Regional Sustainability 4 (2023) 203–213

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Regional Sustainability
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/regional-sustainability

Full Length Article

Overview of priorities, threats, and challenges to biodiversity

conservation in the southern Philippines
Angelo Rellama Agduma a, b, c, d, e, Francisco Gil Garcia f, Ma Teodora Cabasan c,
Jonald Pimentel g, Renee Jane Ele a, b, c, h, Meriam Rubio a, b, c, Sedra Murray a, b, c,
Bona Abigail Hilario-Husain a, b, c, Kier Celestial Dela Cruz a, b, c, Sumaira Abdullah a, b, c,
Shiela Mae Balase a, b, c, Krizler Cejuela Tanalgo a, b, c, *
a
Ecology and Conservation Research Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science and Mathematics, University of Southern
Mindanao, Cotabato, Kabacan, 9407, Philippines
b
Mindanao Open Biodiversity Information Project (MOBIOSþ), c/o Ecology and Conservation Research Laboratory, Department of Biological
Sciences, College of Science and Mathematics, University of Southern Mindanao, Cotabato, Kabacan, 9407, Philippines
c
Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science and Mathematics, University of Southern Mindanao, Cotabato, Kabacan, 9407, Philippines
d
State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Subtropical Agrobioresources, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China
e
Guangxi Key Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Conservation, College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China
f
Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Business, Development Economics and Management, University of Southern Mindanao, Cotabato,
Kabacan, 9407, Philippines
g
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, College of Science and Mathematics, University of Southern Mindanao, Cotabato, Kabacan, 9407,
Philippines
h
Practical Genomics Laboratory, Department of Biology, College of Science, De La Salle University-Manila, Manila, 1004, Philippines

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Human activities have severely impacted many species and ecosystems. Thus, understanding the
Biodiversity conservation local biodiversity situation is crucial for implementing effective biodiversity conservation in-
Tree cover loss terventions. Mindanao in the southern Philippines is home to various unique species, particularly
Mindanao
in its pristine ecosystems. However, the available biodiversity data for many terrestrial vertebrates
Terrestrial vertebrates
Endemic and threatened species
and key areas remain incomplete. To address this issue, we synthesized published literature
related to biodiversity from 2000 to 2022 in Mindanao. Moreover, this analysis used four key
terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) in Mindanao as research objects.
According to our findings, there was a significant and positive correlation between the number of
biodiversity studies and species recorded. In terms of species richness, birds were the most
recorded group (n ¼ 334 spp.), followed by reptiles (n ¼ 108 spp.), mammals (n ¼ 70 spp.), and
amphibians (n ¼ 52 spp.). We also found that the number of endemic and threatened species varies
geographically and across taxonomic groups. Yet, we discovered a significant disparity in the
information available on biodiversity in different provinces of Mindanao. For example, the
western provinces of Mindanao have had not records of biodiversity for more than two decades.
Furthermore, we found that the changes in tree cover loss were consistent with biodiversity re-
cords, but this correlation is only significant for birds. Finally, we highlighted some critical threats
and challenges to biodiversity, including deforestation, agricultural expansion, mining, and their
impact on biodiversity conservation in Mindanao. Our findings suggested that biodiversity

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K.C. Tanalgo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2023.05.003
Received 13 December 2022; Received in revised form 3 April 2023; Accepted 19 May 2023
Available online 26 May 2023
2666-660X/© 2023 Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi
Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A.R. Agduma, F.C. Garcia, M.T. Cabasan, et al. Regional Sustainability 4 (2023) 203–213

conservation should focus not only on areas with high levels of biodiversity but also on areas
lacking biodiversity information. To do this, we call for strengthening collaboration among various
institutions and digitizing and centralizing of information related to biodiversity. By gaining a
deeper understanding of biodiversity in Mindanao, we can better and sustainably protect critical
ecosystems in this region from the increasing threats posed by human activities.

