Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Hilty, G. Worboys, A. Keeley, S. Woodley, Barbara Lausche, H. Locke, Mark Carr, I. Pulsford, J. Pittock, J. White, D. Theobald, J. Levine, M. Reuling, J. Watson, R. Ament, C. Groves, G. Tabor (2020)
Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors
Azadeh Karimi, Kendall Jones (2020)
Assessing national human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation in IranAmbio, 49
Mary Toews, F. Juanes, A., Cole Burton (2017)
Mammal responses to human footprint vary with spatial extent but not with spatial grainEcosphere, 8
T. Saaty (2008)
DECISION MAKING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESSInternational Journal of Services Sciences, 1
(1977)
Mapping habitat connectivity for greater sage-grouse in Oregon's sage-grouse conservation partnership (SageCon) assessment area The Nature Conservancy OR Karimi A
(1977)
Optimal data classification for choropleth maps. University of Kansas Occasional Paper, Department of Geographiy
R. Barrientos, Luís Borda-de-Água (2017)
Railways as Barriers for Wildlife: Current Knowledge
R. Mittermeier, W. Turner, F. Larsen, T. Brooks, C. Gascon (2011)
Global Biodiversity Conservation: The Critical Role of Hotspots
R. McDonald, R. Forman, P. Kareiva, Rachel Neugarten, D. Salzer, Jonathan Fisher (2009)
Urban effects, distance, and protected areas in an urbanizing worldLandscape and Urban Planning, 93
M. Makhdoum (2008)
Management of protected areas and conservation of biodiversity in IranInternational Journal of Environmental Studies, 65
O. Ghadirian, H. Moradi, H. Madadi, A. Lotfi, J. Senn (2019)
Identifying noise disturbance by roads on wildlife: a case study in central IranSN Applied Sciences, 1
EW Sanderson, M Jaiteh, MA Levy, KH Redford, AV Wannebo, G Woolmer (2002)
The human footprint and the last of the wild: the human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or notBioscience, 52
C. Akumu, J. Henry, T. Gala, S. Dennis, C. Reddy, F. Tegegne, S. Haile, R. Archer (2018)
Inland wetlands mapping and vulnerability assessment using an integrated geographic information system and remote sensing techniquesGlobal Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 4
R. Khosravi, M. Hemami, S. Cushman (2019)
Multi-scale niche modeling of three sympatric felids of conservation importance in central IranLandscape Ecology, 34
A. Farashi, M. Shariati, Mahshid Hosseini (2017)
Identifying biodiversity hotspots for threatened mammal species in IranMammalian Biology, 87
A. Santos, M. Tabarelli (2002)
Distance from roads and cities as a predictor of habitat loss and fragmentation in the caatinga vegetation of Brazil.Brazilian journal of biology = Revista brasleira de biologia, 62 4B
V. Bennett (2017)
Effects of Road Density and Pattern on the Conservation of Species and BiodiversityCurrent Landscape Ecology Reports, 2
A. Farashi, M. Shariati (2017)
Biodiversity hotspots and conservation gaps in IranJournal for Nature Conservation, 39
Swades Pal, Swapan Talukdar (2018)
Application of frequency ratio and logistic regression models for assessing physical wetland vulnerability in Punarbhaba river basin of Indo-BangladeshHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 24
(2016)
Aizen MA (2016) Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on pollinators, pollination and food
M. D’Amico, S. Périquet, Jacinto Román, E. Revilla (2016)
Road avoidance responses determine the impact of heterogeneous road networks at a regional scaleJournal of Applied Ecology, 53
Erle Ellis, K. Goldewijk, S. Siebert, Deborah Lightman, N. Ramankutty (2010)
Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19
(2012)
Human’s environmental laws, regulations, criteria and standards
(2012)
IDRISI Selva manual
E. Sanderson, Malanding Jaiteh, M. Levy, K. Redford, Antoinette Wannebo, Gillian Woolmer (2002)
The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild, 52
George Wittemyer, Paul Elsen, William Bean, A. Burton, J. Brashares (2008)
Accelerated Human Population Growth at Protected Area EdgesScience, 321
Clara Silva, Rui Lourenço, S. Godinho, Edgar Gomes, Helena Sabino-Marques, D. Medinas, Vânia Neves, Carmo Silva, J. Rabaça, A. Mira (2012)
Major Roads Have a Negative Impact on the Tawny Owl Strix aluco and the Little Owl Athene noctua Populations, 47
O. Venter, E. Sanderson, Ainhoa Magrach, J. Allan, Jutta Beher, Kendall Jones, H. Possingham, W. Laurance, Peter Wood, B. Fekete, M. Levy, J. Watson (2016)
Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservationNature Communications, 7
More than 75% of terrestrial ecosystems are affected by human activities. To protect biodiversity, humans have created protected areas around the world. However, these areas are also not safe from human activities. In this regard, determining the degree of vulnerability of protected areas to human footprint can provide valuable information to the managers of these areas and help better protect and manage these areas. This study aims to assess the vulnerability of protected areas in Iran to human infrastructure and tries to identify the most important human activities affecting these areas. Also, this study shows how subjective selection of the zone effect of human activities affects the accuracy of the results of vulnerability assessment in four scenarios. Using multi-criteria evaluation, we examined the effects of infrastructures such as roads, railways, cities, industries, mines, and agriculture on Iran’s protected areas and increased the zone effect of these infrastructures in four scenarios. Our results showed that on average 5.1–30.3% of the extent of protected areas are affected by the negative effects of human footprints. We found that irrigated farming and roads have the most negative impact on protected areas in Iran. In addition, if the zone effect of these infrastructures reaches 10 km, more than 50% of the area of protected areas in Iran will be affected by their adverse effects. In the absence of irrigated farms and roads, the vulnerability of protected areas will be reduced from 5.1 to 1.5% and 2.6%, respectively. Our results also show that national parks and wildlife refuges were less vulnerable than protected areas. However, as the zone effect of the infrastructure increased, the national parks would become more vulnerable than wildlife refuges.
Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences – Springer Journals
Published: Dec 1, 2022
Keywords: Human pressures; Iran’s protected areas; Vulnerability assessment; Zone effect; Multi-criteria evaluation
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.