Concept

Biodiversity hotspot

Also known as: hotspot, Myers hotspot, global biodiversity hotspot

A region defined, in the Conservation International framework first proposed by Norman Myers (1988) and refined in Myers et al. (*Nature* 2000), as combining exceptional plant [[endemism|endemism]] (≥1,500 species of endemic vascular plants) with substantial habitat loss (≤30% of original primary vegetation remaining). 36 hotspots are currently recognized globally. Together they cover ~2.5% of global terrestrial surface but contain ~50% of all endemic vascular plant species and ~43% of all endemic terrestrial vertebrates. The hotspot framework has been one of the most influential global conservation prioritization tools of the past three decades — and one of the more substantively criticized for what it includes, what it omits, and what it implicitly elevates.

The framework

Myers’s original 1988 list identified 10 hotspots; subsequent revisions expanded the count, and the current framework recognizes 36. The two qualifying criteria:

Endemism criterion. A region must contain ≥1,500 species of endemic vascular plants (defined as 0.5% of the world’s 300,000 total vascular plant species).
Threat criterion. A region must have lost ≥70% of its original primary vegetation cover.

The criteria deliberately combine biological importance with conservation urgency — the framework’s goal was to identify the regions where conservation investment would prevent the largest possible extinctions per dollar.

The 36 current hotspots include — among those discussed elsewhere in this wiki — the [[cape-floristic-region|Cape Floristic Region]], the [[mediterranean-basin|Mediterranean Basin]], the [[western-ghats|Western Ghats]] (jointly with Sri Lanka), the [[atlantic-forest|Atlantic Forest]], the Cerrado, the Tropical Andes, the Mesoamerican highlands (parts of [[mesoamerica|Mesoamerica]]), Sundaland, Indo-Burma (overlapping with the [[mekong-delta|Mekong Basin]]), the Eastern Afromontane (overlapping with the [[albertine-rift|Albertine Rift]]), Wallacea, the Philippines, Madagascar, New Caledonia, New Zealand, southwestern Australia, the California Floristic Province, Polynesia-Micronesia, and several others.

What the framework has done

The hotspot framework has shaped conservation priorities at substantial scale. Conservation International’s Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (founded 2000, partnered with the World Bank, MacArthur Foundation, Government of Japan, AFD, and the European Union) has invested over $300 million in hotspot regions since 2000. National-level conservation policies in many hotspot countries cite the framework as justification for protected-area designation. The IUCN Red List uses overlapping criteria for site-level prioritization.

What the framework gets criticized for

Three substantial critiques:

It’s plant-and-vascular biased. The endemism criterion measures only vascular plants. Marine, freshwater, fungal, microbial, and many invertebrate endemism patterns can differ substantially. Some highly endemic-rich marine regions (the Coral Triangle of Indonesia-Philippines-PNG) are recognized only because they overlap terrestrial hotspots; freshwater hotspots are systematically under-represented.

It elevates fortress conservation. The framework’s logic — protect remaining habitat — has historically been deployed through protected-area expansion, sometimes at the cost of Indigenous and local-community land rights. The [[batwa|Batwa]] evictions from Bwindi, Mgahinga, and Volcanoes National Parks in the [[albertine-rift|Albertine Rift]] hotspot are one example; similar conflicts have occurred in other hotspots. The framework was developed in a conservation-science context that has since matured substantially in recognition of Indigenous-led-conservation alternatives.

It can obscure rather than illuminate. Designating a region a “hotspot” has sometimes been used to attract conservation funding while local political-economic drivers of habitat destruction (mining, agroindustrial expansion, palm oil) operate untouched. Funding for hotspot conservation doesn’t automatically slow the drivers of biodiversity loss; sometimes it just produces well-resourced protected-area enclaves in landscapes that continue to be transformed.

What the framework remains useful for

Despite the critiques, the hotspot framework remains one of the more useful single-axis prioritization tools available. Its broad recognition has shaped funding, policy, and public understanding. The 36 hotspots are real — these regions genuinely do contain disproportionate concentrations of irreplaceable biodiversity, and losing them would be catastrophic. The critique is properly read as the framework should be one tool among several, not as the framework being wrong.

Sources

Myers et al., “Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities” (Nature 2000)
Conservation International — Hotspots
Mittermeier et al., Hotspots Revisited (2004)
Wikipedia — Biodiversity hotspot

A concept entry in the 0mn1.one wiki.

What links here, and how

Inbound connections from across the wiki, grouped by lens and by relationship. These appear automatically — every entity page declares what it links to, and that data populates here on the targets.

Nothing yet. This entry is currently one node away from the rest of the graph — links will appear here automatically as the wiki grows. Each new entity that mentions this one in its relations frontmatter shows up here.

0 inbound links · 5 outbound