1
|
Adams VM. Costs in conservation: Common costly mistakes and how to avoid them. PLoS Biol 2024; 22:e3002676. [PMID: 38857192 PMCID: PMC11164404 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002676] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/12/2024] Open
Abstract
There has been an increasingly prevalent message that data regarding costs must be included in conservation planning activities to make cost-efficient decisions. Despite the growing acceptance that socioeconomic context is critical to conservation success, the approaches to embedded economic and financial considerations into planning have not significantly evolved. Inappropriate cost data is frequently included in decisions, with the potential of compromising biodiversity and social outcomes. For each conservation planning step, this essay details common mistakes made when considering costs, proposing solutions to enable conservation managers to know when and how to include costs. Appropriate use of high-quality cost data obtained at the right scale will improve decision-making and ultimately avoid costly mistakes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vanessa M. Adams
- School of Geography, Planning, and Spatial Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart Tasmania, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mazaris AD, Dimitriadis C, Papazekou M, Schofield G, Doxa A, Chatzimentor A, Turkozan O, Katsanevakis S, Lioliou A, Abalo-Morla S, Aksissou M, Arcangeli A, Attard V, El Hili HA, Atzori F, Belda EJ, Ben Nakhla L, Berbash AA, Bjorndal KA, Broderick AC, Camiñas JA, Candan O, Cardona L, Cetkovic I, Dakik N, de Lucia GA, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Diryaq S, Favilli C, Fortuna CM, Fuller WJ, Gallon S, Hamza A, Jribi I, Ben Ismail M, Kamarianakis Y, Kaska Y, Korro K, Koutsoubas D, Lauriano G, Lazar B, March D, Marco A, Minotou C, Monsinjon JR, Naguib NM, Palialexis A, Piroli V, Sami K, Sönmez B, Sourbès L, Sözbilen D, Vandeperre F, Vignes P, Xanthakis M, Köpsel V, Peck MA. Priorities for Mediterranean marine turtle conservation and management in the face of climate change. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2023; 339:117805. [PMID: 37043912 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117805] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2022] [Revised: 03/02/2023] [Accepted: 03/23/2023] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
As climate-related impacts threaten marine biodiversity globally, it is important to adjust conservation efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change. Translating scientific knowledge into practical management, however, is often complicated due to resource, economic and policy constraints, generating a knowledge-action gap. To develop potential solutions for marine turtle conservation, we explored the perceptions of key actors across 18 countries in the Mediterranean. These actors evaluated their perceived relative importance of 19 adaptation and mitigation measures that could safeguard marine turtles from climate change. Of importance, despite differences in expertise, experience and focal country, the perceptions of researchers and management practitioners largely converged with respect to prioritizing adaptation and mitigation measures. Climate change was considered to have the greatest impacts on offspring sex ratios and suitable nesting sites. The most viable adaptation/mitigation measures were considered to be reducing other pressures that act in parallel to climate change. Ecological effectiveness represented a key determinant for implementing proposed measures, followed by practical applicability, financial cost, and societal cost. This convergence in opinions across actors likely reflects long-standing initiatives in the Mediterranean region towards supporting knowledge exchange in marine turtle conservation. Our results provide important guidance on how to prioritize measures that incorporate climate change in decision-making processes related to the current and future management and protection of marine turtles at the ocean-basin scale, and could be used to guide decisions in other regions globally. Importantly, this study demonstrates a successful example of how interactive processes can be used to fill the knowledge-action gap between research and management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonios D Mazaris
- Department of Ecology, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
| | - Charalampos Dimitriadis
- Management Unit of Zakynthos and Ainos National Parks and Protected Areas of the Ionian Islands, Zakynthos, Greece
| | - Maria Papazekou
- Department of Ecology, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Gail Schofield
- School of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Aggeliki Doxa
- Department of Ecology, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; Institute of Applied and Computational Mathematics, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece
| | - Anastasia Chatzimentor
- Department of Ecology, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Oguz Turkozan
- Aydın Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Science, Department of Biology, Aydın, Turkiye
| | | | - Aphrodite Lioliou
- Managing Authority of European Territorial Cooperation Programmes (INTERREG), Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Sara Abalo-Morla
