72
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Understanding the Impacts of Land-Use Policies on a Threatened Species: Is There a Future for the Bornean Orang-utan?

      research-article
      1 , * , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 4 , 5 , 18 , 13 , 2 , 19 , 20 , 19 , 21 , 21 , 22 , 20 , 19 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 19 , 26 , 27 , 19 , 28 , 29 , 26 , 21 , 19 , 30 , 13 , 19 , 25 , 27 , 31 , 32 , 33
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The geographic distribution of Bornean orang-utans and its overlap with existing land-use categories (protected areas, logging and plantation concessions) is a necessary foundation to prioritize conservation planning. Based on an extensive orang-utan survey dataset and a number of environmental variables, we modelled an orang-utan distribution map. The modelled orang-utan distribution map covers 155,106 km 2 (21% of Borneo's landmass) and reveals four distinct distribution areas. The most important environmental predictors are annual rainfall and land cover. The overlap of the orang-utan distribution with land-use categories reveals that only 22% of the distribution lies in protected areas, but that 29% lies in natural forest concessions. A further 19% and 6% occurs in largely undeveloped oil palm and tree plantation concessions, respectively. The remaining 24% of the orang-utan distribution range occurs outside of protected areas and outside of concessions. An estimated 49% of the orang-utan distribution will be lost if all forest outside of protected areas and logging concessions is lost. To avoid this potential decline plantation development in orang-utan habitats must be halted because it infringes on national laws of species protection. Further growth of the plantation sector should be achieved through increasing yields in existing plantations and expansion of new plantations into areas that have already been deforested. To reach this goal a large scale island-wide land-use masterplan is needed that clarifies which possible land uses and managements are allowed in the landscape and provides new standardized strategic conservation policies. Such a process should make much better use of non-market values of ecosystem services of forests such as water provision, flood control, carbon sequestration, and sources of livelihood for rural communities. Presently land use planning is more driven by vested interests and direct and immediate economic gains, rather than by approaches that take into consideration social equity and environmental sustainability.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s.

          Global demand for agricultural products such as food, feed, and fuel is now a major driver of cropland and pasture expansion across much of the developing world. Whether these new agricultural lands replace forests, degraded forests, or grasslands greatly influences the environmental consequences of expansion. Although the general pattern is known, there still is no definitive quantification of these land-cover changes. Here we analyze the rich, pan-tropical database of classified Landsat scenes created by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations to examine pathways of agricultural expansion across the major tropical forest regions in the 1980s and 1990s and use this information to highlight the future land conversions that probably will be needed to meet mounting demand for agricultural products. Across the tropics, we find that between 1980 and 2000 more than 55% of new agricultural land came at the expense of intact forests, and another 28% came from disturbed forests. This study underscores the potential consequences of unabated agricultural expansion for forest conservation and carbon emissions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The shuttle radar topography mission—a new class of digital elevation models acquired by spaceborne radar

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              High and Far: Biases in the Location of Protected Areas