1. Introduction

The decline in environmental quality is an inevitable consequence of rapid population growth and increased consumption of natural
resources, which threatens global and local biodiversity at an alarming rate (Malcolm et al., 2006; Pimm et al., 2014). Balancing
economic development and biodiversity protection must be achieved, but it is often challenging and requires understanding and setting
biodiversity conservation priorities (Hughes, 2017a). Identifying regions with relevant biodiversity features is a primary step in crafting
and strengthening existing biodiversity conservation frameworks (Benayas and Monta~ na, 2003). However, now global biodiversity
conservation priorities are often too broad to be effectively implemented at the national and local levels (Mace et al., 2010; Zhu et al.,
2021). Additionally, the current economic situation and the lack of capacity to implement these priorities locally pose a challenge to
their implementation (Sarvajayakesavalu, 2015). Considering the significant differences in threat levels, response measures, and
government capabilities in different places, it is necessary to develop adaptive biodiversity conservation priorities (Tanalgo and Hughes,
2018, 2019). One of the crucial steps in developing biodiversity conservation priorities at the regional or local scale is to understand its
status (e.g., species richness and occurrence) and identify biodiversity hotspots, threatening processes, research directions, and existing
biodiversity policies (Cannon et al., 2007). Consolidation of available and accessible biodiversity information from various networks
and literature is the basis for establishing conservation goals and programs (Cannon et al., 2007; Di Minin et al., 2017). However, many
biodiversity data are still unpublished and incomplete, particularly in developing countries (Troudet et al., 2017; Tantipisanuh and Gale,
2018) such as the Philippines.
The Philippines is a tropical country with biodiversity, characterized by its pristine rainforest and archipelagic environment (Heaney
and Regalado, 1998). It is considered as one of the wealthiest countries in Southeast Asia in terms of the high number of endemic and
unique species (Heaney and Regalado, 1998; Posa and Sodhi, 2006; Boquet, 2017). However, the country faces many anthropogenic
threats (Posa and Sodhi, 2006; Mallari et al., 2016). The decline in forest area caused by logging and agricultural expansion has led to a
dramatic change in land cover, especially in the lowlands in the Philippines (Apan et al., 2017). In contrast, approximately 61.00% of the
land in the Philippines is devoted to agriculture, contributing to at least 9.00% of the Philippines’ Gross Domestic Product in 2018
(Statista, 2020). The 2021 Philippine Forest Management Bureau (FMB) published that the remaining forest cover in the Philippines in
2020 was 7.23  104 hm2, which is equivalent to 24.09% of the total land area of the Philippines (FMB, 2021).
The threatened species of the Philippines are widely distributed among its more than 7000 islands. Mindanao covers at least 34.00%
of the country's total land area of 300,000 km2, with six economic regions, 24 provinces, 14 cities, and 400 towns (PhilAtlas, 2022).
There are numerous key important areas for biodiversity conservation in Mindanao, and they share a high level of endemism and have
several threatened species. For example, Mount Apo Natural Park (2954–3144 m a.s.l.), the Philippines's highest mountain, is in
Mindanao and is a critical home range for the critically endangered Philippine Eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi) (Molina, 2020). Mount
Kitanglad in northeastern Mindanao, the second highest peak in the Philippines, also has several endemic species, including Limnomys
sp., a Mindanao-only rodent genus (Rickart et al., 2003).
Meanwhile, some species occur only in a single region in Mindanao, such as Comb-crested Jacana (Irediparra gallinacea), which is
endemic to the Liguasan Marsh, a game refuge and bird sanctuary in southcentral Mindanao. Moreover, Agusan Marsh is a habitat for
more than 200 species of migratory birds from China, Russia, and Japan. Both wetlands are important habitats for the endangered
Philippine crocodile (Crocodylus mindorensis) and the estuarine crocodile (C. porosus) (Hinlo et al., 2014). Agusan Marsh was the largest
home of captive salt crocodiles in the world, which spanned up to 6.17 m. Despite these wetland ecosystems and natural resources are
abundant, threats and disturbances always exist (Hinlo et al., 2014; Sarmiento, 2021). Other important protected areas in Mindanao
include the Protected Landscape and Seascapes of the Siargao Islands and the Turtle Islands Wildlife Sanctuary. The Siargao Islands
comprise the largest contiguous mangrove area in the Philippines and are home to 14 endemic species of mammals, 55 endemic species
of birds, and nine endemic species of frogs (Key Biodiversity Areas Partnership, 2023). The Turtle Islands in the southwest Philippines is
an important nesting site for the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) (Senga, 2001).
Mindanao is the second largest group of islands in the Philippines after Luzon, facing challenges in limited research and funding for
biodiversity (Amoroso, 2000; Alcala, 2004). While some exploration of protected areas in Mindanao has been conducted in the past,
comprehensive studies have not been carried out in several regions and habitats of Mindanao in recent years. Furthermore, information
on species distribution and the extent of threats to biodiversity is still limited (Amoroso, 2000; Alcala, 2004; Tanalgo et al., 2019). This
study aims to gain a comprehensive understanding of the status and trends of biodiversity in Mindanao and identify the priority areas for
conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify important trends and gaps in biodiversity information from 2000 to 2022, evaluate the
conservation status and endemism of key terrestrial vertebrates, and examine their relationship with provincial-level tree cover loss.
Additionally, our goal was to analyze the major and potential threats to terrestrial biodiversity in Mindanao. Our findings presented
here will provide a reference for biodiversity research in Mindanao and help develop effective conservation measures. In addition, our
study is significant as it involves a crucial area for biodiversity conservation in the Philippines. Furthermore, the framework we
developed has the potential to be applied to other regions of the Philippines, providing a valuable tool for evaluating and understanding

204
A.R. Agduma, F.C. Garcia, M.T. Cabasan, et al. Regional Sustainability 4 (2023) 203–213

the status of biodiversity. This framework would facilitate comparative analyses for biodiversity scientists and aid in identifying
biodiversity conservation priorities across the country.

2. Materials and methods

We extensively explored the literature related to biodiversity in Mindanao published from 2000 to 2022, using Google Scholar
(https://scholar.google.com.ph/) and self-archiving ResearchGate (https://www.researchgate.net/). This analysis focused on four key
terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) as biodiversity proxies. We used the following keywords and their
combinations to search for published literature: ‘Mindanao’, ‘Wildlife’, ‘Fauna’, ‘Biodiversity’, ‘Mountain*’, ‘Surveys’, ‘Protected areas
and key biodiversity areas (KBA)’, ‘Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER)’, ‘Protected Areas’, and ‘Key Biodiversity Areas’.
We filtered and classified the downloaded literature according to relevance using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) procedure (McInnes et al., 2018). We reviewed the abstract, which only included biodiversity
studies focusing on terrestrial vertebrates in Mindanao. We excluded studies that exclusively dealt with laboratory experiments,
domesticated wildlife, and review articles. All search results were reduced and classified twice for relevance. The first dataset from the
published literature was checked and cross-referenced. We then curated all information, such as taxonomic groups, scientific names,
endemism, conservation status, geographical distribution, and location, and noted threats following the research of Tanalgo and Hughes
(2018). Then we classified all literature based on research themes, diversity, taxonomy and systematics, ecology, wildlife disease, and
conservation (see Tanalgo and Hughes (2018) for a detailed description of each theme). We counted those studies separately with
overlapping themes. Then we classified based on four major terrestrial vertebrates (e.g., amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) and
locality. We assessed species conservation status and endemism using the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (version
2022–1) (IUCN Red List, 2022).
We used a simple linear regression to analyze the spatiotemporal trends of biodiversity research in Mindanao from 2000 to 2022.
Subsequently, we used the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test to determine the differences in the number of biodiversity studies and
species recorded according to groups of terrestrial vertebrates. We then identified key potential threats in Mindanao based on the
database we built. Initially, we identified habitat loss and modification as the primary threats to species and ecosystems. To determine
the extent of tree cover loss in various provinces and key biodiversity hotspots in Mindanao, we extracted data on tree cover loss from
Global Forest Watch from 2000 to 2021 (Global Forest Watch, 2022). We used Kendall's Tau-b to determine the correlation between the
number of species recorded per province and tree cover loss, thereby determining the relationship between threat and biodiversity.
We conducted all our statistical tests and visualization using open-source Jamovi software (Jamovi project team, Sydney, Australia)
and GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Software company, Boston, USA), respectively. All statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 level.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Trends of biodiversity in Mindanao

A total of 99 published literature was collated from 2000 to 2022. We found that numerous studies have overlapped thematic
classifications and taxonomic records. Moreover, most of the studies are in the areas of ‘diversity’ (mean value ¼ 5.7/a) and are followed
by studies related to ‘conservation’ (mean value ¼ 1.4/a), with very few studies focused on ‘wildlife disease’ and ‘ecology’ (Fig. 1)
(Kruskal-Wallis: H ¼ 16.180, df ¼ 4, P ¼ 0.003).
In terms of the number of biodiversity studies per taxonomic group, there are 36 researches for amphibians, 26 for reptiles, 39 for
birds, and 30 for mammals (Fig. 2) (Kruskal-Wallis: H ¼ 0.391, df ¼ 3, P ¼ 0.954). According to our findings, there was a significant and

Fig. 1. Proportion of four major terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) (a) and the relationship between the number of
biodiversity studies and species recorded in Mindanao from 2000 to 2022 (b).