- Institut d' Investigació per a La Gestió de Zones Costaneres (IGIC), Universitat Politècnica de València, València, Spain; Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Centro Oceanográfico de Vigo (COV-IEO), CSIC, Vigo, Spain
| | - Mustapha Aksissou
- Laboratoire Ecologie, Systématique, Conservation de La Biodiversité (LESCB), Faculté des Sciences de Tétouan, Université Abdelmalek Essaâdi, Tetouan, Morocco
| | - Antonella Arcangeli
- Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research - ISPRA, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | - Fabrizio Atzori
- Marine Protected Area Capo Carbonara, Villasimius, Sardinia, Italy
| | - Eduardo J Belda
- Institut d' Investigació per a La Gestió de Zones Costaneres (IGIC), Universitat Politècnica de València, València, Spain
| | - Lobna Ben Nakhla
- Specially Protected Areas Regional Activity Centre (UNEP/MAP-SPA/RAC), Tunisia
| | - Ali A Berbash
- Protected Area and Biodiversity Section, Nature Conservation Department, Ministry of Environment, Libya
| | - Karen A Bjorndal
- Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | | | - Juan A Camiñas
- Asociación Herpetológica Española (AHE), Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Onur Candan
- Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkiye
| | - Luis Cardona
- Department of Evolutionary Biology, Ecology and Environmental Science, Faculty of Biology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Ilija Cetkovic
- University of Montenegro - Institute of Marine Biology, Kotor, Montenegro
| | - Nabigha Dakik
- Management Unit of Tyre Coast Nature Reserve, Tyre, Lebanon
| | - Giuseppe Andrea de Lucia
- IAS-CNR, Institute of Anthropic Impact and Sustainability in Marine Environment, National Research Council Oristano Section, Torregrande, Italy
| | | | - Salih Diryaq
- Ministry of Environment - Sirte Branch, Sirte, Libya
| | | | | | - Wayne J Fuller
- Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | | | | | - Imed Jribi
- Faculté des Sciences de Sfax, Université de Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia
| | - Manel Ben Ismail
- Iberostar Group - Sustainability Department - Wave of Change, Hammamet, Tunisia; Notre Grand Bleu Association, Monastir, Tunisia
| | - Yiannis Kamarianakis
- Institute of Applied and Computational Mathematics, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece
| | - Yakup Kaska
- Pamukkale University, Faculty of Science, Department of Biology, Denizli, Turkiye; Sea Turtle Research, Rescue and Rehabilitation Center (DEKAMER), Muğla, Turkiye
| | - Kastriot Korro
- Wildlife and Health Research Center, Agricultural University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania
| | - Drosos Koutsoubas
- Department of Marine Sciences, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece
| | - Giancarlo Lauriano
- Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research - ISPRA, Rome, Italy
| | - Bojan Lazar
- Department of Biodiversity, Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information Technologies, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia; Marine Science Program, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Pula, Croatia
| | - David March
- Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, UK; Cavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain
| | - Adolfo Marco
- Estación Biológica de Doñana, CSIC, C/Américo Vespucio, S/n, Sevilla, Spain
| | | | | | - Nahla M Naguib
- Biodiversity Department, Nature Conservation Sector, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), Egypt
| | | | - Vilma Piroli
- University of Shkodra "Luigj Gurakuqi", Shkoder, Albania
| | - Karaa Sami
- Institut National des Sciences et Technologies de La Mer Tunisie, Tunisia
| | - Bektaş Sönmez
- Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Suşehri Timur Karabal Vocational School, Suşehri, Sivas, Turkiye
| | - Laurent Sourbès
- Management Unit of Zakynthos and Ainos National Parks and Protected Areas of the Ionian Islands, Zakynthos, Greece
| | - Doğan Sözbilen
- Pamukkale University, Acipayam Vocational School, Veterinary Department, Denizli, Turkiye
| | - Frederic Vandeperre
- Institute of Marine Sciences - Okeanos, University of the Azores, Horta, Portugal
| | - Pierre Vignes
- Faculty of Education, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya
| | - Michail Xanthakis
- Management Unit of Zakynthos and Ainos National Parks and Protected Areas of the Ionian Islands, Zakynthos, Greece
| | - Vera Köpsel
- Institut für Marine Ökosystem- und Fischereiwissenschaften (IMF), Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Myron A Peck
- Department of Coastal Systems, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Den Burg, (Texel), Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vijay V, Fisher JRB, Armsworth PR. Co‐benefits for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services available from contrasting land protection policies in the contiguous United States. Conserv Lett 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12907] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Varsha Vijay
- National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis University of Tennessee Knoxville Tennessee USA
- Science Based Targets Network Global Commons Alliance New York New York USA
| | | | - Paul R. Armsworth
