Keywords :
Gap Analysis; Marxan; Protected Area Management; Representation; Threatened species
บทคัดย่อ :
Historically, designation of protected areas was biased toward specific habitats, resulting in insufficient rep- resentation of other habitats and their associated species. We identified gaps in current protected areas of the Indo-Burma Hotspot, proposed additional areas that could be included in PA systems of this hotspot to increase overall representation, and identified high priority areas for inclusion. Land cover types and threatened terrestrial vertebrate species were used as surrogates of biodiversity, and their representations were assessed using a gap analysis. Areas to be added to improve the hotspot s protected area systems were identified using Marxan software. High priority areas were selected based on irreplaceability and vulnerability. The representation of biodiversity in this hotspot is currently skewed in terms of habitats and species. There is a bias toward mammals in terms of representation (75%), while amphibians are not well represented (27%). With our optimal scenario, 21% of the hotspot s entire land area would need to be included in protected area systems, compared to 16% currently, to achieve more complete representation targets. Myanmar had the most additional areas required. Two-thirds of the additional areas needed to represent conservation features were b10 km2. Several suggested areas were located along borders between multiple countries. Representation within protected areas in the Indo-Burma Hotspot can be significantly improved by focusing on maintaining and restoring linkages between smaller patches to create and sustain larger protected area networks. As part of this enhancement, trans-boundary collaboration among countries within the hotspot will be particularly important.
เอกสารอ้างอิง :
Tantipisanuh, N., Savini, T., Cutter, P., & Gale, G. A. (2016). Biodiversity gap analysis of the protected area system of the Indo-Burma Hotspot and priorities for increasing biodiversity representation. Biological Conservation, 195, 203-213.
