Prioritisation to prevent extinction

Prioritisation is about choice, and in the context of species extinction, it is about choosing what investments to make to prevent extinctions as opposed to assessing extinction risk, identifying species that are doomed to extinction, or mapping components of biodiversity. Prioritised investments may focus on conservation activities aimed at species protection or management, but they may also seek to acquire new knowledge to resolve uncertainties. Two core components of prioritisation are a clearly stated objective and knowledge of what activities can be undertaken, acknowledging that there are likely to be dependencies between these activities. As the natural environment and society change, so will the enabling conditions for conservation, hence the need to be adaptable and proactive into the future

Using a social-ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans

One of the key determinants of success in biodiversity conservation is how well conservation planning decisions account for the social system in which actions are to be implemented. Understanding elements of how the social and ecological systems interact can help identify opportunities for implementation. Utilizing data from a large-scale conservation initiative in southwestern of Australia, we explored how a social-ecological system framework can be applied to identify how social and ecological factors interact to influence the opportunities for conservation. Using data from semistructured interviews, an online survey, and publicly available data, we developed a conceptual model of the social-ecological system associated with the conservation of the Fitz-Stirling region. We used this model to identify the relevant variables (remnants of vegetation, stakeholder presence, collaboration between stakeholders, and their scale of management) that affect the implementation of conservation actions in the region. We combined measures for these variables to ascertain how areas associated with different levels of ecological importance coincided with areas associated with different levels of stakeholder presence, stakeholder collaboration, and scales of management. We identified areas that could benefit from different implementation strategies, from those suitable for immediate conservation action to areas requiring implementation over the long term to increase on-the-ground capacity and identify mechanisms to incentivize implementation. The application of a social-ecological framework can help conservation planners and practitioners facilitate the integration of ecological and social data to inform the translation of priorities for action into implementation strategies that account for the complexities of conservation problems in a focused way

Biodiversity indicators need to be fit for purpose

Background The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimates that roughly 22,000 species worldwide are threatened with extinction (IUCN 2014). This number is predicted to increase due to the impacts of human activities (Sala et al. 2000), but also as more species are described and have their extinction risk assessed. As a consequence of the extinction of species, intergovernmental policies and agreements have been developed to conserve biological diversity, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which has three main objectives: (1) conservation of biological diversity; (2) sustainable use of the components of biological diversity; and (3) fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources (Convention on Biological Diversity 2003)

Equity trade-offs in conservation decision making

Conservation decisions increasingly involve multiple environmental and social objectives, which result in complex decision contexts with high potential for trade-offs. Improving social equity is one such objective that is often considered an enabler of successful outcomes and a virtuous ideal in itself. Despite its idealized importance in conservation policy, social equity is often highly simplified or ill-defined and is applied uncritically. What constitutes equitable outcomes and processes is highly normative and subject to ethical deliberation. Different ethical frameworks may lead to different conceptions of equity through alternative perspectives of what is good or right. This can lead to different and potentially conflicting equity objectives in practice. We promote a more transparent, nuanced, and pluralistic conceptualization of equity in conservation decision making that particularly recognizes where multidimensional equity objectives may conflict. To help identify and mitigate ethical conflicts and avoid cases of good intentions producing bad outcomes, we encourage a more analytical incorporation of equity into conservation decision making particularly during mechanistic integration of equity objectives. We recommend that in conservation planning motivations and objectives for equity be made explicit within the problem context, methods used to incorporate equity objectives be applied with respect to stated objectives, and, should objectives dictate, evaluation of equity outcomes and adaptation of strategies be employed during policy implementation

Mixed policies give more options in multifunctional tropical forest landscapes

This archive stores data utilised in: Mixed policies give more options in multifunctional tropical forest landscapesLaw E.A., Bryan B.A., Meijaard E., Mallawaarachchi T., Struebig M.J., Watts M., Wilson K.A.Journal of Applied Ecology 2016Corresponding author:Elizabeth A. Law*The University of Queensland, School of Biological [email protected]: Jan 18, 2016----------------------DETAILS:Along with this txt file, this archive contains five csv files included, and one folder containing a shape file. These are in the typical format required for input into Marxan with Zones, available from http://www.uq.edu.au/marxan/ (also see new cloud development on Marxan.net). The data time frames relate to a start year of 2008 (see associated publication for further details.Readme.txt - this documentZones.csv - contains zone identification numbers (zoneid) and names (zonenames)FeatureTargets.csv - contains feature id (id), the targets (target; units are specified in supplementary material), species penalty factor (spf; weighting number to determine if the feature is considered as an optimisation threshold constraint, 1, or not, 0), and feature names (name; features 1-9 and 19-20 represent primate species, 10-14 forest types, and 15-17 production values smallholder agriculture, timber, and oil palm, and 18 carbon emissions reduction.Extant.csv - contains planning unit id (pu), the extant class (class; using descriptive codes), and the area (area.ha, in hectares).PuVsFeatures.csv - for every planning unit and feature combination, the 'amount' gives the maximum possible achievement for that feature in that planning unit. Units of measurement are indicated in the main text/supplementary methods and associated papers detailing data development.BaselineZoneContributions.csv - for every zone, planning unit, and feature combination (identified using zoneid, puid, featid codes found in their respective files), this gives the fraction of the full amount possible to achieve within that pu for that feature. Pulayer folder - contains a shape file created in arcgis for the planning units. Coordinate reference system is WGS 84 / UTM zone 49S. One column in the attribute table, indicating the planning unit number (pu)

Enhancing feasibility: incorporating a socio-ecological systems framework into restoration planning

