Next Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Evolution Mechanism and Dynamic Simulation of the Urban Resilience System in the Chengdu–Chongqing Economic Circle
Next Article in Special Issue
Habitat Suitability Dynamics of Yellow River Delta Nature Reserves for Rare Waterbirds
Previous Article in Journal
Performance Evaluation of Porous Asphalt Mixture Reinforced with Waste Cellulose Acetate Fibers
Previous Article in Special Issue
Conservation Implications of Vegetation Characteristics and Soil Properties in Endangered Mangrove Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea on Hainan Island, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/su17083444
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The 30 × 30 Protection Target: Attitudes of Residents from Seven Countries

by
James A. Fitzsimons
1,2,3,*,
Kellyn Garrison
1,
Blinne Finnegan
1 and
Ian Luby
1
1
The Nature Conservancy, 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22203-1606, USA
2
School of Life and Environmental Science, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia
3
School of Law, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 89, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3444; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083444
Submission received: 22 February 2025 / Revised: 20 March 2025 / Accepted: 10 April 2025 / Published: 12 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Vegetation Management: Forestry, Agriculture and Protected Areas)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

In December 2022, 196 countries adopted the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Global Biodiversity Framework outlines four ambitious global goals and 23 targets for the world to address the loss of biodiversity and the more sustainable use of natural resources. One of those targets—Target 3—commits to achieving the protection of at least 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas and of marine and coastal areas by 2030 (the “30 × 30 protection target”). This is one of the largest conservation commitments that countries around the world have made. Prior to the signing of the Global Biodiversity Framework, a survey of residents in seven countries (Australia, Barbados, Colombia, Germany, Kenya, Mongolia, and the USA) was conducted to understand their level of awareness and gauge their support for the 30 × 30 protection target. In the seven countries surveyed in late 2022, a strong majority of respondents in each country rated the target favorably and were likely to support their government making commitments on it. This survey is the only multi-country pre-Global Biodiversity Framework survey and provides a useful baseline to track changes in opinion on 30 × 30 over time.

1. Introduction

Protected areas and protected area networks are considered a key tool and one of the most successful forms of biodiversity conservation [1]. However, the wider socioeconomic and cultural values of the natural ecosystems that protected areas conserve are increasingly recognized, including the important ecosystem services they provide [2,3]. Thus, protected areas form a key part of sustainable landscapes.
In December 2022, 196 countries adopted the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). One of the largest global conservation commitments ever made, the GBF outlined four ambitious global goals and 23 targets to address loss of biodiversity around the world [4]. One of those targets—Target 3—committed to achieve the protection of at least 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas and of marine and coastal areas by 2030 (the “30 × 30 protection target”). The increased area in this target and others in the GBF (compared to those in the previous decade) reflects the need for ambitious action in response to the global biodiversity crisis [5,6] and gaps in the current protected area estate [7,8].
Past surveys at local or national levels have found that creating new protected areas and expanding protected area networks are generally popular with the general public (e.g., [9,10,11,12,13]). However, we know of no comparative surveys across multiple countries and all inhabited continents that gauge public opinion of ambitious proposals to expand protection at a global scale.
In advance of nations meeting at the Convention’s fifteenth Conference of the Parties to finalize the GBF, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), a global environmental non-government organization working in more than 80 countries, sought to better understand the public awareness, level of support, and motivation for government action to the proposed 30 × 30 protection target. However, in late 2022, no publicly accessible baseline research on the attitudes of the general public to 30 × 30 at a multi-country level was available. In response, TNC undertook public opinion surveys aimed at understanding the levels of awareness, motivation, and ambition of the public to support 30 × 30 in Australia, Barbados, Colombia, Germany, Kenya, Mongolia, and the United States of America (USA). These countries were chosen intentionally to ensure a diversity of representation across geographies, ecosystems, economies, and cultures. Country selection was also important for comparative analysis: to understand the distinctions and gradations of national motivation (or lack thereof). TNC had active programs to advance protected area outcomes in each of these countries, with the exception of Germany. The survey sought to both inform conservation partnerships in furthering protection programs in those (and other) countries and to act as a baseline for comparing attitudes to the 30 × 30 target at later stages.

