Conservation of the Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants in the Mining and Tourism Area: Khibiny Mountains, Murmansk Region, Russia.

The Khibiny Mountains (hereafter called Khibiny Mts.) are one of the most urbanized and industrialized regions in the Russian Arctic. There are combined a developed mining complex, elaborate infrastructure, a well-known tourist resort, and a large population, all amidst an exceptionally rich biodiversity of plants. In this study, we analyzed the current knowledge of the spatial distribution of rare and endangered vascular plants and vegetation and the impacts of human activities on these ecosystems. Approximately 28% of the protected vascular plant species in the Murmansk Region were registered within the confines of the Khibiny Mts. In particular, although only a handful of protected species had a widespread presence, most rare species were confined to the southern reaches of the mountain range, with only a select few extending into other parts. Papaver lapponicum was the only species that thrived across the entire territory, including industrial areas. The studied territory contained nine specially protected areas spanning 123,220 hectares. Nature monuments adjacent to mining sites and urban centers play an important role in preserving regional biodiversity. However, the expansion of the mining industry, alongside deforestation and wildfires, poses considerable threats to the biodiversity of the Khibiny Mts. A comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy implemented in this region balances the local and expansive territorial protection of rare species and habitats, ensuring environmental preservation while facilitating social and economic progress, a noteworthy example of environmental protection in the Arctic.

Frontiers of protected areas versus forest exploitation: Assessing habitat network functionality in 16 case study regions globally.

Exploitation of natural forests forms expanding frontiers. Simultaneously, protected area frontiers aim at maintaining functional habitat networks. To assess net effects of these frontiers, we examined 16 case study areas on five continents. We (1) mapped protected area instruments, (2) assessed their effectiveness, (3) mapped policy implementation tools, and (4) effects on protected areas originating from their surroundings. Results are given as follows: (1) conservation instruments covered 3-77%, (2) effectiveness of habitat networks depended on representativeness, habitat quality, functional connectivity, resource extraction in protected areas, time for landscape restoration, "paper parks", "fortress conservation", and data access, (3) regulatory policy instruments dominated over economic and informational, (4) negative matrix effects dominated over positive ones (protective forests, buffer zones, inaccessibility), which were restricted to former USSR and Costa Rica. Despite evidence-based knowledge about conservation targets, the importance of spatial segregation of conservation and use, and traditional knowledge, the trajectories for biodiversity conservation were generally negative.