205
A.R. Agduma, F.C. Garcia, M.T. Cabasan, et al. Regional Sustainability 4 (2023) 203–213

Fig. 2. The number of biodiversity studies and the variation trend of the four major terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mam-
mals) in Mindanao from 2000 to 2022.

positive correlation between the number of biodiversity studies and species recorded (R2 ¼ 0.792, P ¼ 0.043) (Fig. 1b). The annual trend
in the number of total terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) varied, peaking only in 2015 and 2021 (Fig. 2).
Notably, there has been a positive increase in the total number of biodiversity studies across all terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians: R2 ¼
0.295, P ¼ 0.007; reptiles: R2 ¼ 0.268, P ¼ 0.011; birds: R2 ¼ 0.334, P ¼ 0.004; mammals: R2 ¼ 0.338, P ¼ 0.004). Moreover, we
observed a strong and significant correlation between the number of studies and species recorded in four terrestrial vertebrates
(Table 1).
Although biodiversity studies in Mindanao remained relatively low (mean value ¼ 4/a), we recorded 609 terrestrial vertebrate
species based on published literature in Mindanao from 2000 to 2022. In terms of species richness, birds were the most recorded group
(n ¼ 334 spp.), followed by reptiles (n ¼ 108 spp.), mammals (n ¼ 70 spp.), and amphibians (n ¼ 52 spp.) (Fig. 3). Moreover, we found a
significant difference in the means of species recorded per year between terrestrial vertebrates (Kruskal-Wallis: H ¼ 11.038, df ¼ 4, P ¼
0.026) from 2000 to 2022.
A total of 565 species of terrestrial vertebrates were recorded from published literature from 2000 to 2022. We found reasonably
high endemism in the four combined terrestrial vertebrates (total species: 49.00%; n¼276 spp.) (Fig. 4a). The highest proportion of
endemism within terrestrial vertebrates was recorded in amphibians (62.00%; n¼33 spp.), followed by reptiles (58.00%; n¼63 spp.),
birds (46.00%; n¼152 spp.), and mammals (40.00%; n¼28 spp.). In terms of conservation status, 13.00% of all species are in the
threatened status. Mammals and reptiles topped the highest proportion of endangered species (23.00% and 15.00%, respectively)
(Fig. 4b), while 88.00% of the total species were in the least concerned species.
Biodiversity patterns in Mindanao were mainly concentrated in biodiversity hotspots and within intact habitats (e.g., Key Biodi-
versity Area, but this could be associated with the fact that research efforts are skewed towards these sites. Among these sites, Agusan del
Sur Province recorded the highest number of species, followed by the North Cotabato and Agusan del Sur provinces (Fig. 5a). However,
the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), formerly the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM),
and most of the areas in the Zamboanga Peninsula in western Mindanao lacked biodiversity records for more than 20 years (Fig. 5a), so
they are identified as key priority regions in terms of future biodiversity research and conservation.
We quantified the tree cover loss in different provinces of Mindanao to represent the environmental status of each province and then
studied the relationship between tree cover loss and the number of species recorded per province. Only 19 (79.00%) provinces in
Mindanao have had terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity data recorded since 2000 (Fig. 5a). Furthermore, we found that the changes in tree
cover loss were consistent with biodiversity records (i.e., the number of species recorded), but this correlation is only significant for
birds (Fig. 5b and c). Mammals showed fewer records than other terrestrial vertebrates, which may be related to researchers’ low
detectability and investigation of terrestrial vertebrates.

Table 1
Kendall’s Tau-b correlation coefficient for species recorded in four major terrestrial vertebrates.
Terrestrial vertebrates Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals

Amphibians – – – –
Reptiles 0.845 – – –
Birds 0.670 0.526 – –
Mammals 0.589 0.548 0.676 –

Note: All values are significant at P < 0.05 level. “-” means no data.

206
A.R. Agduma, F.C. Garcia, M.T. Cabasan, et al. Regional Sustainability 4 (2023) 203–213

Fig. 3. Number of biodiversity studies and species recorded in four major terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) in
Mindanao from 2000 to 2022.

Fig. 4. Proportion of endemic species (a) and threatened species (b) of four major terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals)
in Mindanao from 2000 to 2022.

3.2. Threats and challenges of biodiversity in mindanao

3.2.1. Deforestation and habitat loss

In Mindanao, the total tree cover loss was approximately 5.11  106 hm2 from 2000 to 2021 (Global Forest Watch, 2022) (Fig. 5b).
An immense problem facing local farmers and indigenous people today is illegal logging (Shively and Pagiola, 2004; Suarez and Sajise,
2010). Massive illegal logging practices were reported despite the government's striving to ban wood harvesting (Vitug, 1998; Lasco
et al., 2001; Reboredo, 2013). In Mindanao, the loss of tree cover is more significant in the northeast region than in other areas due to
deforestation, agricultural expansion, and mining in these areas. In this study, we found that the highest loss of tree cover occurs in
regions where the species recorded is also high, especially those areas inhabited by amphibians, reptiles, and birds (Fig. 5). The effects of
deforestation on the number of species in Mindanao are poorly studied, and even understanding how species respond to deforestation is
limited for many terrestrial vertebrates in the Philippines, for example, bats (Tanalgo and Hughes, 2019). In some local-scale bird
studies, Tanalgo et al. (2019) found that species and functional diversity decreased in southern Mindanao, where the habitat is less intact
or degraded. This suggested that endemic and specialist species prefer areas with more intact forests than areas with high disturbance
and low vegetation (Maala, 2001; Achondo et al., 2014). Although wildlife species are likely to decrease in highly modified areas,
Quibod et al. (2021) found some important species may continue to thrive in some fragmented sites.