2. Materials and Methods

The Nature Conservancy commissioned APCO Insight (Washington, DC, USA) to conduct a survey among residents in Australia, Barbados, Colombia, Germany, Kenya, Mongolia, and the USA on aspects of the proposed 30 × 30 protection target between 1 November and 20 November 2022. The survey aimed to understand the levels of support for the 30 × 30 goals in these countries, evaluate perceptions of environmental issues and effective terminology for communicating these issues, identify messages related to 30 × 30, and understand differences between the countries (see Appendix A for all survey questions). The results presented in this article are restricted to questions on the level of support for 30 × 30 and the rationale for that support.
The data in each market reflected known statistically representative population parameters. This study employed a combination of non-probability and probability sampling methodologies, conducted using computer-assisted web interviews (CAWI) via an online panel, with the exception of Barbados, which used computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). All surveys were conducted in the appropriate local language.
For the probability-based approach, participants were selected from the larger population using random methods, ensuring that every individual had a known, non-zero chance of being included. Specifically, random-digit-dialing (RDD) phone surveys were used, where random telephone numbers were generated to create a sample frame. This method, while reducing bias and enhancing representativeness, has limitations such as higher costs, longer data collection timelines, and limited online availability, particularly in the USA where only one major probability panel exists [14,15].
APCO Insight populated the computer-assisted web interviews using a non-probability method, where potential participants who are statistically representative of the general public must “opt in”. All potential respondents went through a screening process to ensure they met certain criteria relevant to the research objectives. Respondents were then further screened on additional criteria, such as being regular news consumers, closely following current events, and having a strong interest in environmental and climate issues. Respondents who affirmed any of these criteria were categorized as “engaged citizens”. This method allowed for the targeting of demographic groups more likely to influence their peers and communities and provided an understanding of the most informed or engaged segments in the general public. A quota on the number of engaged citizens in each market was not set for this study. Non-probability sampling also offered the advantages of faster data collection and lower costs compared to probability sampling, though it lacked the same level of representativeness [14,16].
The sample size of individuals surveyed in each country ranged from 300 to 400 and was 2637 people in total (Table 1).

3. Results

3.1. Level of Support for Government to Protect Natural Areas

Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement “I want my government to take action to protect areas of diverse wildlife and plant species as well as the land, forests and waterways in our country” via a predefined set of possible responses (strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree). Over 50% of respondents in each country selected “strongly agree”, with the exception of the USA, which was 48% (Figure 1). Over 80% of respondents in each country selected either “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” to the statement, ranging from 84% (USA) to 97% (Barbados). There were few differences in responses between engaged citizens and general population in most countries (Appendix B, Figure A1).

3.2. Level of Support for Global Target to Protect 30% of the Earth’s Lands, Freshwater Areas, and Oceans by 2030

Respondents were provided the following information: “Various governments and organizations are coming together to set a goal to protect 30% of the Earth’s lands, freshwater areas, and oceans by 2030. This initiative seeks to create and expand protected areas, establish conservation targets, invest in science, and inspire conservation action around the world” and were then asked, “Based on this information, please rate your overall impression of this initiative on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 means you have a very unfavorable impression and 10 means you have a very favorable impression.” Over half of the respondents in all countries except Barbados rated the proposed 30 × 30 initiative as “very favorable” (categories 10–8) (Figure 2), with 77% in Mongolia and 76% in Colombia giving this rating. Over 70% of respondents from all countries had a generally favorable (combining ratings 10–6) impression of the initiative, ranging from Colombia with the highest positive impression at 91% and Barbados who had the lowest positive impression at 73%. No country had more than 12% of respondents considering concept “unfavorable” (Barbados had a 7% “somewhat unfavorable” and 5% “very unfavorable” response). Engaged citizens rated this statement as more favorable than the general population, perhaps demonstrating a higher level of awareness, education, and/or engagement on the issue of environmental protection (Appendix B, Figure A2).

3.3. Likelihood of Support for Governments to Commit to Protecting 30% of Their Nation’s Lands and Oceans by 2030

Respondents were asked the following question: “on a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is not likely at all and 10 is very likely, how likely would you be to support [your country’s national] government making a commitment to protect 30% of [your country’s] lands and oceans by 2030”. A clear majority of respondents in all seven of the countries surveyed were very likely or somewhat likely to support their national government committing to this target, with Kenya showing the highest level of support at 94% (81% “very likely” and 13% “somewhat likely”), followed by Colombia with 91% support (85% “very likely” and 9% “somewhat likely”) and Barbados with 86% support (71% “very likely” and 15% “somewhat likely”) (Figure 3). Mongolia showed the lowest level of support for national government commitment at 61% (40% “very likely” and 21% “somewhat likely”). There was a small difference in the responses of engaged citizens compared to the general public when it came to national support, with engaged citizens demonstrating more support (noted with an increased response of “very likely”) in six of the seven countries (Appendix B, Figure A3).

3.4. Relative Support for Nature- or Human-Focused Benefits of Protection in Messaging

Respondents were asked “which of the following statements best describes your opinion: (a) We must protect the Earth’s land, water and wildlife because all species have a right to live, regardless of the usefulness to humans or (b) We must protect the Earth’s land, water, and wildlife because they provide many benefits that support human prosperity, health, and well-being” and were asked to rank the strength of this choice as “strongly”, “somewhat”, or “don’t know”. A majority of the respondents in five of the seven countries “strongly” or “somewhat” favored the response “We must protect the Earth’s land, water and wildlife because all species have a right to live, regardless of the usefulness to humans”, with respondents from Colombia, Germany, and Australia showing the greatest preference (57.5%, 55.2%, 54.0%, respectively) (Figure 4). The majority of respondents in Barbados (58.3%) and the USA (51.7%) “strongly” or “somewhat” favored the response “We must protect the Earth’s land, water, and wildlife because they provide many benefits that support human prosperity, health, and well-being”. For five of the seven countries (Australia, Colombia, Kenya, Germany, Mongolia), engaged citizens were slightly more likely select the “all species have a right to live” option, with no difference in responses between engaged citizens and the general public in the other two countries (Appendix B, Table A1).

