Not all protected areas are created equal: quality vs quantity in the quest to achieve 30 × 30

Abstract The adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework empowers signatory countries to take meaningful action in addressing the global biodiversity crisis. The framework’s first eight targets are aimed at directly reducing threats to biodiversity, with Target 3 calling for the global protection of at least 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas by 2030. We use the protected area networks to assess progress toward achieving the quantitative 30 × 30 target and ecological representation within, as well as specific elements of Targets 1, 3, 4, and 8, on ecological integrity, threatened species, species richness and climate stable areas for six signatory countries: Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. We quantified the extent and degree of protection of terrestrial and inland water areas in each country and the representation of ecoregions and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) within each country’s protected area network (Target 3). We used species distribution maps to assess whether identified hotspots of threatened species and species richness were protected by the protected area networks (Target 4). We also quantified the extent to which climate-stable areas (Target 8), and large intact ecosystems (Target 1) were captured by protected area networks. Our findings revealed substantial variation in protection levels across countries. While Germany and New Zealand have exceeded their 30 × 30 commitments, Canada and Finland continue to lag behind. Levels of strict protection were particularly high in Canada, Finland, and New Zealand. While Australia, Canada, and Finland protect large areas of intact ecosystems, threatened species hotspots, species richness hotspots, and climate-stable areas were poorly represented across most protected area networks, and less than half of all ecoregions had 30% or more of their areas protected. With the 2030 deadline fast approaching, these findings highlight key gaps and provide actionable guidance to strengthen progress toward Targets 1, 3, 4, and 8.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biodiversity and Conservation
Published
2025-09-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-025-03138-2
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Economic and Environmental Valuation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.26
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Not all protected areas are created equal: quality vs quantity in the quest to achieve 30 × 30

Jonathan R. Cole, Cheryl A. Johnson
2 citations
Biodiversity and Conservation
Economic and Environmental Valuation
6.26
article

Not all protected areas are created equal: quality vs quantity in the quest to achieve 30 × 30

Jonathan R. Cole, Cheryl A. Johnson
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract The adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework empowers signatory countries to take meaningful action in addressing the global biodiversity crisis. The framework’s first eight targets are aimed at directly reducing threats to biodiversity, with Target 3 calling for the global protection of at least 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas by 2030. We use the protected area networks to assess progress toward achieving the quantitative 30 × 30 target and ecological representation within, as well as specific elements of Targets 1, 3, 4, and 8, on ecological integrity, threatened species, species richness and climate stable areas for six signatory countries: Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. We quantified the extent and degree of protection of terrestrial and inland water areas in each country and the representation of ecoregions and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) within each country’s protected area network (Target 3). We used species distribution maps to assess whether identified hotspots of threatened species and species richness were protected by the protected area networks (Target 4). We also quantified the extent to which climate-stable areas (Target 8), and large intact ecosystems (Target 1) were captured by protected area networks. Our findings revealed substantial variation in protection levels across countries. While Germany and New Zealand have exceeded their 30 × 30 commitments, Canada and Finland continue to lag behind. Levels of strict protection were particularly high in Canada, Finland, and New Zealand. While Australia, Canada, and Finland protect large areas of intact ecosystems, threatened species hotspots, species richness hotspots, and climate-stable areas were poorly represented across most protected area networks, and less than half of all ecoregions had 30% or more of their areas protected. With the 2030 deadline fast approaching, these findings highlight key gaps and provide actionable guidance to strengthen progress toward Targets 1, 3, 4, and 8.

Biodiversity and ConservationVol. 34(12)
Environment and Climate Change Canada (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Economic and Environmental Valuation
6.26
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.