Priority Places for Biodiversity Conservation
![](https://cdn.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/6a4f2cb20f0a4bd6949a2494f1ce2caa/resources/Y0uqXoanbGFtEwKC996Zo.jpeg?w=20)
![](https://cdn.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/6a4f2cb20f0a4bd6949a2494f1ce2caa/resources/rwtFDOWANfggyc3KYHUNj.jpeg?w=20)
![](https://cdn.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/6a4f2cb20f0a4bd6949a2494f1ce2caa/resources/N-g9znZhtDoG-Is2FqfAI.jpeg?w=20)
The task of many biodiversity scientists in the past few decades has been to study how and where these many species are distributed, both to gain a better understanding of the biodiversity of the world we live in and to be better equipped to protect it.
In recent years, these efforts have culminated in high-resolution maps of species richness, or the number of different species predicted to live in a given area, and species rarity, or the geographic restrictiveness of species predicted to live in an area. This data helps us monitor how well biodiversity is being protected and which locations are most important for future conservation efforts.
Global species richness (left) and rarity (right) aggregated for all terrestrial vertebrates and trees.
The establishment of protected areas is one strategy in the conservation toolbox to conserve biodiversity. Protected areas can be an effective way of conserving biodiversity if key considerations are met: they are established and managed collaboratively with local communities to prohibit extractive industries while maintaining sustainable local needs, and the land rights and sovereignty of Indigenous communities are affirmed, respected, and protected. So, statistics on protected area establishment and management are frequently used to monitor progress towards conservation and equity goals.
Demonstration of the species protection score calculation for the Okapi (Okapia johnstoni).
The Half-Earth Project Map and the Map of Life analyze protected area data to calculate the Species Protection Index (SPI), a biodiversity indicator that assesses not just how much area is protected, but if those areas actually conserve species habitats. For example, a new protected area that covers the habitats of 15 different species will lead to a much smaller increase in the SPI compared to a new protected area that covers the habitats of 50 species. The SPI is first calculated at the level of individual species (for all terrestrial vertebrate groups – mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles) who receive a protection score based on how much of their habitat is covered by protected areas. These individual scores are then aggregated to develop the average national SPI.
What the SPI shows us is that not all protected areas are created equal, and if countries want to maximize biodiversity conservation, they should consider species richness and rarity when making decisions about protected area placement.
On the Half-Earth Project Map, we have used these richness and rarity layers in conjunction with other data, such as estimated land cost, to calculate global layers of conservation priority. These priority layers highlight the places around the world that are most important for biodiversity conservation – because they harbor an abundant number of species, species found nowhere else in the world, or both, and because establishing some level of protection to that area would maximize the conservation impacts for the money invested. When conservation resources are limited but action is urgently needed, these priority layers can help conservation managers and decision makers make data-informed decisions.
Priority patterns are not necessarily the same across different species groups. In this map, we’re showing a combined priority layer for all terrestrial vertebrates and trees for simplicity, but you can view each individual taxonomic priority layer on the Half-Earth Project Map . There, you might notice that while some areas of the world are constantly lighting up in priority layers across taxonomic groups, other areas are only highlighted in one or two groups. This emphasizes the importance of considering as many taxonomic groups as possible when making conservation decisions, as we can’t be sure we’re really protecting all life if we don’t have the data for all life. If we didn’t consider amphibian diversity, we might completely overlook the Appalachians, for example.
Most recently, we added trees into the conservation prioritization equation on the Half-Earth Project Map, where previously we had only the four terrestrial vertebrate taxonomic groups. See for yourself how the priority map changes when new taxa, in this case trees, are considered by sliding between the maps below.
Global priority layer for all terrestrial vertebrate taxa (left) and all terrestrial vertebrates plus trees (right).
The good news is that biodiversity data volume is growing every day, so in the near future we’ll be able to incorporate other plant and invertebrate groups into conservation prioritization methods. On the Half-Earth Project Map, trees are a new addition to the global richness, rarity, and priority maps, and this addition has brought much needed robustness and diversity to the map.
To keep exploring SPI and priority places, head to the Half-Earth Project Map. Here, you can view the priority layers for all five taxonomic groups as well as detailed National SPI report cards for all countries. To learn more about the methodologies underpinning these analyses and explore species-level protection scores, head to the Map of Life .
Development of Conservation Priorities was supported by the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation .