Baltic Sea area as an example. We developed connectivity models for 16 key fish species to identify habitats that provide the greatest contributions to maintaining network connectivity. We then incorporated spatial data on anthropogenic disturbance into the connectivity models to identify habitats for which human activities may hinder dispersal and recruitment, making them vulnerable to local population declines. We assessed the adequacy of the marine protected area (MPA) network in protecting these biodiversity features. Using spatial prioritization with explicit objectives to protect these biodiversity features, we then identified important areas for future protection. Although the Swedish MPA network provided a reasonable level of protection for these key habitats, their protection in stricter MPA categories (International Union for Conservation of Nature categories Ia, Ib, and II) was poor. Expanding the MPA network from its current coverage (10.5% of the study area) to 11%, the mean protection level across features increased from 25% to 48%. Expanding to 15% coverage increased mean protection across features to over 90%. Our approach to conservation planning incorporated not only biodiversity data (e.g., habitats and connectivity) but also the pressures these elements of biodiversity are susceptible to from human activities.

Conservation BiologyVol. 39(6)
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten, European Commission, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Life below water
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
6.87
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.