3.2.2. Agricultural development and expansion

The increase in demand for food production has put tremendous pressures on terrestrial biodiversity (Wilcove et al., 2013; Hughes,
2017b). Deforestation and land conversion lead to changes in ecosystems and loss of biodiversity (Dudley and Alexander, 2017). For
example, slash-and-burn agriculture, locally known as ‘kaingin’, is a significant land use type, especially in the highlands of underde-
veloped tropical countries (Mukul et al., 2016), including Mindanao. The degree of shifting cultivation and previous land use patterns

207
A.R. Agduma, F.C. Garcia, M.T. Cabasan, et al. Regional Sustainability 4 (2023) 203–213

Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of four major terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) (a), tree cover loss (b), and the rela-
tionship between tree cover loss and number of species occurrence records (c) in Mindanao from 2000 to 2022. We performed log10 conversion on
the data of tree cover loss and number of species occurrence records (see Fig. 5c) to improve data distribution of the variables.

can affect the ability of tropical forests to regenerate (Jakovac et al., 2015). It may take more than five years for woody species to become
prominent secondary woods after rotation (Raharimalala et al., 2010).
The Philippine economy is growing, and agricultural production is expected to expand in the next decade (Ortiz and Torres, 2020),
particularly in Mindanao due to its rich soils and available arable land areas. Mindanao is the leading production region of agricultural
and raw materials in the Philippines, such as corn (Zea mays), durian (Durio sp.), coconut (Cocos nucifera), mango (Mangifera indica), and
rice (Oryza sativa) (Varela et al., 2013; Dejarme-Calalang et al., 2015). The soils and climate of Mindanao are suitable for many
monoculture plantations, including the oil palm plantations (Elaeis guineensis). Among the eight central oil palm plantations in the
Philippines, six are in Mindanao. Oil palm plantations have produced approximately 7.70  107 kg annually from 2000 to 2018 (Index
Mundi, 2018). The most extensive oil palm plantations, estimated to be around 9.00  104 hm2, are concentrated in the Caraga and
Soccsksargen regions (Varela et al., 2013; Batugal, 2014) and are predicted to increase drastically over the next few years (Tanalgo et al.,
2019). Similar to oil palm plantation, rubber plantations (Hevea brasiliensis) are also expanding, covering at least 2.19  105 hm2 (in
2015), particularly in western Mindanao and Soccsksargen (Tanalgo and Hughes, 2019). Banana (Musa sp.) and pineapple (Ananas sp.)
plantations are also currently expanding in Mindanao. Recent spatial analysis of about 250 banana and pineapple plantations in
Mindanao and its surrounding impact zones revealed an overlap with at least 83 important habitats of flora and fauna habitats
threatened and affected by intensive agriculture (Ortiz and Torres, 2020).
It is increasingly recognized that agricultural areas are possible temporary habitats for wildlife in Mindanao (Sanguila et al., 2016).
However, there is still limited information on the effects of agriculture on wildlife in the Philippines, particularly in Mindanao. Although
there are several studies on biodiversity within agricultural areas, for example, Agduma et al. (2011) showed that rubber plantations can
promote the growth of some native vegetation valuable to wildlife in southern Mindanao. A study of bird communities between rubber
and oil palm plantations also showed that the former could have higher species richness and endemism compared to the latter (Achondo

208
A.R. Agduma, F.C. Garcia, M.T. Cabasan, et al. Regional Sustainability 4 (2023) 203–213

et al., 2011), but the diversity of both plantations was still lower than in heterogeneous and intact habitats such as protected areas and
restored sites (Achondo et al., 2014; Tanalgo et al., 2019). In a similar case, long-term monitoring of fruit bats in southern Mindanao
showed a significant difference in the ability of oil palm and rubber plantations to promote the growth of common species (Tanalgo
et al., 2021). The abundance of bats and more specialized species is significantly higher in rubber plantations compared to oil palm
plantations. This could be associated with taller and more diverse vegetation in rubber plantations (Agduma et al., 2011).

3.2.3. Mining and extraction industry

Mining affects natural ecosystems on multiple spatial scales. For example, surface mining can remove topsoil and vegetation
(Wickham et al., 2013) and lead to habitat degradation on a local scale (Naeem et al., 1999). Mindanao holds over a third of the country's
mineral reserves, 50.00% of gold and 65.00% of nickel (Bautista, 2016; Paz et al., 2016). The Caraga recorded gross mineral sales of
1.33  109 USD in 2020 and 1.44  109 USD in 2021 (Jocson, 2022). On the other hand, Tampakan in South Cotabato has the most
significant untapped copper-gold reserve in Southeast Asia. There is a value of 5.90  109 USD copper and gold mining project stalled in
Tampakan, which is one of the largest projects of its kind in the world. Once developed, the average yield can reach 3.75  108 kg of
copper and 289.00 kg of gold (Sarmiento, 2022). Other key mining areas in Mindanao are T'boli, South Cotabato, Bagumbayan, Sultan
Kudarat, Gango, Libona, Bukidnon, Tumpagon and Pigsag-an, Cagayan de Oro City, Nangcaon, Opol, Misamis Oriental, Rogongon, and
Iligan City (Canencia et al., 2015; Paz et al., 2016).
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources of the Philippines recently identified 9.00  108 hm2 of potential mining
areas (Recuenco, 2022), most of which have intact forests, and mining may damage the biodiversity of these areas. Tampakan had 18.60
 103 hm2 of natural forest in 2010, extending over 63.00% of its land area, but it experienced a net change of 766.00 hm2 (2.70%) of
tree cover loss from 2000 to 2020. T'boli in South Cotabato experienced a net change of 925.00 hm2 (1.60%) of its tree cover loss,
while Libona in Bukidnon had 1.88  102 hm2 of tree cover loss, equivalent to a 2.00% decrease in tree cover loss since 2000. Cagayan
de Oro City, on the other hand, experienced a net change of 351.00 hm2 (1.20%) in tree cover loss from 2000 to 2020, while Opol,
Misamis Oriental, experienced a net variation of 142.00 hm2 (2.00%) in tree cover (Global Forest Watch, 2022).
Although mining was a significant driver of biodiversity loss, previous studies showed that it could also promote an increase in the
number of various species, but mainly common species and a few species dependent on forest (Paz et al., 2016). Profiling of terrestrial
biodiversity across multiple mining areas in Mindanao identified 11 critically endangered flora, 13 endangered flora and fauna, and 58
vulnerable species in Caraga, Soccsksargen, and northern Mindanao (Paz et al., 2016). Furthermore, some identified threatened and
endemic birds preferred mature forests, which required immediate conservation of these forests in these mining areas (Paz et al., 2016).
Despite restoration attempts and a push for sustainable mining in Mindanao (Manila Standards, 2020; BMB-DENR, 2022), the adverse
effects of mining on biodiversity and habitats were irreversible (Tropek et al., 2012; Sonter et al., 2018).

