subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link
subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link
subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link
subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link
subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link
subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link
subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link

Alaska Gap Analysis Project

Alaska Land Management Status map

Stewardship Mapping




Assessing Protection of Alaska’s Terrestrial Biodiversity

To identify existing gaps in biodiversity conservation across Alaska’s network of protected areas, we examined the distribution of land management and assessed how well protected areas captured terrestrial biodiversity at a statewide scale.  We looked at different land management types in Alaska, using the framework of the USGS Gap Analysis Program, and developed conservation management status categories based on the level of human use and development.  Then we re-examined an earlier study on how well protected areas represented vegetation classes, a surrogate for terrestrial biodiversity, and added analyses for representation across ecoregions and elevation.  


We found that while 43.6% of Alaska is managed for high and medium levels of conservation, a disproportionate amount (41.3 %) of those lands occur at high elevations (above 510 m), which are typically less biologically diverse than low-lying areas.  Across the state, 5 of 19 vegetation classes are insufficiently represented in the existing protected areas. When examining vegetation classes within ecoregions, 16 of 19 are found to be insufficiently represented in at least one of the ecoregions in which they occur.  We also assessed the potential contribution of Native-owned lands, which encompass the majority of private lands, to conservation of terrestrial biodiversity. If we assume that the largely undeveloped lands owned by Native entities are being managed for conservation, the representation of terrestrial ecosystems improves. 

We conclude that the conservation of Alaska’s biodiversity is not as sufficient as looking at land management and ownership alone would indicate. Some vegetation classes, especially those at low elevations, require additional protection to ensure broad and widespread conservation across environmental gradients and to guard against changes in biodiversity related to climate change. Conservation management of Native-owned lands may provide some of the solution to adequately protect terrestrial ecosystems in Alaska.

Download report:  Assessing Protection of Alaska’s Terrestrial Biodiversity.pdf (376 KB)
Download maps   GAP Status.pdf (3.4 MB)
                          Alaska Land Management Status.pdf (1.4 MB)
                          Alaska Land Management Status.jpg
(67 KB)

Alaska Natural Heritage Program

GINA logo
Geographic Information Network
for Alaska


GAP logo


USGS-BRD logo


UAS logo


UAF logo

The Nature Conservancy - Alaska

UAA logo

About Us | Contact Us | ©2006 Alaska Natural Heritage Program, ENRI, UAA