- National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis University of Tennessee Knoxville Tennessee USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Jung M, Arnell A, de Lamo X, García-Rangel S, Lewis M, Mark J, Merow C, Miles L, Ondo I, Pironon S, Ravilious C, Rivers M, Schepaschenko D, Tallowin O, van Soesbergen A, Govaerts R, Boyle BL, Enquist BJ, Feng X, Gallagher R, Maitner B, Meiri S, Mulligan M, Ofer G, Roll U, Hanson JO, Jetz W, Di Marco M, McGowan J, Rinnan DS, Sachs JD, Lesiv M, Adams VM, Andrew SC, Burger JR, Hannah L, Marquet PA, McCarthy JK, Morueta-Holme N, Newman EA, Park DS, Roehrdanz PR, Svenning JC, Violle C, Wieringa JJ, Wynne G, Fritz S, Strassburg BBN, Obersteiner M, Kapos V, Burgess N, Schmidt-Traub G, Visconti P. Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water. Nat Ecol Evol 2021; 5:1499-1509. [PMID: 34429536 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 07/07/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, the international community requires clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially and how multiple targets can be pursued concurrently. To support goal setting and the implementation of international strategies and action plans, spatial guidance is needed to identify which land areas have the potential to generate the greatest synergies between conserving biodiversity and nature's contributions to people. Here we present results from a joint optimization that minimizes the number of threatened species, maximizes carbon retention and water quality regulation, and ranks terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that selecting the top-ranked 30% and 50% of terrestrial land area would conserve respectively 60.7% and 85.3% of the estimated total carbon stock and 66% and 89.8% of all clean water, in addition to meeting conservation targets for 57.9% and 79% of all species considered. Our data and prioritization further suggest that adequately conserving all species considered (vertebrates and plants) would require giving conservation attention to ~70% of the terrestrial land surface. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to meet conservation targets for 81.3% of the terrestrial plant and vertebrate species considered. Our results provide a global assessment of where land could be optimally managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martin Jung
- Biodiversity and Natural Resources Program (BNR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.
| | - Andy Arnell
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
| | - Xavier de Lamo
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy
| | | | - Matthew Lewis
- Biodiversity and Natural Resources Program (BNR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.,Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jennifer Mark
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
| | - Cory Merow
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Stamford, CT, USA
| | - Lera Miles
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
| | - Ian Ondo
- Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, UK
| | | | - Corinna Ravilious
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
| | - Malin Rivers
- Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmondy, UK
| | - Dmitry Schepaschenko
- Biodiversity and Natural Resources Program (BNR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.,Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk, Russia
| | - Oliver Tallowin
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
| | - Arnout van Soesbergen
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Bradley L Boyle
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Brian J Enquist
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Xiao Feng
- Department of Geography, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
| | - Rachael Gallagher
- Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Brian Maitner
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Shai Meiri
- School of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Mark Mulligan
- Department of Geography, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Gali Ofer
- School of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Uri Roll
- Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Midreshet Ben-Gurion, Israel
| | - Jeffrey O Hanson
- CIBIO/InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos da Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal
| | - Walter Jetz
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.,Center for Biodiversity and Global Change, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Moreno Di Marco
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | | | - D Scott Rinnan
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.,Center for Biodiversity and Global Change, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
| | | | - Myroslava Lesiv
- Biodiversity and Natural Resources Program (BNR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
| | - Vanessa M Adams
- School of Geography, Planning and Spatial Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Samuel C Andrew
- CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
| | - Joseph R Burger
- Department of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Lee Hannah
- Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA
| | - Pablo A Marquet
- Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.,Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad (IEB), Santiago, Chile.,Centro de Cambio Global UC, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.,The Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA.,Instituto de Sistemas Complejos de Valparaíso (ISCV), Valparaíso, Chile