Forest restoration is the counterforce to deforestation. In many parts of the world it mitigates forest loss and degradation, but success rates vary. Socio-political variables are important predictors of effectiveness of restoration activities, indicating that restoration strategies need to be locally adapted. Yet, contextual assessments of the biophysical, social and political characteristics of forest restoration are rare. Here, we integrate a social-ecological systems framework with systematic decision-making to inform forest restoration planning. We illustrate this approach through a prioritization analysis in a community-based forest restoration context in Paser District, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. We compare the solutions of our integrated framework with those identified on the basis of biophysical criteria alone. We discover that incorporating a socio-political context alters the selection of priority areas. While the social feasibility and political permissibility can be enhanced, ecological benefits are likely to be reduced and/or opportunity costs of alternative land uses are to be increased. Our conceptual framework allows the appraisal of potential trade-offs between social and ecological outcomes of alternative options, and has the potential to evaluate the efficiency of existing policies. Empirical testing in a range of contexts is required to ensure broad applicability and transferability of our conceptual framework

Prioritizing conservation investments for mammal species globally

We need to set priorities for conservation because we cannot do everything, everywhere, at the same time. We determined priority areas for investment in threat abatement actions, in both a cost-effective and spatially and temporally explicit way, for the threatened mammals of the world. Our analysis presents the first fine-resolution prioritization analysis for mammals at a global scale that accounts for the risk of habitat loss, the actions required to abate this risk, the costs of these actions and the likelihood of investment success. We evaluated the likelihood of success of investments using information on the past frequency and duration of legislative effectiveness at a country scale. The establishment of new protected areas was the action receiving the greatest investment, while restoration was never chosen. The resolution of the analysis and the incorporation of likelihood of success made little difference to this result, but affected the spatial location of these investments

Ecosystem services from a degraded peatland of Central Kalimantan: implications for policy, planning, and management

Increasingly, landscapes are managed for multiple objectives to balance social, economic, and environmental goals. The Ex-Mega Rice Project (EMRP) peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia provides a timely example with globally significant development, carbon, and biodiversity concerns. To inform future policy, planning, and management in the EMRP, we quantified and mapped ecosystem service values, assessed their spatial interactions, and evaluated the potential provision of ecosystem services under future land-use scenarios. We focus on key policy-relevant regulating (carbon stocks and the potential for emissions reduction), provisioning (timber, crops from smallholder agriculture, palm oil), and supporting (biodiversity) services. We found that implementation of existing land-use plans has the potential to improve total ecosystem service provision. We identify a number of significant inefficiencies, trade-offs, and unintended outcomes that may arise. For example, the potential development of existing palm oil concessions over one-third of the region may shift smallholder agriculture into low-productivity regions and substantially impact carbon and biodiversity outcomes. While improved management of conservation zones may enhance the protection of carbon stocks, not all biodiversity features will be represented, and there will be a reduction in timber harvesting and agricultural production. This study highlights how ecosystem service analyses can be structured to better inform policy, planning, and management in globally significant but data-poor regions. Read More: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/13-2014.

How do marine and coastal citizen science experiences foster environmental engagement?

Citizen science programs enable community involvement in scientific research. In addition to fostering greater science literacy, some citizen science programs aim to foster engagement in environmental issues. However, few data are available to indicate whether and how citizen science programs can achieve greater environmental engagement. We survey individuals choosing to attend one of seventeen reef citizen science events and examine the extent to which attendees reported three indicators of greater environmental engagement: (i) willingness to share information, (ii) increased support for marine conservation and citizen science, and (iii) intentions to adopt a new behavior. Most participants reported being willing to share information about reef conservation (91%) and described increased support for marine science and conservation (87%). Half of participants (51%) reported intentions to adopt a new conservation behavior. We found that key elements of the citizen science experience associated with these outcomes were learning about actions to protect reefs and coasts (procedural learning), experiencing surprise, and experiencing negative emotions about environmental problems. Excitement was also associated with positive outcomes, but only in participants who were less likely to see themselves as environmental, or were less frequent visitors to reefs and coasts. Importantly, the association between factual learning and environmental engagement outcomes was limited or negative. These findings suggest that the way citizen science experiences make people feel, may be more important for fostering future environmental engagement than factual-based learning. When designing citizen science programs for community members, these findings provide a reminder to not focus on provision of factual information alone, but to highlight environmental impacts while providing meaningful experiences and building environmental skills

How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research

Background: Conservation decisions not only impact wildlife, habitat, and environmental health, but also human wellbeing and social justice. The inclusion of safeguards and equity considerations in the conservation field has increasingly garnered attention in international policy processes and amongst conservation practitioners. Yet, what constitutes an ‘equitable’ solution can take many forms, and how the concept is treated within conservation research is not standardized. This review explores how social equity is conceptualized and assessed in conservation research.Methods/Design: Using a structured search and screening process, we identified 138 peer-reviewed studies that addressed equity in relation to conservation actions. The authors developed a coding framework to guide the review process, focusing on the current state of, definitions used for, and means of assessing social equity in empirical conservation research.Review Results: Results show that empirical research on social equity in conservation is rapidly growing, with the majority of studies on the topic published only since 2009. Equity within conservation research is skewed toward distributional concerns and to a lesser extent procedural issues, with recognition and contextual equity receiving little attention. Studies are primarily situated in forested biomes of the Global South. Conservation interventions mostly resulted in mixed or negative impacts on equity.Synthesis and Discussion: Our results demonstrate the current limitations of research on equity in conservation, and raise challenging questions about the social impacts of conservation and how to ameliorate equity concerns. Framing of equity within conservation research would benefit from greater transparency of study motivation, more explicit definition of how equity is used within the study context, and consideration for how best to assess it.We recommend that the empirical conservation literature more deeply engage with different notions of equity when studying, planning, and implementing actions to address potential trade-offs among equity and conservation objectives and beneficiaries