<p>For both (A) and (B), top graphs are for municipalities, middle graphs for alliances, and bottom graphs for provinces. (A) Comparison of total areas protected across habitats, averaged across the 100 repeat runs, at each annual time step. (B) Comparison of total areas added in excess of objectives across habitats, averaged across the 100 repeat runs, to 2020.</p
(A) High proportion of large contiguous natural areas, (B) average global proportions, and (C) high ...
<p>A) Differences between the two maps calculated by subtracting the selection frequency map of <b>S...
Marine Protected Areas are being implemented worldwide showing the evidence of clear benefits for ta...
<p>Area-based comparison of protected areas networks designed using three alternative multi-resoluti...
<p>The size of the circles represent the percentage of transects in each of the corresponding habita...
<p>The size of the circles represent the percentage of transects in each of the corresponding habita...
Map indicating climatically stable suitable areas for at least 20% of each trophic guild across seve...
The table shows for each scenario: the number of PUs considered as protected, the number of total mi...
<p>Overall proportion (%) of protected habitat (All protected areas; i.e. the amount of protected ha...
<p>The barplots (A) show the total area of each habitat protected in each scenario (S1-S3) at the en...
<p>Percentages of predicted suitable environments for each listed habitat currently protected within...
Representation of the three habitat categories (proportion covered by Natura 2000 sites, mean ± SD) ...
Data for Kujala et al (2018) Not all data are equal: Influence of data type and amount in spatial co...
The Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Target 11 calls for 17% of terrestrial and 10% of mar...
<p>Different colours have been used to illustrate the percentage of planning units for the A. Albora...
(A) High proportion of large contiguous natural areas, (B) average global proportions, and (C) high ...
<p>A) Differences between the two maps calculated by subtracting the selection frequency map of <b>S...
Marine Protected Areas are being implemented worldwide showing the evidence of clear benefits for ta...
<p>Area-based comparison of protected areas networks designed using three alternative multi-resoluti...
<p>The size of the circles represent the percentage of transects in each of the corresponding habita...
<p>The size of the circles represent the percentage of transects in each of the corresponding habita...
Map indicating climatically stable suitable areas for at least 20% of each trophic guild across seve...
The table shows for each scenario: the number of PUs considered as protected, the number of total mi...
<p>Overall proportion (%) of protected habitat (All protected areas; i.e. the amount of protected ha...
<p>The barplots (A) show the total area of each habitat protected in each scenario (S1-S3) at the en...
<p>Percentages of predicted suitable environments for each listed habitat currently protected within...
Representation of the three habitat categories (proportion covered by Natura 2000 sites, mean ± SD) ...
Data for Kujala et al (2018) Not all data are equal: Influence of data type and amount in spatial co...
The Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Target 11 calls for 17% of terrestrial and 10% of mar...
<p>Different colours have been used to illustrate the percentage of planning units for the A. Albora...
(A) High proportion of large contiguous natural areas, (B) average global proportions, and (C) high ...
<p>A) Differences between the two maps calculated by subtracting the selection frequency map of <b>S...
Marine Protected Areas are being implemented worldwide showing the evidence of clear benefits for ta...