| | | | - Naia Morueta-Holme
- Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, GLOBE Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Erica A Newman
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Daniel S Park
- Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
| | - Patrick R Roehrdanz
- Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA
| | - Jens-Christian Svenning
- Center for Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World (BIOCHANGE), Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.,Section for Ecoinformatics and Biodiversity, Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Cyrille Violle
- CEFE, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Univ. Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France
| | | | | | - Steffen Fritz
- Biodiversity and Natural Resources Program (BNR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
| | - Bernardo B N Strassburg
- Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre, Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontifical Catholic University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.,International Institute for Sustainability, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.,Programa de Pós Graduacão em Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.,Botanical Garden Research Institute of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Michael Obersteiner
- Biodiversity and Natural Resources Program (BNR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.,Environmental Change Institute, Centre for the Environment, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
| | - Valerie Kapos
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
| | - Neil Burgess
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Piero Visconti
- Biodiversity and Natural Resources Program (BNR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rees MW, Carwardine J, Reeson A, Firn J. Rapidly assessing cobenefits to advance threat-management alliances. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2020; 34:843-853. [PMID: 32406533 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13490] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2018] [Revised: 02/06/2020] [Accepted: 02/07/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Conservation strategies aimed at reducing threats to biodiversity can have significant implications for multiple sectors in a socioeconomic system, but these cobenefits are often poorly understood. For example, many of the threats to native species also impede agricultural production, yet agriculture is typically perceived as in competition with conservation objectives. Although a comprehensive, multiobjective decision analysis is usually beyond the scope and capacity of conservation decision makers, failing to incorporate key socioeconomic costs and benefits into conservation decision-making processes can result in missed opportunities for diversifying outcomes and creating cost-sharing multisectoral partnerships. We devised a straightforward and readily interpretable approach to incorporate cobenefits into a threat-management prioritization approach. We used it to analyze the agricultural cobenefits of implementing 9 invasive animal management strategies designed to ensure the persistence of 148 threatened species across Australia's Lake Eyre Basin over 50 years. A structured elicitation process with 24 participants (scientists, land managers, agriculturalists, and other stakeholders) was used to collect information on each strategy, including costs, technical and social feasibility, benefits to native threatened species, and cobenefits to agricultural production systems. The costs of targeted invasive animal management to save threatened species across the basin (AU$33 million/year) outweighed the overall benefits to the agricultural industry (estimated AU$226 million/year). The return on investment for these management strategies varied substantially when agricultural cobenefits were considered alongside threatened species benefits and showed synergies and challenges. Our approach demonstrates the value of incorporating cobenefits of conservation actions into cost-effectiveness analyses to guide potential investment and partnerships and to diversify implementation pathways.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew W Rees
- School of Earth, Environmental and Biological Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
- Quantitative & Applied Ecology Group, School of Biosciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Josie Carwardine
- Land and Water, CSIRO, Ecosciences Precinct, 41 Boggo Road, Dutton Park, QLD 4102, Australia
| | - Andrew Reeson
- Data61, CSIRO, 108 North Road, Acton, ACT 2061, Australia
| | - Jennifer Firn
- School of Earth, Environmental and Biological Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Armsworth PR. Time discounting and the decision to protect areas that are near and threatened or remote and cheap to acquire. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2018; 32:1063-1073. [PMID: 29737556 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2017] [Revised: 04/04/2018] [Accepted: 04/27/2018] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