3.3. Role of indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation of mindanao

Conservation of biological resources has received a lot of attention (Xu et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2021). Indigenous peoples are the
primary stewards of the natural environment and play a vital role in safeguarding biodiversity (Ogar et al., 2020). At least a quarter of
the land area on Earth is occupied and inhabited by indigenous peoples (Sneed, 2019). Indigenous peoples live in areas where forest
integrity is well-protected or highly protected (Grantham, 2022). The vital role of indigenous peoples in preserving and restoring
biodiversity in different regions of the world has been well demonstrated (Ogar et al., 2020). For example, 30.00% of the primates and
71.00% of the species live on indigenous peoples’ lands (Estrada et al., 2022). Furthermore, over 25.00% of Amazon bats overlap with
the areas where indigenous peoples live (Fernandez-Llamazares et al., 2021).
Approximately 85.00% of key biodiversity areas in the Philippines are embedded within indigenous peoples' lands (Global Envi-
ronment Facility, 2019). In Mindanao, about 18–25 indigenous groups (i.e., Lumad ethnolinguistic groups) (Clariza, 2022) mostly thrive
in areas with high biodiversity. The indigenous peoples of Mindanao believed that wildlife and the natural environment are part of their
culture and lifestyle (Buenavista et al., 2022). Therefore, academics and non-governmental organizations often study biodiversity in
indigenous peoples’ lands (Manuel et al., 2021; Buenavista et al., 2022). For example, Buenavista et al. (2022) studied the ethnobo-
tanical practices of the Higaonon tribe and obtained valuable information on wild food plants that are potential alternatives but are often
neglected.
Similarly, Nuneza et al. (2021) revealed various flora with ethnomedicinal values from the Mamawa tribe in Surigao del Norte and
Agusan del Norte provinces, suggesting the important role of indigenous peoples in conveying knowledge of biodiversity. In Mount Apo
Natural Park, populations of endemic brown deer (Rusa marianna) within the ancestral domains are widely protected by indigenous
peoples, suggesting the importance of indigenous peoples in the preservation of biodiversity (Villegas et al., 2022). The indigenous
peoples of Mount Apo Natural Park considered that wildlife and forests are sacred. Therefore, they must protect the species and their
habitats (Villegas et al., 2022). Although there are some reports of hunting species, such as flying foxes, wild boars, and large reptiles,
they only hunt for subsistence and cultural practices, which is allowed by law in the Philippine government. Indigenous peoples are also
crucial to protecting flagship species; for example, environmentalists collaborate with residents to protect the famous Philippine eagle
within its range of activities (Salvador and Ibanez, 2006; Panopio et al., 2021).
Indigenous peoples, governments, and non-government have taken some encouraging measures, such as integrating community
planning with current goals for community development, cultural reaffirmation, and environmental preservation. In Pangasananan,
Bislig City, Surigao del Sur Province, Caraga, the Manobo tribes participated in the Community Conservation Plan (CCP), which aims to
promote the reforestation of denuded areas and water sources areas and increase biodiversity protection in these regions. Indigenous
people are also sought as Bagani or wildlife enforcement officers (Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Conserved Territories and

209
A.R. Agduma, F.C. Garcia, M.T. Cabasan, et al. Regional Sustainability 4 (2023) 203–213

Areas (ICCA) ICCA Registry, 2019). Initiatives such as ICCA aimed to promote and maintain the leadership of indigenous peoples in the
conservation of critical habitats and prevent the cultural development and industrialization of these critical areas from being affected
(Global Environment Facility, 2019). In the Liguasan Marsh, most fishermen followed traditional fishing and farming practices,
emphasizing sustainability and considering the wetlands as a sacred site, which helps prevent overexploitation. The indigenous laws
strictly prohibited electric and chemical fishing and the catching of young fish to protect them. The heads of local neighborhoods,
traditional religious leaders, and Bangsamoro mujahideen leaders were able to work harmoniously despite their diverse backgrounds,
which helps to maintain peace. Magindanawan Bangsamoro held exclusive control over the access and utilization of the marshes,
demonstrating their dominance in this area (Sinolinding and Porciuncula, 2005). Due to the relationship between conservation values
and the promotion of wildlife conservation (Low et al., 2023), understanding and preservation of indigenous beliefs should be
prioritized.
In addition to these situations, there was ample evidence to suggest that indigenous peoples have contributed to the protection of
biodiversity in Mindanao and the entire Philippines. However, many indigenous peoples are concerned about the ongoing degradation
of forests and face difficulties due to the rapidly changing environment. For example, the Teduray tribes of Upi, Maguindanao, were
severely affected by the El Nino phenomenon in 2016, particularly in agriculture (Greenpeace, 2016). But the most worrying issue for
indigenous peoples in Mindanao is that they are forced to leave their ancestral territories. To protect already declining biodiversity and
achieve genuine sustainability in Mindanao, protecting various indigenous peoples and their lands (i.e., where biodiversity is
concentrated) should be one of the priorities in environmental policy-making in the country (Sneed, 2019). In addition, it is crucial to
involve indigenous people just and equally, in conjunction with conservation biologists and ecologists, to enhance our knowledge and
appreciation of biodiversity in Mindanao.

3.4. Advancing biodiversity research in mindanao

Our study showed several gaps and inequities in biodiversity research in Mindanao, which provides an opportunity to address them.
An important step forward is to make biodiversity information publicly available (Guerrero et al., 2021). Much valuable biodiversity
data have not yet been published and were often kept in many academic and research institutions (Tantipisanuh and Gale, 2018;
Guerrero, 2020; Khapugin and Silaeva, 2020). One way to address the inequities of biodiversity research in Mindanao is to emphasize
the crucial role of these academic and research institutions in unravelling biodiversity information. Expanding biodiversity research and
paying more focus on ecological conservation rather than simple and rapid inventory is an important first move toward advancing
biodiversity conservation in Mindanao. To achieve this, academic institutions must establish fair collaboration and equitable part-
nerships, complement, and strengthen their research capabilities, and promote further exploration by sharing research results. Many
academic institutions in the Philippines lack support for open-access journals, which is another challenge in accessing biodiversity
information. Support for this should be one of the measures that academic institutions need to take. Moreover, a facility of centralized
biodiversity data is needed to record and monitor the information on species and habitats within Mindanao. This information can be
used for ecological research to formulate biodiversity-related policies.

