How well connected are the terrestrial protected area systems at the country level? This indicator can be used to assess the degree to which the spatial arrangement of Protected Areas (PAs) is successful in ensuring connectivity of protected lands; to monitor the country progress towards Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and design where additional efforts are most needed in expanding or reinforcing the connectivity of PA systems.
Reference: Saura, S., Bastin, L., Battistella, L., Mandrici, A., Dubois, G. 2017. Protected areas in the world’s ecoregions: how well connected are they? Ecological Indicators, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.047
---
Data Uploaded by Luca Battistella using the Digital Observatory for Protected Areas Services (2022)
Connectivity of terrestrial protected areas
The degree to which the spatial arrangement of Protected Areas (PAs) is successful in ensuring connectivity of protected lands
Connectivity of terrestrial protected areas
The map shows the Percentage of country area covered by protected connected lands. The values of Protected Connected land (ProtConn, % of ecoregion area covered by protected connected lands), calculated for a reference median species dispersal distance of 10 km, and of protected area coverage (% of ecoregion area under protection) for all terrestrial ecoregions of the world (lakes and Antarctica excluded).
The indicator considers the spatial arrangement, size and coverage of protected areas (PAs), and accounts for both the land area that can be reached within PAs and that which is reachable through the connections between different PAs. The analysis includes all designated PAs in the WDPA (polygons and buffered points) not smaller than 1 km2, except UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, and is conducted for a range of median dispersal distances (1 to 100 km) observed for most terrestrial vertebrates. The indicator is calculated through network analysis, with the Probability of Connectivity and the Equivalent Connected Area as the underlying metrics.
For more details see Saura et al. (2017).