4. Discussion

Ambitious targets set by governments are often assisted by having strong public support. The results of our survey suggest that as a concept, the 30 × 30 protection target has broad public support. In the seven countries surveyed in late 2022, strong majorities in each country rated the target favorably and were likely to support their government making commitments on it. There was strong support from residents of those countries for the concept of protecting 30% of lands and oceans by 2030, ranging from 71% (very favorable/somewhat favorable) in Barbados to 91% in Colombia. Similar results were evident for residents’ support for their government to commit to protecting 30% of their lands and waters by 2030. Notably, engaged citizens were only slightly more supportive of 30 × 30 commitments than the general public.
In relation to the rationale for why increased protection was considered favorable, the results varied. Five of the seven countries favored the “all species have a right to live” option response (Australia, Colombia, Germany, Mongolia, and Kenya) whereas the majority of respondents from Barbados and the USA favored the “many benefits that support human prosperity, health, and well-being” rationale. In five of the seven countries, engaged citizens were slightly more likely select the “all species have a right to live” option, with no difference in the responses between engaged citizens and the general public in the other two countries. This has implications for the way messages are communicated to both decision-makers and the general public in those countries in order to ensure support [2,17].
This multi-country survey, conducted prior to the signing of the Global Biodiversity Framework, forms an important baseline and foundation for future research into public opinions on the 30 × 30 protection target. This future research could compare attitudes over time post-commitment to the Global Biodiversity Framework and during the implementation of actions to achieve the target. Meeting the 30 × 30 target is likely to see some land use changes which may have social impacts (positive or negative, e.g., [18,19]), while there is also an increasing emphasis on incorporating a broader range of area-based conservation measures to meet the target [20,21,22,23,24]. These implementation dynamics, combined with progress towards the target during the 2020s [25], the economic implications of doing so [26], and other factors (e.g., [27,28]) may all influence relative levels of support for the target itself and for their national government’s delivery or relative contribution to the target. Further research could also include increased consideration of different demographic factors such as gender, education, age, and income (e.g., [29], although we note that these factors did not influence support for protected areas in Brazil [12]).
What do we know of the support for 30 × 30 since the signing of the Global Biodiversity Framework? In a study from May 2024, Michaelson et al. [30] found support for the 30 × 30 target in all countries they surveyed—i.e., Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and the USA. Overall, 82.4% of their sample of 12,132 people across those countries supported the target, and only 6.6% reported being against the target. Likewise, surveys in Australia in November–December 2024 found 72% of the surveyed population supported the proposed policy to “Establish new national parks to protect natural and cultural values” [31].
There are some limitations to our study. This includes the sample sizes, and in the case of Kenya, a vast majority of respondents being “engaged citizens” (although noting differences in responses between the general public and engaged citizens was small for all countries surveyed). The framing of the concept of 30 × 30 in our survey was necessarily simple and the ultimate wording of the 30 × 30 target (Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework) contained greater detail on what needs to be protected (e.g., [32]) and how it needs to be protected. This adds to the potential complexity of achieving the target and ambiguities in interpretation, similar to some other targets in the GBF (e.g., [33]). Numerous national governments have made 30 × 30 commitments at a country level that have variations in the Target 3 language (e.g., [34]). Whether or not differently worded commitments or different levels of relative protection or restriction (e.g., [35]) influence the level of support remains unclear, but is potentially an area for further research.
The broad support for the 30 × 30 target across all countries surveyed indicates a strong social license to parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity for Target 3 of the GBF and for national governments regarding their own national commitments to 30 × 30. Area-based conservation targets have been a feature of the Convention since it was ratified and many countries (and subnational governments) had their own protected area strategies and programs long before the GBF was adopted (e.g., [19,36,37]), which is likely to contribute to the relatively high visibility and acceptance of the need to expand protected and conserved areas (see also [9]). Nonetheless, there is also a clear need to communicate this sentiment to government decision-makers to ensure it is reflected in government commitments [38] and that adequate and sustainable resourcing is allocated to achieving the targets [39,40].
Finally, the survey results may contribute to the sustainability and success of actions supporting the 30 × 30 protection target over time, regardless of the party or administration in power. Governments have a long history of relying on conservation and spatial science to substantiate official action on environmental issues [41,42]. Increasing the availability of social data can further strengthen the credibility and transparency of the decision-making process, allowing governments to ensure that their actions are representative, effective, durable, and inclusive for the long-term [43,44,45].