4. Conclusions and recommendations

Biodiversity studies are sparse in the Philippines, especially for certain terrestrial vertebrates, habitats, and regions (such as
Mindanao). Understanding biodiversity trends and gaps is crucial in designing effective intervention measures, which should be carried
out at various scales, ideally locally, to reflect the local situation and respond to environmental changes. Our current analysis showed
apparent trends and knowledge gaps in biodiversity that require careful attention. We used species recorded in key terrestrial verte-
brates at the taxonomic and species levels. Although this study was limited to these groups, they effectively indicated the biodiversity in
Mindanao. We found that most researches from 2000 to 2022 have exceedingly focused and were limited to community composition
and diversity studies with very scarce information on the habitats and numbers of species, e.g., how species respond to the changing
environment and how species interact with the environment. Additionally, when developing biodiversity conservation priorities, it
should include those endemic and threatened species and those understudied species. At the spatial level, priorities for future biodi-
versity research and funding in Mindanao should include more provinces and areas with poor biodiversity records, especially in the
western part of Mindanao. Furthermore, some protected areas in Mindanao, although there have been previously known studies, have
limited published information (e.g., Mt. Apo Natural Park).
A better understanding of biodiversity in Mindanao showed that we can better safeguard critical ecosystems, especially those
threatened by direct human activities and habitat loss, which are currently expanding to respond to growing populations. However, our
understanding of how these threats affect the biodiversity of Mindanao also remains limited and requires more attention and work. More
importantly, actively involving indigenous peoples and communities around protected areas to strengthen biodiversity conservation is
crucial to maintaining biodiversity integrity and improving ecosystem services in Mindanao.
The approach we developed in this work would contribute to the assessment and understanding of biodiversity in other regions of
the Philippines. This study would ultimately help to achieve the goals of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

210
A.R. Agduma, F.C. Garcia, M.T. Cabasan, et al. Regional Sustainability 4 (2023) 203–213

Acknowledgements

This study was a component of the Mindanao Open Biodiversity Information Project (MOBIOSþ), the flagship project of the
Biodiversity Synthesis Centre Ecology and Conservation Research Laboratory (Eco/Con Lab). A portion of this work is part of the
‘Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) in Changing Environment Project’ funded by the Ministry of Science
and Technology of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (MOST-BARMM).

References

Achondo, M.J.M.M., Casim, L.F., Bello, V.P., et al., 2011. Rapid assessment and feeding guilds of birds in selected rubber and oil palm plantations in North Cotabato.
Asian. J. Biodivers. 2 (1), 103–120.
Achondo, M.J.M.M., Tanalgo, K., Agduma, A., et al., 2014. Occurrence and abundance of fruit bats in selected conservation areas of North Cotabato, Philippines. Asian
J. Conserv. Biol. 3 (1), 3–7.
Agduma, A.R., Achondo, M.J.M.M., Bretana, B.L.P., et al., 2011. Diversity of vascular plant species in an agroforest: the case of a rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) plantation in
Makilala, North Cotabato. Philipp. J. Crop Sci. 36 (3), 57–64.
Alcala, A., 2004. Biodiversity research in the Philippines from 1998–2003. Asean. Biodiversity 4, 26–31.
Amoroso, V.B., 2000. Long-term biodiversity research programme for Mindanao, Philippines. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 23 (2), 141–147.
Apan, A., Suarez, L.A., Maraseni, T., et al., 2017. The rate, extent and spatial predictors of forest loss (2000–2012) in the terrestrial protected areas of the Philippines.
Appl. Geogr. 81, 32–42.
Batugal, P., 2014. Philippine palm oil industry road map 2013–2023. [2023-02-07]. http://www.mpoc.org.my/upload/POTS_Philippines_Palm_Oil_Industry_Road_
Map.pdf.
Bautista, M.C.G., 2016. Undermining Patrimony: the Large-Scale Mining Plunder in Mindanao and the People's Struggle and Resistance. Rural Missionaries of the
Philippines, Quezon City, pp. 1–266.
Benayas, J.M., Monta~ na, E., 2003. Identifying areas of high-value vertebrate diversity for strengthening conservation. Biol. Conserv. 114 (3), 357–370.
BMB-DENR (Biodiversity Management Bureau-Department of Environment and Natural Resources), 2022. DENR administrative order No. 2022-04: enhancing
biodiversity conservation and protection in mining operations. [2023-02-07]. https://www.iea.org/policies/16303-denr-administrative-order-2022-04-enhancing-
biodiversity-conservation-and-protection-in-mining-operations.
Boquet, Y., 2017. Environmental challenges in the Philippines. In: Boquet, Y. (Ed.), The Philippine Archipelago, Springer Geography. Springer International Publishing,
Berlin, pp. 779–829.
Buenavista, D.P., Mollee, E.M., McDonald, M., 2022. Any alternatives to rice? Ethnobotanical insights into the dietary use of edible plants by the Higaonon tribe in
Bukidnon Province, the Philippines. Reg. Sustain. Times 3 (2), 95–109.
Canencia, O.P., Palmes, N.D., Ibonia, S.M., et al., 2015. Mining industry in northern Mindanao: its environmental, social and health impact toward responsible mining.
Mindanao J. Sci. Technol. 13 (1), 75–98.
Cannon, C.H., Summers, M., Harting, J.R., et al., 2007. Developing conservation priorities based on forest type, condition, and threats in a poorly known ecoregion:
sulawesi, Indonesia. Biotropica 39 (6), 747–759.
Clariza, E., 2022. Research guides: Philippines: indigenous peoples in Mindanao. [2022-12-01]. https://guides.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/c.php?
g¼105238&p¼687428.
Dejarme-Calalang, G.M., Bock, L., Colinet, G., 2015. Crop production of Northern Mindanao, Philippines: its contribution to the regional economy and food security.
Tropicultura 33 (2), 77–90.
Di Minin, E., Soutullo, A., Bartesaghi, L., et al., 2017. Integrating biodiversity, ecosystem services and socio-economic data to identify priority areas and landowners for
conservation actions at the national scale. Biol. Conserv. 206, 56–64.
Dudley, N., Alexander, S., 2017. Agriculture and biodiversity: a review. Biodiversity 18, 45–49.
Estrada, A., Garber, P.A., Gouveia, S., et al., 2022. Global importance of indigenous peoples, their lands, and knowledge systems for saving the world's primates from
extinction. Sci. Adv. 8 (32). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn2927.
Fern  L
andez-Llamazares, A., opez-Baucells, A., Velazco, P.M., et al., 2021. The importance of indigenous territories for conserving bat diversity across the Amazon
biome. Perspect. Ecol. Conservation 19 (1), 10–20.
FMB (Forest Management Bureau), 2021. Philippine forestry statistics 2021. [2022-11-14]. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V2JS74-
DPvMc4A8r3AJwrMDoAmXptI9f/view?usp¼embed_facebook.
Global Environment Facility, 2019. Indigenous peoples in the Philippines leading conservation efforts. [2022-12-03]. https://www.thegef.org/newsroom/feature-
stories/indigenous-peoples-philippines-leading-conservation-efforts.
Global Forest Watch, 2022. Philippines: forest monitoring, land use & deforestation trends-global forest Watch. [2022-12-03]. https://www.globalforestwatch.org/.
Grantham, H.S., 2022. Forest conservation: importance of indigenous lands. Curr. Biol. 32 (22), R1274–R1276.
Greenpeace, 2016. El ni~ no impacts on indigenous peoples in Mindanao. [2022-12-07]. https://www.media.greenpeace.org/CS.aspx?
VP3¼SearchResult&ITEMID¼27MZIFJJM7V5L&DocRID¼27MZIFJJM7V5L&RW¼1440&RH¼790.
Guerrero, J.J., 2020. Insights and prospects toward the undergraduate mycological researches of Bicol University. Philipp. J. Sci. 149 (2). https://doi.org/10.56899/
149.02.15.
Guerrero, J.J.G., Tanalgo, K.C., Abante, C.G.R., 2021. Role of academic institution to inform local and regional scale biodiversity in the Eastern Philippines. J. Trop. Life
Sci. 11 (2), 241–250.
Heaney, L.R., Regalado, J.C., 1998. Vanishing treasures of the Philippine rain forest. J. Mammal. 18 (2), 246–247.
Hinlo, M.R.P., Tabora, J.A.G., Bailey, C.A., et al., 2014. Population genetics implications for the conservation of the philippine crocodile Crocodylus mindorensis schmidt,
1935 (crocodylia: crocodylidae). J. Threat. Taxa 6 (3), 5513–5533.
Hughes, A.C., 2017a. Mapping priorities for conservation in. Southeast Asia. Biol. Conserv. 209, 395–405.
Hughes, A.C., 2017b. Understanding the drivers of Southeast Asian biodiversity loss. Ecosphere 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1624.
ICCA (Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas) Registry, 2019. Pangasananan, Philippines. [2022-12-01]. https://www.iccaregistry.org/en/explore/Philippines/
pangasananan.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List, 2022. The IUCN red list of threatened species. [2023-02-07]. https://www.iucnredlist.org/en.
Jakovac, C.C., Pe~na-Claros, M., Kuyper, T.W., et al., 2015. Loss of secondary-forest resilience by land-use intensification in the Amazon. J. Ecol. 103 (1), 67–77.
Jocson, L.M.J.C., 2022. Caraga mining output up 8.9% by value on higher metals prices. [2023-05-05]. Bus. World. https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/
business-world/20220215/281616718792360.
Key Biodiversity Areas Partnership, 2023. Siargao island, Philippines. [2023-05-05]. https://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/site/factsheet/9782.
Khapugin, A.A., Silaeva, T.B., 2020. The arrangement of threatened plants in Mordovia: the role of biodiversity research centers. Ecoscience 27 (1), 157–164.
Lasco, R.D., Visco, R.G., Pulhin, J.M., 2001. Secondary forests in the Philippines: formation and transformation in the 20th century. J. Trop. For. Sci. 13 (4), 652–670.
Low, M.R., Hoong, W.Z., Shen, Z., et al., 2023. Bane or blessing? Reviewing cultural values of bats across the Asia-Pacific region. J. Ethnobiol. 41 (1), 18–34.
Maala, C.P., 2001. Endangered Philippine wildlife species with special reference to the Philippine eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi) and Tamaraw (Bubalus mindorensis).
J. Int. Dev. Coop 8 (1), 1–17.
Mace, G.M., Cramer, W., Díaz, S., et al., 2010. Biodiversity targets after 2010. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2 (1–2), 3–8.
Malcolm, J.R., Liu, C.R., Neilson, R.P., et al., 2006. Global warming and extinctions of endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conserv. Biol. 20 (2), 538–548.