Should conservation organizations focus on protecting habitats that are at imminent risk of being converted but are expensive or more remote areas that are less immediately threatened but where a large amount of land can be set aside? Variants of this trade-off commonly arise in spatial planning. I used models of land-use change near a deforestation frontier to examine this trade-off. The optimal choice of where to protect was determined by how decisions taken today accounted for ecological benefits and economic costs of conservation actions that would occur sometime in the future. I used an ecological and economic discount rate to weight these benefits and costs. A large economic discount rate favored protecting more remote areas, whereas a large, positive ecological discount rate favored protecting habitat near the current deforestation frontier. The decision over where to protect was also affected by the influence economic factors had on landowners' decisions, the rate of technological change, and ecological heterogeneity of the landscape. How benefits and costs through time are accounted for warrants careful consideration when specifying conservation objectives. It may provide a niche axis along which conservation organizations differentiate themselves when competing for donor funding or other support.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul R Armsworth
- Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 569 Dabney Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kuiper T, Dickman AJ, Hinks AE, Sillero-Zubiri C, Macdonald EA, Macdonald DW. Combining biological and socio-political criteria to set spatial conservation priorities for the endangered African wild dog. Anim Conserv 2018. [DOI: 10.1111/acv.12405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- T. Kuiper
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit; Department of Zoology; Recanati-Kaplan Centre; University of Oxford; Tubney UK
- School of Geography and the Environment; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - A. J. Dickman
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit; Department of Zoology; Recanati-Kaplan Centre; University of Oxford; Tubney UK
| | - A. E. Hinks
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit; Department of Zoology; Recanati-Kaplan Centre; University of Oxford; Tubney UK
| | - C. Sillero-Zubiri
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit; Department of Zoology; Recanati-Kaplan Centre; University of Oxford; Tubney UK
| | - E. A. Macdonald
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit; Department of Zoology; Recanati-Kaplan Centre; University of Oxford; Tubney UK
| | - D. W. Macdonald
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit; Department of Zoology; Recanati-Kaplan Centre; University of Oxford; Tubney UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Pettorelli N, Barlow J, Stephens PA, Durant SM, Connor B, Schulte to Bühne H, Sandom CJ, Wentworth J, du Toit JT. Making rewilding fit for policy. J Appl Ecol 2018. [DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jos Barlow
- Lancaster Environment Centre; Lancaster University; Lancaster UK
| | - Philip A. Stephens
- Conservation Ecology Group; Department of Biosciences; Durham University; Durham UK
| | - Sarah M. Durant
- Institute of Zoology; Zoological Society of London; London UK
| | - Ben Connor
- British Ecological Society; Charles Darwin House; London UK
| | | | | | - Jonathan Wentworth
- Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology; Houses of Parliament; London UK
| | - Johan T. du Toit
- Department of Wildland Resources; Utah State University; Logan UT USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Eklund J, Cabeza M. Quality of governance and effectiveness of protected areas: crucial concepts for conservation planning. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2016; 1399:27-41. [PMID: 27918838 DOI: 10.1111/nyas.13284] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2016] [Revised: 09/16/2016] [Accepted: 09/29/2016] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Johanna Eklund
- Metapopulation Research Centre, Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; Helsinki Finland
| | - Mar Cabeza
- Metapopulation Research Centre, Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; Helsinki Finland
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size. Nat Commun 2016; 7:12747. [PMID: 27582180 PMCID: PMC5025815 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms12747] [Citation(s) in RCA: 96] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2015] [Accepted: 07/29/2016] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Ensuring that protected areas (PAs) maintain the biodiversity within their boundaries is fundamental in achieving global conservation goals. Despite this objective, wildlife abundance changes in PAs are patchily documented and poorly understood. Here, we use linear mixed effect models to explore correlates of population change in 1,902 populations of birds and mammals from 447 PAs globally. On an average, we find PAs are maintaining populations of monitored birds and mammals within their boundaries. Wildlife population trends are more positive in PAs located in countries with higher development scores, and for larger-bodied species. These results suggest that active management can consistently overcome disadvantages of lower reproductive rates and more severe threats experienced by larger species of birds and mammals. The link between wildlife trends and national development shows that the social and economic conditions supporting PAs are critical for the successful maintenance of their wildlife populations.