5. Conclusions

The results demonstrate that 30 × 30 protection ambitions are popular in the seven countries surveyed among both general public and engaged citizens. This may serve to motivate and lend confidence to national governments to take further action, including through enacting and implementing protection, contributing to 30 × 30, and demonstrating to other governments around the world that this ambition is supported by the public. Conducting more public opinion surveys, especially at national and subnational levels, will further drive the inclusion and integration of social data into decision-making around national biodiversity policies, funding, and management. Surveys offer opportunities to build awareness, educate decision-makers, and establish effective public policy that represents diverse constituencies. The 30 × 30 protection target is one of the Global Biodiversity Framework’s 23 ambitious targets for the world to address the loss of biodiversity and move towards the more sustainable use of natural resources. The coordination and integration of efforts to meet these different targets will be critical for success in the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity and also warrants further research from public attitude surveys.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.G. and B.F.; methodology, K.G. and B.F., formal analysis, J.A.F., K.G., B.F. and I.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.F., K.G., B.F. and I.L.; writing—review and editing, J.A.F., K.G., B.F. and I.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the study not qualifying as research with human subjects because the data were not individually identifiable. The subjects provided informed consent, and the methods of data collection ensured the privacy and confidentiality of data.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request due to restrictions (privacy reasons).

Acknowledgments

We thank Katie Sprehe and Gabby Turner at APCO for advice on aspects of the survey technique, Brian Rae for management, and Stasi Turnbull (The Nature Conservancy) and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Appendix A.1. Survey Questions

Q1. To start, how concerned are you, if at all, about the following? Please indicate whether you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned.
Q2. Of the following, who is most effective in preventing the decline of our forests, oceans, freshwater areas, and wildlife?
  • National Government
  • Local Government Organizations that work across governments
  • NGOs
  • Businesses and companies
  • Communities Individuals
Q3. Please read the statements below and indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each.
  • I want my government to take action to protect areas of diverse wildlife and plant species as well as the land, forests and waterways in our country.
  • I am supportive of my government investing in protecting our country’s land, oceans, freshwater areas, and wildlife.
  • Many of the problems my country faces can be solved by working with other countries.
  • I trust my local government to make the best decisions for our country.
  • Decisions made by organizations like the United Nations do not take into account the interests of developing countries, like [my country].
  • My government prioritizes global issues that impact all countries.
  • I trust my national government to make the best decisions for our country.
Q4. What first comes to mind when you think about the word “protect” regarding natural areas, water, wildlife, and habitats?
  • Prevent further environmental damage/Take care of nature/Keep nature safe
  • Prevent further environmental damage/Take care of nature/Keep nature safe
  • Deforestation/Pollution/Environmental damage
  • Plants/Animals/Wildlife/Creatures at risk of extinction
  • Decrease harmful impacts/Reduce overuse of resources
Q5. What first comes to mind when you think about the word “conserve” regarding natural areas, water, wildlife, and habitats?
  • Prevent further environmental damage/Take care of nature/Keep nature safe
  • Prevent further environmental damage/Take care of nature/Keep nature safe
  • Deforestation/Pollution/Environmental damage
  • Plants/Animals/Wildlife/Creatures at risk of extinction
  • Decrease harmful impacts/Reduce overuse of resources
Q6. Various governments and organizations are coming together to set a goal to protect 30% of the Earth’s lands, freshwater areas, and oceans by 2030. This initiative seeks to create and expand protected areas, establish conservation targets, invest in science, and inspire conservation action around the world. Based on this information, please rate your overall impression of this initiative on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 means you have a very unfavorable impression and 10 means you have a very favorable impression.
Q7. Please rate your impression of each on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 means it is not a convincing reason at all to support the initiative and 10 means it is a very convincing reason to support the initiative.
  • Scientists agree that we must protect at least 30% of nature by the end of this decade in order to counter the dual crises of climate change and the loss of our land, water, and wildlife.
  • Since 1970, 70% of the Earth’s wildlife populations have been lost, and this loss is expected to accelerate as the planet continues to warm.
  • According to the United Nations, three-quarters of habitats on land and two-thirds of marine habitats have been significantly altered by humans, and as a result, 1 million plant and animal species are threatened with extinction.
  • The protection of nature is essential in reducing negative impacts of climate change, but currently, only 16% of the Earth’s land and 8% of global ocean is under protected status.
  • Progress is already being made on this initiative as more than 100 countries have committed to protecting at 30% of their lands, waters, and wildlife by 2030, including.
Q8. Please rate your impression of each on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 means it is not at all appealing and 10 means it is very appealing.
  • Protecting 30% of land, freshwaters, and oceans by 2030.
  • The [country’s] pledge to conserve and restore 30% of its lands and waters by 2030.
  • [Country’s] network of protected areas, conserving examples of natural landscapes and native plants and animals for future generations.
  • Efforts to protect and restore 30% of land, freshwaters, and oceans by 2030 will allow us to have more nature in 2030 than we have now.
  • Expanding nature conservation efforts to mitigate climate change.
Q9. On a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is not likely at all and 10 is very likely, how likely would you be to support the [country] government making a commitment to protect 30% of [country’s] land and oceans by 2030?
Q10. Which of the following statements best describes your opinion [and rank your response either (i) strongly, (ii) somewhat or (iii) don’t know]?
(a)
We must protect the Earth’s land, water, and wildlife because all species have a right to live, regardless of their usefulness to humans.
(b)
We must protect the Earth’s land, water, and wildlife because they provide many benefits that support human prosperity, health, and well-being.
Q11. Which of the following statements best describes your opinion?
  • Protecting the Earth’s land, water, and wildlife should be a top priority. We should not focus on repairing nature and habitats that have been damaged in the past, but rather focus on conserving what we have left.
  • Restoration efforts should be prioritized alongside the protection of the Earth’s land, water, and wildlife. Repairing damaged nature and habitats is essential to overall conservation efforts.
Q12. How impactful is this statement to you personally? Please you a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means not at all impactful and 10 means very impactful.
Q13. How credible is this statement to you? Please you a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means not at all credible and 10 means very credible.
Q14. Now that you learned more about the initiative, on a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is not likely at all and 10 is very likely, how likely would you be to support the [Country] government making a commitment to protect 30% of [Country]’s land and oceans by 2030?
Q15. Of the following list, who do you think is the most trustworthy voice to hear information on this initiative from?
  • Experts or scientists
  • Environmental NGOs
  • National government officials

Appendix B

Sustainability 17 03444 g0a1
Figure A1. Responses by residents (general population vs. engaged citizens) of different countries to the statement “I want my government to take action to protect areas of diverse wildlife and plant species as well as the land, forests and waterways in our country”.
Figure A1. Responses by residents (general population vs. engaged citizens) of different countries to the statement “I want my government to take action to protect areas of diverse wildlife and plant species as well as the land, forests and waterways in our country”.
Sustainability 17 03444 g0a1
Sustainability 17 03444 g0a2
Figure A2. Level of favorability for the proposed 30 × 30 global target in different countries (general population vs. engaged citizens) (10–8 = very favorable, 7–6 = somewhat favorable, 5 = neutral, 4–3 = somewhat unfavorable, and 2–0 = very unfavorable).
Figure A2. Level of favorability for the proposed 30 × 30 global target in different countries (general population vs. engaged citizens) (10–8 = very favorable, 7–6 = somewhat favorable, 5 = neutral, 4–3 = somewhat unfavorable, and 2–0 = very unfavorable).
Sustainability 17 03444 g0a2
Sustainability 17 03444 g0a3
Figure A3. Likelihood of support for governments to commit to protecting 30% of their nation’s lands and oceans by 2030 (general population vs. engaged citizens) (10–8 = very likely, 7–6 = somewhat likely, 5 = neutral, 4–3 = somewhat unlikely, and 2–0 = very unlikely).
Figure A3. Likelihood of support for governments to commit to protecting 30% of their nation’s lands and oceans by 2030 (general population vs. engaged citizens) (10–8 = very likely, 7–6 = somewhat likely, 5 = neutral, 4–3 = somewhat unlikely, and 2–0 = very unlikely).
Sustainability 17 03444 g0a3
Table A1. Relative support for the nature- or human-focused benefits of protection in messaging (general population vs. engaged citizens) as a percent of respondents in that category. ‘Nature for Nature’ equates to the option “We must protect the Earth’s land, water and wildlife because all species have a right to live, regardless of the usefulness to humans” and ‘Nature for Humanity’ equates to the option “We must protect the Earth’s land, water, and wildlife because they provide many benefits that support human prosperity, health, and well-being”. Gen Pop = general population, Eng Cit = engaged citizen, Tot = total.
Table A1. Relative support for the nature- or human-focused benefits of protection in messaging (general population vs. engaged citizens) as a percent of respondents in that category. ‘Nature for Nature’ equates to the option “We must protect the Earth’s land, water and wildlife because all species have a right to live, regardless of the usefulness to humans” and ‘Nature for Humanity’ equates to the option “We must protect the Earth’s land, water, and wildlife because they provide many benefits that support human prosperity, health, and well-being”. Gen Pop = general population, Eng Cit = engaged citizen, Tot = total.
CountryStrongly Nature for NatureSomewhat Nature for NatureDon’t Know/RefusedSomewhat Nature for HumanityStrongly Nature for Humanity
Gen PopEng CitTotGen PopEng CitTotGen PopEng CitTotGen PopEng CitTotGen PopEng CitTot
Australia25.537.732.518.916.419.516.011.97.316.011.915.823.622.025.0
Barbados24.632.629.410.111.611.01.41.11.218.813.716.044.941.142.3
Colombia50.751.050.97.75.86.51.41.51.57.05.05.733.136.735.4
Germany39.638.939.316.315.716.08.98.68.815.88.612.319.328.323.8
Kenya35.347.547.00.06.36.05.93.43.55.98.48.352.934.535.3
Mongolia32.337.734.716.515.916.23.70.02.016.511.614.231.134.833.0
USA23.830.826.516.013.515.09.81.96.822.521.822.327.932.129.5