211
A.R. Agduma, F.C. Garcia, M.T. Cabasan, et al. Regional Sustainability 4 (2023) 203–213

Mallari, N.A.D., Collar, N.J., McGowan, P.J.K., et al., 2016. Philippine protected areas are not meeting the biodiversity coverage and management effectiveness
requirements of Aichi Target 11. Ambio 45, 313–322.
Manuel, J.M., Midtimbang, E.O.D., Tuling, K.C.C., 2021. Environmental management practices of T’boli indigenous communities in allah valley watershed forest
reserve, Mindanao. Philippines. Eur. J. Res. Soc. Sci. 9 (2), 84–92.
McInnes, M.D.F., Moher, D., Thombs, B.D., et al., 2018. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the
PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 319 (4), 388–396.
Manila Standards, 2020. Nematodes in hinatuan prove mining rehab success [2023-02-07]. https://manilastandard.net/lgu/mindanao/333025/nematodes-in-
hinatuan-prove-mining-rehab-success.html.
Molina, C.J., 2020. Endangered philippine eagle spotted in Mount Apo. [2022-12-08]. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1218591/endangered-philippine-eagle-spotted-
in-mount-apo.
Mukul, S.A., Herbohn, J., Firn, J., 2016. Co-benefits of biodiversity and carbon sequestration from regenerating secondary forests in the Philippine uplands:
implications for forest landscape restoration. Biotropica 48 (6), 882–889.
Index Mundi, 2018. Philippines palm oil production by year (1000 MT). [2022-12-03]. https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country¼ph&commodity¼palm-
oil&graph¼production.
Naeem, S., Chapin III, F.S., Costanza, R., et al., 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: maintaining natural life support processes. Issues Ecol. 4, 2–12.
Nuneza, O., Rodriguez, B., Nasiad, J.G., 2021. Ethnobotanical survey of medicinal plants used by the Mamanwa tribe of Surigao del Norte and Agusan del Norte,
Mindanao, Philippines. Biodivers. J. Biol. Divers. 22 (6). https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d220634.
Ogar, E., Pecl, G., Mustonen, T., 2020. Science must embrace traditional and indigenous knowledge to solve our biodiversity crisis. One Earth 3 (2), 162–165.
Ortiz, A.M.D., Torres, J.N.V., 2020. Assessing the impacts of agriculture and its trade on Philippine biodiversity. Land 9 (11), 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/
land9110403.
Panopio, J.K., Pajaro, M., Grande, J.M., et al., 2021. Conservation Letter: deforestation-the Philippine eagle as a case study in developing local management
partnerships with indigenous peoples. J. Raptor Res. 55 (3), 460–467.
Paz, S.L., Galolo, A.R.V., Eupena, R.G., et al., 2016. Assessment of terrestrial biodiversity in selected key mining areas of Mindanao. [2022-12-07]. https://pcieerd.dost.
gov.ph/images/policy_advocacy/policy-brief-on–biodiversityeditted-1.pdf.
PhilAtlas, 2022. Mindanao–PhilAtlas. [2022-12-07]. https://www.philatlas.com/mindanao.html.
Pimm, S.L., Jenkins, C.N., Abell, R., et al., 2014. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344 (6187). https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752.
Posa, M.R.C., Sodhi, N.S., 2006. Effects of anthropogenic land use on forest birds and butterflies in Subic Bay. Philippines. Biol. Conserv. 129 (2), 256–270.
Quibod, M.N.R.M., Alcantara, K.N.L., Bechayda, N.A., et al., 2021. Terrestrial vertebrates in modified landscapes in northeastern Mindanao. Philippines. J. Anim.
Divers 3 (3), 72–85.
Raharimalala, O., Buttler, A., Ramohavelo, C.D., et al., 2010. Soil–vegetation patterns in secondary slash and burn successions in Central Menabe. Madagascar. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ 139 (1–2), 150–158.
Reboredo, F., 2013. Socio-economic, environmental, and governance impacts of illegal logging. Environ. Syst. Decis. 33, 295–304.
Recuenco, A., 2022. DENR identifies 9M hectares of potential mining areas. [2022-12-07]. https://mb.com.ph/2022/11/09/denr-identifies-9m-hectares-of-potential-
mining-areas/.
Rickart, E.A., Heaney, L.R., Tabaranza, B.R., 2003. A new species of Limnomys (rodentia: muridae: murinae) from Mindanao island, Philippines. J. Mammal. 84 (4),
1443–1455.
Salvador, D.J.I., Ibanez, J.C., 2006. Ecology and conservation of Philippine eagles. Ornithol. Sci. 5, 171–176.
Sanguila, M.B., Cobb, K.A., Siler, C.D., et al., 2016. The amphibians and reptiles of Mindanao Island, southern Philippines, II: the herpetofauna of northeast Mindanao
and adjacent islands. ZooKeys 624, 1–132.
Sarmiento, B.S., 2021. Philippine wetland oil riches untouched by war now up for grabs in peacetime. [2022-12-07]. https://news.mongabay.com/2021/10/
philippine-wetland-oil-riches-untouched-by-war-now-up-for-grabs-in-peacetime/.
Sarmiento, B.S., 2022. Open-pit mining ban lifted in philippine province, clearing way for copper project. [2022-12-05]. https://news.mongabay.com/2022/05/open-
pit-mining-ban-lifted-in-philippine-province-clearing-way-for-copper-project/.
Sarvajayakesavalu, S., 2015. Addressing challenges of developing countries in implementing five priorities for sustainable development goals. Ecosys. Health Sustain. 1
(7), 1–4.
Senga, R.G., 2001. Establishing protected areas in the Philippines: emerging trends, challenges, and prospects. George Wright Forum 18, 56–65.
Shively, G., Pagiola, S., 2004. Agricultural intensification, local labor markets, and deforestation in the Philippines. Environ. Dev. Econ. 9 (2), 241–266.
Sinolinding, H.M., Porciuncula, F.L., 2005. Revisiting the Ligawasan marshland in Mindanao: an indigenous resource management system study towards sustainability.
In: Cuvin-Aralar, M.L., Punongbayan, R.S., Santos-Borja, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First National Congress on Philippine Lakes. Southeast Asian Regional Center
for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), Bangkok, pp. 214–229.
Sneed, A., 2019. What conservation efforts can learn from indigenous communities. [2022-12-01]. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-conservation-
efforts-can-learn-from-indigenous-communities/.
Sonter, L.J., Ali, S.H., Watson, J.E.M., 2018. Mining and biodiversity: key issues and research needs in conservation science. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285 (1892).
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1926.
Statista, 2020. Philippines-Share of economic sectors in the gross domestic Product 2018. [2022-06-25]. https://www.statista.com/statistics/578787/share-of-
economic-sectors-in-the-gdp-in-philippines/.
Suarez, R.K., Sajise, P.E., 2010. Deforestation, swidden agriculture and Philippine biodiversity 9. Phil. Sci. Let 3 (1), 91–99.
Tanalgo, K.C., Hughes, A.C., 2018. Bats of the Philippine Islands—a review of research directions and relevance to national-level priorities and targets. Mamm. Biol. 91
(9), 46–56.
Tanalgo, K.C., Hughes, A.C., 2019. Priority-setting for Philippine bats using practical approach to guide effective species conservation and policy-making in the
Anthropocene. Hystrix Ital. J. Mammal. 30, 74–83.
Tanalgo, K.C., Achondo, M.J.M.M., Hughes, A.C., 2019. Small things matter: the value of rapid biodiversity surveys to understanding local bird diversity patterns in
southcentral Mindanao, Philippines. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082919869482.
Tantipisanuh, N., Gale, G.A., 2018. Identification of biodiversity hotspot in national level – importance of unpublished data. Glob. Ecol. Conserv 13, e00377. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00377.
Tropek, R., Kadlec, T., Hejda, M., et al., 2012. Technical reclamations are wasting the conservation potential of post-mining sites. A case study of black coal spoil
dumps. Ecol. Eng. 43, 13–18.
Troudet, J., Grandcolas, P., Blin, A., et al., 2017. Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Sci. Rep. 7, 9132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-
09084-6.
Varela, R.P., Fernandez, E.V., Degamo, J.R.S., 2013. Agricultural development and habitat change in the agusan river basin in Mindanao, Philippines. Int. J. Dev.
Sustain. 2 (3), 2020–2030.
Villegas, J.P., Iba~
nez, J.C., Cabrido, C.K.T., 2022. Abundance and distribution of the philippine Brown deer (Rusa marianna desmarest, 1822) in the obu manuvu
ancestral domain, Mindanao island, Philippines. Acta Biol. Univ. Daugavp. 22 (1), 67–89.
Vitug, M.D., 1998. The Politics of Logging in the Philippines, first ed. Routledge, London, pp. 1–15.
Wickham, J., Wood, P.B., Nicholson, M.C., et al., 2013. The overlooked terrestrial impacts of mountaintop mining. Bioscience 63 (5), 335–348.

212
A.R. Agduma, F.C. Garcia, M.T. Cabasan, et al. Regional Sustainability 4 (2023) 203–213

Wilcove, D.S., Giam, X., Edwards, D.P., et al., 2013. Navjot's nightmare revisited: logging, agriculture, and biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28 (9),
531–540.
Xu, H.G., Cao, Y., Yu, D.D., et al., 2021. Ensuring effective implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity targets. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 411–418.
Zhu, L., Hughes, A.C., Zhao, X.Q., et al., 2021. Regional scalable priorities for national biodiversity and carbon conservation planning in Asia. Sci. Adv. 7 (35). https://
doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe4261.

213