Marginal value analysis reveals shifting importance of migration habitat for waterfowl under a changing climate

Migratory waterfowl are an important resource for consumptive and non-consumptive users alike and provide tremendous economic value in North America. These birds rely on a complex matrix of public and private land for forage and roosting during migration and wintering periods, and substantial conservation effort focuses on increasing the amount and quality of target habitat. Yet, the value of habitat is a function not only of a site's resources but also of its geographic position and weather. To quantify this value, we used a continental-scale energetics-based model of daily dabbling duck movement to assess the marginal value of lands across the contiguous United States during the non-breeding period (September to May). We examined effects of eliminating each habitat node (32 × 32 km) in both a particularly cold and a particularly warm winter, asking which nodes had the largest effect on survival. The marginal value of habitat nodes for migrating dabbling ducks was a function of forage and roosting habitat but, more importantly, of geography (especially latitude and region). Irrespective of weather, nodes in the Southeast, central East Coast, and California made the largest positive contributions to survival. Conversely, nodes in the Midwest, Northeast, Florida, and the Pacific Northwest had consistent negative effects. Effects (positive and negative) of more northerly nodes occurred in late fall or early spring when climate was often severe and was most variable. Importance and effects of many nodes varied considerably between a cold and a warm winter. Much of the Midwest and central Great Plains benefited duck survival in a warm winter, and projected future warming may improve the value of lands in these regions, including many National Wildlife Refuges, for migrating dabbling ducks. Our results highlight the geographic variability in habitat value, as well as shifts that may occur in these values due to climate change.

Perceived Barriers to the Use of Assisted Colonization for Climate Sensitive Species in the Hawaiian Islands

Conservation actions to safeguard climate change vulnerable species may not be utilized due to a variety of perceived barriers. Assisted colonization, the intentional movement and release of an organism outside its historical range, is one tool available for species predicted to lose habitat under future climate change scenarios, particularly for single island or single mountain range endemic species. Despite the existence of policies that allow for this action, to date, assisted colonization has rarely been utilized for species of conservation concern in the Hawaiian Islands. Given the potential for climate driven biodiversity loss, the Hawaiian Islands are a prime location for the consideration of adaptation strategies. We used first-person interviews with conservation decision makers, managers, and scientists who work with endangered species in the Hawaiian Islands to identify perceived barriers to the use of assisted colonization. We found that assisted colonization was often not considered or utilized due to a lack of expertize with translocations; ecological risk and uncertainty, economic constraints, concerns regarding policies and permitting, concerns with public perception, and institutional resistance. Therefore, conservation planners may benefit from decision tools that integrate risk and uncertainty into decision models, and compare potential outcomes among conservation actions under consideration, including assisted colonization. Within a decision framework that addresses concerns, all conservation actions for climate sensitive species, including assisted colonization, may be considered in a timely manner.

Climate Change Adaptation in Natural World Heritage Sites: A Triage Approach

Climate change is a certainty, but the degree and rate of change, as well as impacts of those changes are highly site-specific. Natural World Heritage sites represent a treasure to be managed and sustained for all humankind. Each World Heritage site is so designated on the basis of one or more Outstanding Universal Values. Because climate change impacts are site-specific, adaptation to sustain Universal Values also must be specific. As such, climate change adaptation is a wicked problem, with no clear action strategies available. Further, adaptation resources are limited at every site. Each site management team must decide which adaptations are appropriate investments. A triage approach guides that evaluation. Some impacts will be so large and/or uncertain that the highest probability of adaptation success comes from a series of uncertain actions that reduce investment risk. Others will be small, certain, comfortable and yet have low probable impact on the Universal Value. A triage approach guides the management team toward highest probable return on investment, involving stakeholders from the surrounding landscape, advancing engagement and communication, and increasing transparency and accountability.

Prospects for stakeholder coordination by protected-area managers in Europe

Growing resource demands by humans, invasive species, natural hazards, and a changing climate have created broad-scale impacts and the need for broader-extent conservation activities that span ownerships and even political borders. Implementing regional-scale conservation brings great challenges, and learning how to overcome these challenges is essential for maintaining biodiversity (i.e., richness and evenness of biological communities) and ecosystem functions and services across scales and borders in the face of system change. We administered an online survey to examine factors potentially driving perspectives of protected-area (PA) managers regarding coordination with neighboring PAs and other stakeholders (i.e., stakeholder coordination) for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services during the next decade within diverse regions across Europe. Although >70% (n = 58) of responding PA managers indicated that climate change and invasive species are relevant for their PAs, they gave <50% probability that these threats could be mitigated through stakeholder coordination. They thought there was a >60% probability (n = 85) that stakeholder coordination would take place with the aim to improve conservation outcomes. Consistent with the foundation on which many European PAs were established, managers viewed maintaining or enhancing biodiversity as the most important (>70%; n = 61) expected benefit. Other benefits included maintaining or enhancing human resources and environmental education (range of Bayesian credibility intervals [CIs] 57-93%). They thought the main barriers to stakeholder coordination were the lack of human and economic resources (CI 59-67% chance of hindering; n = 64) followed by communication and interstakeholder differences in political structures and laws (CI 51-64% probability of hindering). European policies and strategies that address these hindering factors could be particularly effective means of enabling implementation of green infrastructure networks in which PAs are the nodes.

Managing for climate change on protected areas: An adaptive management decision making framework

Current protected area management is becoming more challenging with advancing climate change and current park management techniques may not be adequate to adapt for effective management into the future. The framework presented here provides an adaptive management decision making process to assist protected area managers with adapting on-park management to climate change. The framework sets out a 4 step process. One, a good understanding of the park's context within climate change. Secondly, a thorough understanding of the park management systems including governance, planning and management systems. Thirdly, a series of management options set out as an accept/prevent change style structure, including a systematic assessment of those options. The adaptive approaches are defined as acceptance of anthropogenic climate change impact and attempt to adapt to a new climatic environment or prevention of change and attempt to maintain current systems under new climatic variations. Last, implementation and monitoring of long term trends in response to ecological responses to management interventions and assessing management effectiveness. The framework addresses many issues currently with park management in dealing with climate change including the considerable amount of research focussing on 'off-reserve' strategies, and threats and stress focused in situ park management.

Judging adaptive management practices of U.S. agencies

All U.S. federal agencies administering environmental laws purport to practice adaptive management (AM), but little is known about how they actually implement this conservation tool. A gap between the theory and practice of AM is revealed in judicial decisions reviewing agency adaptive management plans. We analyzed all U.S. federal court opinions published through 1 January 2015 to identify the agency AM practices courts found most deficient. The shortcomings included lack of clear objectives and processes, monitoring thresholds, and defined actions triggered by thresholds. This trio of agency shortcuts around critical, iterative steps characterizes what we call AM-lite. Passive AM differs from active AM in its relative lack of management interventions through experimental strategies. In contrast, AM-lite is a distinctive form of passive AM that fails to provide for the iterative steps necessary to learn from management. Courts have developed a sophisticated understanding of AM and often offer instructive rather than merely critical opinions. The role of the judiciary is limited by agency discretion under U.S. administrative law. But courts have overturned some agency AM-lite practices and insisted on more rigorous analyses to ensure that the promised benefits of structured learning and fine-tuned management have a reasonable likelihood of occurring. Nonetheless, there remains a mismatch in U.S. administrative law between the flexibility demanded by adaptive management and the legal objectives of transparency, public participation, and finality.