References

  1. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D.; Martínez-Vega, J. Effectiveness of Protected Areas in Conserving Biodiversity; Strategies for Sustainability; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Figgis, P.; Mackey, B.; Fitzsimons, J.; Irving, J.; Clarke, P. (Eds.) Valuing Nature: Protected Areas and Ecosystem Services; Australian Committee for IUCN: Sydney, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Stolton, S.; Dudley, N.; Avcıoğlu Çokçalışkan, B.; Hunter, D.; Ivanić, K.-Z.; Kanga, E.; Kettunen, M.; Kumagai, Y.; Maxted, N.; Senior, J.; et al. Values and benefits of protected areas. In Protected Area Governance and Management; Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I., Eds.; ANU Press: Canberra, Australia, 2015; pp. 145–168. [Google Scholar]
  4. Convention on Biological Diversity. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, 15th Meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD/COP/15/L25. 2022. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-final-text-kunming-montreal-gbf-221222 (accessed on 3 January 2025).
  5. Carroll, C.; Noss, R.F. How percentage-protected targets can support positive biodiversity outcomes. Conserv. Biol. 2022, 36, e13869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Leadley, P.; Gonzalez, A.; Obura, D.; Krug, C.B.; Cecilia Londono-Murcia, M.; Millette, K.L.; Radulovici, A.; Rankovic, A.; Shannon, L.J.; Archer, E.; et al. Achieving global biodiversity goals by 2050 requires urgent and integrated actions. One Earth 2022, 5, 597–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zeng, Y.; Senior, R.A.; Crawford, C.L.; Wilcove, D.S. Gaps and weaknesses in the global protected area network for safeguarding at-risk species. Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eadg0288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Robinson, J.G.; LaBruna, D.; O’Brien, T.; Clyne, P.J.; Dudley, N.; Andelman, S.J.; Bennett, E.L.; Chicchon, A.; Durigan, C.; Grantham, H.; et al. Scaling up area-based conservation to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework’s 30x30 target: The role of Nature’s Strongholds. PloS Biol. 2024, 22, e3002613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sheridan, P. False polemics or real consensus? What Australians really think about marine protected areas. In Big, Bold and Blue: Lessons from Australia’s Marine Protected Areas; Fitzsimons, J., Wescott, G., Eds.; CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Australia, 2016; pp. 339–349. [Google Scholar]
  10. Jones, N.; McGinlay, J.; Kontoleon, A.; Maguire-Rajpaul, V.A.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G.; Gkoumas, V.; Riseth, J.Å.; Sepp, K.; Vanclay, F. Understanding public support for European protected areas: A review of the literature and proposing a new approach for policy makers. Land 2022, 11, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jones, N.; Malesios, C.; McGinlay, J.; Villasante, S.; Svajda, J.; Kontoleon, A.; Begley, A.; Gkoumas, V.; Cadoret, A.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G.; et al. Using perceived impacts, governance and social indicators to explain support for protected areas. Environ. Res. Lett. 2023, 18, 054011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cunha, H.F.A.; de Souza, A.F.; Cardoso da Silva, J.M. Public support for protected areas in new forest frontiers in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Conserv. 2019, 46, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. McGinlay, J.; Jones, N.; Malesios, C.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G.; Begley, A.; Berzborn, S.; Botsch, K.; Gkoumas, V.; Kontoleon, A.; Külm, S.; et al. Exploring local public support for protected areas: What social factors influence stated and active support among local people? Environ. Sci. Pol. 2023, 145, 250–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Baker, R.; Brick, J.M.; Bates, N.A.; Battaglia, M.; Couper, M.P.; Dever, J.A.; Gile, K.A.; Tourangeau, R. Summary report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. J. Surv. Statist. Methodol. 2013, 1, 90–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brick, J.M.; Williams, D. Explaining rising nonresponse rates in cross-sectional surveys. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 2013, 645, 36–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Callegaro, M.; Villar, A.; Yeager, D.; Krosnick, J.A. A Critical review of studies investigating the quality of data obtained with online panels based on probability and nonprobability samples. In Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective; Callegaro, M., Baker, R., Bethlehem, J., Göritz, A.S., Krosnick, J.A., Lavrakas, P.J., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons: London, UK, 2014; pp. 23–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Daněk, J.; Blättler, L.; Leventon, J.; Vačkářová, D. Beyond nature conservation? Perceived benefits and role of the ecosystem services framework in protected landscape areas in the Czech Republic. Ecosyst. Serv. 2023, 59, 101504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sandbrook, C.; Albury-Smith, S.; Allan, J.R.; Bhola, N.; Bingham, H.C.; Brockington, D.; Byaruhanga, A.B.; Fajardo, J.; Fitzsimons, J.; Franks, P.; et al. Social considerations are crucial to success in implementing the 30 × 30 global conservation target. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 7, 784–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sibanda, L.; Dickman, A.; Hughes, C.; Tacey, J.; Madsen, E.; Mandoloma, L.; Mbizah, M.M.; Mutinhima, Y.; Rono, B.; Kulunge, S.; et al. Avoiding an impending collision in international conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2025, 39, e14450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fitzsimons, J.; Picone, A.; Partridge, T.; Cornish, M. Protecting Australia’s Nature: Pathways to Protecting 30 Percent of Land by 2030; The Nature Conservancy, WWF-Australia, the Australian Land Conservation Alliance and the Pew Charitable Trusts: Melbourne, Australia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fitzsimons, J.A.; Partridge, T.; Keen, R. Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) in Australia: Key considerations for assessment and implementation. Conservation 2024, 4, 176–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jonas, H.D.; Bingham, H.C.; Bennett, N.J.; Woodley, S.; Zlatanova, R.; Howland, E.; Belle, E.; Upton, J.; Gottlieb, B.; Kamath, V.; et al. Global status and emerging contribution of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) towards the ’30 × 30’ biodiversity Target 3. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2024, 5, 1447434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lewis, A.H.; Gottlieb, B.; Wilson, B.; Sutton, J.; Lessmann, J.; Delli, G.; Dubois, G.; Bingham, H.C. Coverage and beyond: How can private governance support key elements of the Global Biodiversity Framework’s Target 3? Front. Conserv. Sci. 2023, 4, 1303801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dreiss, L.M.; Malcom, J.W. Identifying key federal, state, and private lands strategies for achieving 30 × 30 in the United States. Conserv. Lett. 2022, 15, e12849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. UNEP-WCMC; IUCN. Protected Planet Report 2024; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN: Cambridge, UK; Gland, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  26. McDonald, G.; Bone, J.; Costello, C.; Englander, G.; Raynor, J. Global expansion of marine protected areas and the redistribution of fishing effort. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 121, e2400592121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Günther, P.; Ekardt, F. Balancing climate goals and biodiversity protection: Legal implications of the 30 × 30 target for land-based carbon removal. Front. Clim. 2023, 5, 1276606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Palomo, I.; González-García, A.; Ferraro, P.J.; Muradian, R.; Pascual, U.; Arboledas, M.; Bullock, J.M.; Bruley, E.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Lavorel, S. Business-as-usual trends will largely miss 2030 global conservation targets. Ambio 2025, 54, 212–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Thapa, K.; King, D.; Diedrich, A. The influence of perceptions and demographic factors on local support for protected areas. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2025, 7, e70003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Michaelsen, P.; Sundström, A.; Jagers, S.C. Mass Support for Conserving 30% of the Earth by 2030: Experimental Evidence from Five Continents; QoG Working Paper Series 2024: 14; University of Gothenburg: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2024; Available online: https://www.gu.se/sites/default/files/2024-12/2024_14_Michaelsen_Sundstrom_Jagers.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2025).
  31. Biodiversity Council. 2024−2025 Biodiversity Concerns Report: A Survey of Community Attitudes Toward Nature Conservation; Biodiversity Council: Melbourne, Australia, 2025; Available online: https://biodiversitycouncil.org.au/admin/uploads/2025_Biodiversity_Council_Community_Concerns_Report_ee239c6469.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2025).
  32. Watson, J.E.M.; Venegas-Li, R.; Grantham, H.; Dudley, N.; Stolton, S.; Rao, M.; Woodley, S.; Hockings, M.; Burkart, K.; Simmonds, J.S.; et al. Priorities for protected area expansion so nations can meet their Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework commitments. Integr. Conserv. 2023, 2, 140–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bell-James, J.; Foster, R.; Shumway, N.; Lovelock, C.E.; Villarreal-Rosas, J.; Brown, C.J.; Andradi-Brown, D.A.; Saunders, M.I.; Waltham, N.J.; Fitzsimons, J.A. The Global Biodiversity Framework’s ecosystem restoration target requires more clarity and careful legal interpretation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2024, 8, 840–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Australian Government. Australia’s Strategy for Nature: 2024–2030 Australia’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; Australian Government: Canberra, Australia, 2024.
  35. Fitzsimons, J.A.; Hazin, C.; Smith, J.L. Common misconceptions of ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs) and implications for global conservation targets. npj Biodivers. 2025, 4, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. von Staden, L.; Holness, S.D.; Lombard, A.T. Can strategic protected area expansion solve the insufficient representation of biodiversity in protected area networks? A case study from South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2025, 302, 110903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Carter, S.K.; Keuler, N.S.; Pidgeon, A.M.; Radeloff, V.C. Evaluating the influence of conservation plans on land protection actions in Wisconsin, USA. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 178, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bell-James, J.; Watson, J.E.M. Ambitions in national plans do not yet match bold international protection and restoration commitments. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2025, 9, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, Q.; Ge, Y.; Sayer, J.A. Challenges to implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Land 2023, 12, 2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hughes, A.C. The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next? Integr. Conserv. 2023, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bennett, N.J.; Roth, R.; Klain, S.C.; Chan, K.; Christie, P.; Clark, D.A.; Cullman, G.; Curran, D.; Durbin, T.J.; Epstein, G.; et al. Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 205, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bocking, S. Science and conservation: A history of natural and political landscapes. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 113, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Flynn, C.; Yamasumi, E.; Fisher, S.; Snow, D.; Grant, Z.; Kirby, M.; Browning, P.; Rommerskirchen, M.; Russell, I. Peoples’ Climate vote; United Nations Development Programme and University of Oxford: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  44. Halkos, G.; Matsiori, S. Understanding the public’s perceptions of the importance, management, and conservation of biodiversity. Econ. Anal. Policy 2022, 75, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nagai, K. The representation of public opinion in reporting poll results on environment issues. Front. Commun. 2023, 8, 1225306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 03444 g001
Figure 1. Responses by the residents of different countries to the statement “I want my government to take action to protect areas of diverse wildlife and plant species as well as the land, forests and waterways in our country”.
Figure 1. Responses by the residents of different countries to the statement “I want my government to take action to protect areas of diverse wildlife and plant species as well as the land, forests and waterways in our country”.
Sustainability 17 03444 g001
Sustainability 17 03444 g002
Figure 2. Level of favorability for the proposed 30 × 30 global protection target in different countries (10–8 = very favorable, 7–6 = somewhat favorable, 5 = neutral, 4–3 = somewhat unfavorable, and 2–0 = very unfavorable).
Figure 2. Level of favorability for the proposed 30 × 30 global protection target in different countries (10–8 = very favorable, 7–6 = somewhat favorable, 5 = neutral, 4–3 = somewhat unfavorable, and 2–0 = very unfavorable).
Sustainability 17 03444 g002
Sustainability 17 03444 g003
Figure 3. The likelihood of residents supporting their national government to commit to protecting 30% of their nation’s lands and oceans by 2030 (10–8 = very likely, 7–6 = somewhat likely, 5 = neutral, 4–3 = somewhat unlikely, and 2–0 = very unlikely).
Figure 3. The likelihood of residents supporting their national government to commit to protecting 30% of their nation’s lands and oceans by 2030 (10–8 = very likely, 7–6 = somewhat likely, 5 = neutral, 4–3 = somewhat unlikely, and 2–0 = very unlikely).
Sustainability 17 03444 g003
Sustainability 17 03444 g004
Figure 4. Relative support for the nature- or human-focused benefits of protection in the messaging. ‘Nature for Nature’ equates to the option “We must protect the Earth’s land, water and wildlife because all species have a right to live, regardless of the usefulness to humans” and ‘Nature for Humanity’ equates to the option “We must protect the Earth’s land, water, and wildlife because they provide many benefits that support human prosperity, health, and well-being”. A small proportion of respondents responded that they “don’t know” or did not answer (Barbados 1.2%, Colombia 1.5%, Mongolia 2.0%, Kenya 3.5%, Germany 8.8%, Australia 7.2%, USA 6.8%).
Figure 4. Relative support for the nature- or human-focused benefits of protection in the messaging. ‘Nature for Nature’ equates to the option “We must protect the Earth’s land, water and wildlife because all species have a right to live, regardless of the usefulness to humans” and ‘Nature for Humanity’ equates to the option “We must protect the Earth’s land, water, and wildlife because they provide many benefits that support human prosperity, health, and well-being”. A small proportion of respondents responded that they “don’t know” or did not answer (Barbados 1.2%, Colombia 1.5%, Mongolia 2.0%, Kenya 3.5%, Germany 8.8%, Australia 7.2%, USA 6.8%).
Sustainability 17 03444 g004
Table 1. Respondents to survey in each country and number of general public and engaged citizens.
Table 1. Respondents to survey in each country and number of general public and engaged citizens.
CountryTotal ResponsesGeneral PublicEngaged Citizens
USA400244 (61.0%)156 (39.0%)
Australia400253 (63.3%)147 (36.8%)
Germany400202 (50.5%)198 (49.5%)
Kenya40017 (4.3%)383 (95.8%)
Mongolia303164 (54.1%)139 (45.9%)
Colombia401142 (35.4%)259 (64.6%)
Barbados333 *141 (42.3%)192 (67.7%)
TOTAL26371163 (44.1%)1474 (55.9%)
* For the question “I want my government to take action to protect areas of diverse wildlife and plant species as well as the land, forests and waterways in our country” Barbados had 169 respondents (72 general public and 97 engaged citizens).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fitzsimons, J.A.; Garrison, K.; Finnegan, B.; Luby, I. The 30 × 30 Protection Target: Attitudes of Residents from Seven Countries. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3444. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083444

AMA Style

Fitzsimons JA, Garrison K, Finnegan B, Luby I. The 30 × 30 Protection Target: Attitudes of Residents from Seven Countries. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3444. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083444

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fitzsimons, James A., Kellyn Garrison, Blinne Finnegan, and Ian Luby. 2025. "The 30 × 30 Protection Target: Attitudes of Residents from Seven Countries" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3444. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083444

APA Style

Fitzsimons, J. A., Garrison, K., Finnegan, B., & Luby, I. (2025). The 30 × 30 Protection Target: Attitudes of Residents from Seven Countries. Sustainability, 17(8), 3444. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083444

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop