Representativeness of terrestrial ecosystems in Chile's protected area system

Patricio Pliscoff*, Taryn Fuentes-Castillo

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

69 Scopus citations


Because protected areas are a major means of conservation, the extent to which ecosystems are represented under different protection regimes needs to be ascertained. A gap analysis approach was used to assess the representativeness of Chile's terrestrial ecosystems in differing kinds of protected areas. Terrestrial ecosystems were described in terms of potential vegetation, employing three protection scenarios. Scenario 1 was based exclusively on the Chilean National System of Protected Wild Areas (SNASPE). Scenario 2 included all types of public protected areas, namely SNASPE, nature sanctuaries and Ministry of National Heritage lands. Scenario 3 included all items in Scenario 2, but also included private protected areas and biodiversity priority sites. There is insufficient protection of terrestrial ecosystems under the Scenario 2. In addition to the low level of ecosystem protection provided by state protected areas (only 42 of the 127 terrestrial ecosystems had >10% of their area protected), 23 terrestrial ecosystems were identified as having no protection at the national level. Gaps in protection were concentrated in the North (both coastal and inland desertic scrub), Central (thorny scrub, thorny forests, sclerophyllous forests and deciduous coastal forests) and Austral (steppe ecosystems) regions of Chile. These gaps include ecosystems that are of global conservation importance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)303-311
Number of pages9
JournalEnvironmental Conservation
Issue number3
StatePublished - Sep 2011
Externally publishedYes


  • Chile
  • gap analysis
  • protected areas
  • representativeness
  • vegetation formations
  • vegetation types


Dive into the research topics of 'Representativeness of terrestrial ecosystems in Chile's protected area system'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this