Two Strategies, Different Outcomes
An international research team led by the University of Helsinki has examined how conservation planning methods influence species survival worldwide. One widely used approach sets fixed habitat targets for every species, such as preserving 30% of its range. Another emphasizes maximizing the average area protected across all species, without promising a minimum for each one.
Trade-Offs in Species Coverage
The study shows that the average-coverage method can secure broader protection overall, benefiting many groups including mammals, corals, trees, and birds. Yet this system risks leaving certain species underrepresented or ignored entirely. By contrast, the target-driven approach ensures rare or restricted species meet minimum thresholds, but it results in lower average coverage when considering biodiversity as a whole.
Consequences for Global Conservation Goals
These findings come as countries work toward the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which seeks to conserve 30% of Earth’s land and oceans. Researchers argue that conservation planners must be clear about which strategy they choose, since each carries distinct advantages and drawbacks. They also stress that progress should be measured not only by species meeting targets but by evaluating how much habitat is secured for those that fall short.