              Background About an eighth of the earth's land surface is in protected areas (hereafter “PAs”), most created during the 20th century. Natural landscapes are critical for species persistence and PAs can play a major role in conservation and in climate policy. Such contributions may be harder than expected to implement if new PAs are constrained to the same kinds of locations that PAs currently occupy. Methodology/Principal Findings Quantitatively extending the perception that PAs occupy “rock and ice”, we show that across 147 nations PA networks are biased towards places that are unlikely to face land conversion pressures even in the absence of protection. We test each country's PA network for bias in elevation, slope, distances to roads and cities, and suitability for agriculture. Further, within each country's set of PAs, we also ask if the level of protection is biased in these ways. We find that the significant majority of national PA networks are biased to higher elevations, steeper slopes and greater distances to roads and cities. Also, within a country, PAs with higher protection status are more biased than are the PAs with lower protection statuses. Conclusions/Significance In sum, PAs are biased towards where they can least prevent land conversion (even if they offer perfect protection). These globally comprehensive results extend findings from nation-level analyses. They imply that siting rules such as the Convention on Biological Diversity's 2010 Target [to protect 10% of all ecoregions] might raise PA impacts if applied at the country level. In light of the potential for global carbon-based payments for avoided deforestation or REDD, these results suggest that attention to threat could improve outcomes from the creation and management of PAs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2012
                7 November 2012
                : 7
                : 11
                : e49142
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Centre in Evolutionary Anthropology and Palaeoecology, School of Natural Sciences and Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Centre for International Forestry Research, Situ Gede, Bogor Barat, West Java, Indonesia
                [3 ]Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Sabah Wildlife Department, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
                [5 ]HUTAN, Kinabatangan Orang-utan Conservation Programme, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
                [6 ]North England Zoological Society, Chester Zoo, Chester, United Kingdom
                [7 ]The Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, Massachusetts, United States of America
                [8 ]Orangutan Foundation, London, United Kingdom
                [9 ]Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, California, United States of America
                [10 ]Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America
                [11 ]Departments of Anthropology and Biological Sciences, Program in Integrative and Evolutionary Biology (IEB), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States of America
                [12 ]GFA/KWF, Kapuas Hulu Program, West Kalimantan, Indonesia
                [13 ]Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Programme (PanEco-YEL), Medan, Sumatra, Indonesia
                [14 ]Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics/Zoological Museum, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [15 ]Danau Girang Field Centre, c/o Sabah Willife Department, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
                [16 ]Organisms and Environment Division, Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
                [17 ]Orangutan Tropical Peatland Project, c/o the Center for International Cooperation in the Sustainable Management of Tropical Peatlands (CIMTROP), University of Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia
                [18 ]Department of Anthropology, Graduate Group in Ecology, Animal Behavior Graduate Group, University of California Davis, California, United States of America
                [19 ]Forum Orangutan Indonesia (FORINA), Bogor, West Java, Indonesia
                [20 ]The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Jakarta, Indonesia
                [21 ]Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation (BOSF), Nyaru Menteng, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia
                [22 ]World Wide Fund for Nature-Indonesia (WWF-Indonesia), Sebangau Conservation Program/University of Palangkaraya, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia
                [23 ]Flora and Fauna International-Indonesia, Ragunan, Jakarta, Indonesia
                [24 ]Lembaga Living Landscapes Indonesia (LLI), Pontianak, West Kalimantan, Indonesia
                [25 ]Biology Faculty, Universitas Nasional (UNAS), Jakarta, Indonesia
                [26 ]Yayasan Orangutan Indonesia (YAYORIN), Pangkalan Bun, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia
                [27 ]Anthropological Institute and Museum, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
                [28 ]Restorasi Habitat Orangutan Indonesia (RHOI), Bogor, West Java, Indonesia
                [29 ]Anthropology Program, Department of Religious Studies and Anthropology, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, United States of America
                [30 ]World Wide Fund for Nature-Indonesia (WWF-Indonesia), West Kalimantan Program, Indonesia
                [31 ]People and Nature Consulting International, Ciputat, Jakarta, Indonesia
                [32 ]School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
                [33 ]School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
                Texas A & M University, United States of America
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: E. Meijaard is presently employed by People and Nature Consulting International (PNCI). PNCI had no role in the study, and the company does not benefit financially from the research. The affiliation with PNCI does not alter E. Meijaard's adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: SAW DG NA MA E. Meijaard. Performed the experiments: SAW DG NA MA GU E. Meijaard. Analyzed the data: SAW DG NA MA GU E. Meijaard. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SAW DG NA MA AB SB LC RAD AE GMF BG SJH IL AJM A. Naomi E. Molidena N A. Nurcahyo KO AP PAR DR AHS IS CPS JS SS ES AS AT GU SSUA EPW E. Meijaard. Wrote the paper: SAW DG NA MA E. Meijaard.

                Article
                PONE-D-12-28575
                10.1371/journal.pone.0049142
                3492325
                23145100
                e56de4d3-565b-4021-aa90-93673d039aab
                Copyright @ 2012

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 13 September 2012
                : 1 October 2012
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Funding
                The authors thank the Arcus Foundation for providing financial support for the mapping workshop and write-up. The Arcus Foundation had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Agriculture
                Agroecology
                Agro-Population Ecology
                Biology
                Computational Biology
                Population Modeling
                Ecology
                Agroecology
                Agro-Population Ecology
                Conservation Science
                Population Ecology
                Terrestrial Ecology
                Population Biology
                Population Ecology
                Population Metrics
                Population Modeling

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article