Collapse
|
11
|
Doi H, Takahara T. Global patterns of conservation research importance in different countries of the world. PeerJ 2016; 4:e2173. [PMID: 27441117 PMCID: PMC4941742 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2173] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2015] [Accepted: 06/04/2016] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Conservation research is essential to help inform the science-based management of environments that support threatened and endangered wildlife; however, research effort is not necessarily uniform across countries globally. Here, we assessed how the research importance of conservation is distributed globally across different countries and what drives this variation. Specifically, we compared the number of conservation/ecological articles versus all scientific articles published for each country in relation to the number of endangered species, the protection status and number of ecosystems, and the economic status of each country (gross domestic product (GDP) per capita). We observed a significant and positive relationship between the proportion of conservation and ecology articles to all scientific articles with respect to the number of endangered species and the proportion of endangered species that are protected in a country, as well as GDP per capita. In conclusion, knowledge about the conservation and economic status of countries should be accounted for when predicting the research importance of conservation and ecology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hideyuki Doi
- Institute for Sustainable Sciences and Development, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan; Graduate School of Simulation Studies, University of Hyogo, Kobe, Japan
| | - Teruhiko Takahara
- Graduate School of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan; Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, Shimane University, Matue, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kullberg P, Toivonen T, Montesino Pouzols F, Lehtomäki J, Di Minin E, Moilanen A. Complementarity and Area-Efficiency in the Prioritization of the Global Protected Area Network. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0145231. [PMID: 26678497 PMCID: PMC4683007 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2015] [Accepted: 11/30/2015] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Complementarity and cost-efficiency are widely used principles for protected area network design. Despite the wide use and robust theoretical underpinnings, their effects on the performance and patterns of priority areas are rarely studied in detail. Here we compare two approaches for identifying the management priority areas inside the global protected area network: 1) a scoring-based approach, used in recently published analysis and 2) a spatial prioritization method, which accounts for complementarity and area-efficiency. Using the same IUCN species distribution data the complementarity method found an equal-area set of priority areas with double the mean species ranges covered compared to the scoring-based approach. The complementarity set also had 72% more species with full ranges covered, and lacked any coverage only for half of the species compared to the scoring approach. Protected areas in our complementarity-based solution were on average smaller and geographically more scattered. The large difference between the two solutions highlights the need for critical thinking about the selected prioritization method. According to our analysis, accounting for complementarity and area-efficiency can lead to considerable improvements when setting management priorities for the global protected area network.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Kullberg
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- * E-mail:
| | - Tuuli Toivonen
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | | | - Joona Lehtomäki
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Enrico Di Minin
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- School of Life Sciences, University of Kwa-Zulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Dickman AJ, Hinks AE, Macdonald EA, Burnham D, Macdonald DW. Priorities for global felid conservation. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2015; 29:854-64. [PMID: 25864434 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12494] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2014] [Accepted: 11/09/2014] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
Conservation resources are limited, necessitating prioritization of species and locations for action. Most prioritization approaches are based solely on biologically relevant characteristics of taxa or areas and ignore geopolitical realities. Doing so risks a poor return on conservation investment due to nonbiological factors, such as economic or political instability. We considered felids, a taxon which attracts intense conservation attention, to demonstrate a new approach that incorporates both intrinsic species traits and geopolitical characteristics of countries. We developed conservation priority scores for wild felids based on their International Union for Conservation of Nature status, body mass, habitat, range within protected area, evolutionary distinctiveness, and conservation umbrella potential. We used published data on governance, economics and welfare, human population pressures, and conservation policy to assign conservation-likelihood scores to 142 felid-hosting countries. We identified 71 countries as high priorities (above median) for felid conservation. These countries collectively encompassed all 36 felid species and supported an average of 96% of each species' range. Of these countries, 60.6% had below-average conservation-likelihood scores, which indicated these countries are relatively risky conservation investments. Governance was the most common factor limiting conservation likelihood. It was the major contributor to below-median likelihood scores for 62.5% of the 32 felid species occurring in lower-likelihood countries. Governance was followed by economics for which scores were below median for 25% of these species. An average of 58% of species' ranges occurred in 43 higher-priority lower-likelihood countries. Human population pressure was second to governance as a limiting factor when accounting for percentage of species' ranges in each country. As conservation likelihood decreases, it will be increasingly important to identify relevant geopolitical limitations and tailor conservation strategies accordingly. Our analysis provides an objective framework for biodiversity conservation action planning. Our results highlight not only which species most urgently require conservation action and which countries should be prioritized for such action, but also the diverse constraints which must be overcome to maximize long-term success.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy J Dickman
