Thousands of mountain vertebrate species have little habitat inside protected areas
A global mapping study found that 4234 vertebrate species have less than 10 percent of their suitable mountain habitat inside protected areas, including 1165 threatened species. The peer-reviewed assessment combines habitat maps with changes in human pressure across 6717 mountain regions. Its protection measure concerns mountain habitat, while future land-use scenarios rank relative exposure rather than predict extinctions.
Science··Night
Protection misses suitable mountain habitat
A global assessment finds substantial gaps between mountain vertebrate habitats and protected areas, alongside intensifying human pressure. The peer-reviewed study maps those patterns across 6717 mountain regions and compares conditions in 2000 and 2020. It combines information on suitable habitat with the extent of formal protection and cumulative pressures from human activity.[1], [2]
Of the species assessed, 4234 had less than 10 percent of their suitable mountain habitat inside protected areas; 1165 of them were classified as threatened. This calculation concerns the mountain portion of their habitat. Protection of the rest of a species’ range can differ, so the percentage does not describe its complete global protection status.[1]
Human influence varies across the slopes
The human-pressure index brings together settlements, population, night-time lights, cropland, pasture, roads, railways and navigable waterways. Pressure intensified particularly in accessible lower and middle elevations, while some remote regions showed declines. Its presence inside a protected area does not automatically establish conservation failure: existing communities and infrastructure can contribute to the index. The global grid also misses small refuges and fine habitat mosaics in steep terrain.[1]
Scenarios rank relative exposure
Alternative socioeconomic scenarios through 2050 combined land-use demand with terrain accessibility and existing human pressure. Many conservation-priority rankings remained similar across the scenarios. These are relative exposure comparisons rather than forecasts of where each field or settlement appears. The framework does not explicitly model species dispersal, climate-driven range shifts or future management, and therefore cannot predict extinction dates or the outcomes of particular conservation measures.[1]
