Conservation areas can enlarge a network without connecting it
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS
Sharma and colleagues developed a spatial typology for other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), assessing whether sites enlarge, connect, buffer, or aggregate protected areas. Nearly a third of 6,234 mapped OECMs across 14 countries directly adjoined protected areas. Roughly 3% structurally connected, buffered or aggregated otherwise isolated or fragmented protected areas, while around two thirds lay within 10 km of an existing protected area.
WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ
The first question is not how many new hectares appear in a conservation inventory, but what ecological role each hectare can actually perform. Adjacency may enlarge an existing footprint without restoring movement pathways. Map conservation additions against barriers, viable habitat and species-specific dispersal before equating area with ecological connectivity.
CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY
The study quantifies geometric network roles, not confirmed animal movement, management quality or biodiversity outcomes; the 14-country reporting sample is not a census of all OECMs.
SOURCE
Nature Ecology & Evolution — Sharma, van der Velden & Cook (26 Oct 2026)
View original evidence ↗
A global audit finds many alternative conservation sites touch protected areas, but few bridge fragmented ones.
Read the Wild Lands assessment →