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Tubney, Oxford, OX13 5QL, United Kingdom
| | - Amy E Hinks
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Tubney, Oxford, OX13 5QL, United Kingdom
| | - Ewan A Macdonald
- Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
| | - Dawn Burnham
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Tubney, Oxford, OX13 5QL, United Kingdom
| | - David W Macdonald
- Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Tubney, Oxford, OX13 5QL, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Durant SM, Becker MS, Creel S, Bashir S, Dickman AJ, Beudels-Jamar RC, Lichtenfeld L, Hilborn R, Wall J, Wittemyer G, Badamjav L, Blake S, Boitani L, Breitenmoser C, Broekhuis F, Christianson D, Cozzi G, Davenport TRB, Deutsch J, Devillers P, Dollar L, Dolrenry S, Douglas-Hamilton I, Dröge E, FitzHerbert E, Foley C, Hazzah L, Hopcraft JGC, Ikanda D, Jacobson A, Joubert D, Kelly MJ, Milanzi J, Mitchell N, M'Soka J, Msuha M, Mweetwa T, Nyahongo J, Rosenblatt E, Schuette P, Sillero-Zubiri C, Sinclair ARE, Stanley Price MR, Zimmermann A, Pettorelli N. Developing fencing policies for dryland ecosystems. J Appl Ecol 2015. [DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12415] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
15
|
Venter O, Fuller RA, Segan DB, Carwardine J, Brooks T, Butchart SHM, Di Marco M, Iwamura T, Joseph L, O'Grady D, Possingham HP, Rondinini C, Smith RJ, Venter M, Watson JEM. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol 2014; 12:e1001891. [PMID: 24960185 PMCID: PMC4068989 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001891] [Citation(s) in RCA: 212] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2014] [Accepted: 05/15/2014] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Meeting international targets for expanding protected areas could simultaneously contribute to species conservation, but only if the distribution of threatened species informs the future establishment of protected areas. Governments have agreed to expand the global protected area network from 13% to 17% of the world's land surface by 2020 (Aichi target 11) and to prevent the further loss of known threatened species (Aichi target 12). These targets are interdependent, as protected areas can stem biodiversity loss when strategically located and effectively managed. However, the global protected area estate is currently biased toward locations that are cheap to protect and away from important areas for biodiversity. Here we use data on the distribution of protected areas and threatened terrestrial birds, mammals, and amphibians to assess current and possible future coverage of these species under the convention. We discover that 17% of the 4,118 threatened vertebrates are not found in a single protected area and that fully 85% are not adequately covered (i.e., to a level consistent with their likely persistence). Using systematic conservation planning, we show that expanding protected areas to reach 17% coverage by protecting the cheapest land, even if ecoregionally representative, would increase the number of threatened vertebrates covered by only 6%. However, the nonlinear relationship between the cost of acquiring land and species coverage means that fivefold more threatened vertebrates could be adequately covered for only 1.5 times the cost of the cheapest solution, if cost efficiency and threatened vertebrates are both incorporated into protected area decision making. These results are robust to known errors in the vertebrate range maps. The Convention on Biological Diversity targets may stimulate major expansion of the global protected area estate. If this expansion is to secure a future for imperiled species, new protected areas must be sited more strategically than is presently the case. Under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), governments have agreed to ambitious targets for expanding the global protected area network that could drive the greatest surge in new protected areas in history. They have also agreed to arrest the decline of known threatened species. However, existing protected areas perform poorly for coverage of threatened species, with only 15% of threatened vertebrates being adequately represented. Moreover, we find that if future protected area expansion continues in a business-as-usual fashion, threatened species coverage will increase only marginally. This is because low-cost priorities for meeting the CBD targets have little overlap with priorities for threatened species coverage. Here we propose a method for averting this outcome, by linking threatened species coverage to protected area expansion. Our analyses clearly demonstrate that considerable increases in protected area coverage of species could be achieved at minimal additional cost. Exploiting this opportunity will require directly linking the CBD targets on protected areas and threatened species, thereby formalizing the interdependence of these key commitments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oscar Venter
- Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science and the School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- * E-mail:
| | - Richard A. Fuller
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Daniel B. Segan
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Josie Carwardine
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Ecosystem Sciences, EcoSci Precinct, Dutton Pk, Australia
| | - Thomas Brooks
- International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland
- World Agroforestry Center, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
- School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | | | - Moreno Di Marco
- Global Mammal Assessment Program, Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy
| | - Takuya Iwamura
- Department of Biology and Department of Environmental Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America
| | - Liana Joseph
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Damien O'Grady
- Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia
| | - Hugh P. Possingham
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, United Kingdom
| | - Carlo Rondinini
- Global Mammal Assessment Program, Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy
| | - Robert J. Smith
- Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom
| | - Michelle Venter
- Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science and the School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia
| | - James E. M. Watson
- Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, New York, United States of America
- School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| |
Collapse
|