Spatial conservation planning for biodiversity and ecosystem services : from concepts and methods to policy agendas in the European Union

Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) is one of the greatest challenges of our times. The ultimate role of area-based conservation science and Systematic Conservation Planning is to inform on-the-ground spatial planning and decision-making. Computational methods and geographical data resources play an important role in spatial conservation prioritization, which is a frequently used analysis for identifying important areas for biodiversity, assessing present protected area networks, or designing future allocations for network expansions. Spatial data based on remote sensing, species distribution modelling, and citizen science have become available, allowing complex spatial analysis with large high-resolution data sets. Spatial conservation prioritization has introduced several concepts for identifying the best possible protected area network. Similarly, protected areas have been an integral part of international conventions, such as the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which has set a quantitative objective for increasing the global protected area coverage to 17 per cent worldwide. Area-based conservation goals are often included in regional biodiversity conservation agendas, such as in the European Union s (EU) biodiversity strategy to 2020. While policies have increasingly adopted the ES approach for conservation, it is poorly understood how identification of ES priority areas should be integrated into spatial conservation planning. In this thesis, my objective is to dissect the concepts and principles guiding spatial conservation prioritization for biodiversity and ES. I introduce novel methodological solutions in the Zonation software for integrating ES into spatial prioritization. My results show that clarifying the underlying concepts can aid spatial conservation planning. This is crucial especially regarding ES and their successful operationalization in spatial prioritization. Prioritization should always consider demand and connectivity requirements of individual ES. Otherwise, assessments effectively identifying ES priority areas do not necessarily provide timely policy-relevant information. This work also provides insights on how spatial conservation prioritization, with Zonation applied on modeled high-resolution vertebrate species distribution data, can be used to successfully inform continent-wide conservation policies. The EU-wide Natura 2000 network of protected areas covers moderately well the distributions of a representative group of vertebrate species. Nevertheless, there is a potential efficiency to be gained from additional coordinated conservation planning and future protected area site revisions or additions. While prioritization techniques with explicit spatial data are effective in identifying spatial priorities at the continental scale, conservation efficiency should be considered as part of a wider socio-ecological system. Ultimately, while ES bring spatial conservation planning closer to general land use planning, this work highlights the importance of considering complementary conservation mechanisms and finding more integrative approaches for sustainable land use planning.Luonnon monimuotoisuuden ja ekosysteemipalveluiden suojelu on yksi aikamme suurimpia haasteita. Systemaattinen suojelusuunnittelu kehittyi omaksi tieteenalaksi ennen vuosituhannen vaihdetta ja esitteli erillisen paikkatietoa ja laskennallisia menetelmiä hyödyntävän analyysin, spatiaalisen suojelupriorisoinnin. Sen tavoitteena oli alun perin tunnistaa kustannustehokkaasti luontoarvoiltaan monipuolisia ja luonnonsuojeluun sopivia alueita. Luonnonsuojelualueet ovat herättäneet paljon keskustelua myös politiikassa. Esimerkiksi Yhdistyneiden kansakuntien luonnon monimuotoisuutta koskevassa yleissopimuksessa on tavoitteena suojella 17 prosenttia maapallon pinta-alasta. Muita pinta-alaan perustuvia suojelutavoitteita on sisällytetty myös alueellisiin luonnonsuojeluohjelmiin, kuten esimerkiksi Euroopan Unionin (EU) biodiversiteettistrategiaan. Viime aikoina luonnonsuojelupolitiikka on myös alkanut huomioida ekosysteemipalveluja. Sen sijaan ei ole vielä selvää, miten ekosysteemipalveluille voidaan tunnistaa niiden suojelukäyttöön sopivia alueita. Väitöskirjatutkimukseni pyrkii keskustelemaan, mitkä spatiaalisen suojelupriorisoinnin käsitteet ja menetelmät nousevat keskeisiksi kun tunnistetaan luontoarvoiltaan ja ekosysteemipalveluiltaan arvokkaita alueita. Väitöskirjani arvioi EU:n biodiversiteettistrategian tärkeintä spatiaalista suojelutyökalua, Natura 2000-luonnonsuojelualueverkostoa, käyttämällä menetelmänä spatiaalista priorisointia ja erityisesti Zonation suojelu- ja maankäytön suunnitteluohjelmaa. Tulokseni osoittavat, että suojelusuunnittelun käsitteiden syvällinen ymmärtäminen ja selventäminen voi edistää sekä priorisointimenetelmien kehittymistä että käytännön suunnittelua. Käsitteiden selkeys on erityisen tärkeää tulosten välittämisessä eri sidosryhmille, mutta erityisesti ekosysteemipalveluiden integroimisessa osaksi suojelusuunnittelua. Ekosysteemipalvelut voidaan sisällyttää yksittäisinä piirrekerroksina suojelupriorisointeihin laji- ja habitaattitietojen rinnalle. Niiden erilaiset spatiaaliset kytkeytyvyysvaatimukset ja todellinen kysyntä olisi kuitenkin huomioitava, jotta priorisoinnit tuottaisivat politiikan ja suunnittelun kannalta mahdollisimman käyttökelpoisia tuloksia. Väitöskirjani tapaustutkimukset osoittavat, että spatiaalinen suojelupriorisointi menetelmänä, yhdessä eri lähteistä peräisin olevien korkealaatuisten paikkatietoaineistojen kanssa, onnistuu tarjoamaan käyttökelpoista tietoa EU-laajuiseen luonnonsuojelusuunnitteluun ja -politiikkaan. Nykyinen EU-laajuinen Natura 2000-verkosto onnistuu suhteellisen hyvin suojelemaan edustavan määrän selkärankaisia lajeja. Suojelupriorisoinnin avulla voidaan tehokkaasti tunnistaa potentiaalisia alueita luonnonsuojelualueverkoston laajentamiseen. Myös yhteistoiminnallisella rajoja ylittävällä suojelusuunnittelulla pystytään lisäämään suojelun tehokkuutta. Toisaalta luonnonsuojelualueet ja niiden kustannustehokkuus tulisi ymmärtää osana laajempaa sosio-ekologista järjestelmää. Väitöskirjatyöni antaa esimerkkejä siitä, kuinka ekosysteemipalvelut tuovat spatiaalisen suojelusuunnittelun lähemmäs yleistä maankäytön suunnittelua. Suojelusuunnittelu tieteenalana hyötyisi todennäköisesti integroivista, ekologisen ja sosiaalisen kestävyyden huomioivista näkökulmista

Ecosystem services and connectivity in spatial conservation prioritization

Peer reviewe

Coverage of vertebrate species distributions by Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas and Special Protection Areas in the European Union

Peer reviewe

Voluntary non-monetary approaches for implementing conservation

The voluntary non-monetary approach to conservation refers to actions that citizens or organizations could voluntarily implement in their area of influence without the incentive of monetary compensations. To be effectively implemented by untrained actors, actions should be clearly defined, straightforward to implement and not require specific scientific knowledge. The costs of actions should also be sufficiently affordable to be widely applied without monetary incentives. A voluntary non-monetary approach has so far not been clearly described as a distinct group of tools for nature conservation. Here we review the scarce scientific literature on the topic. To illustrate the applicability of a voluntary non-monetary approach to conservation, we then investigate its potential for farmland conservation. We considered a list of 119 actions available from “conservation-evidence”, a source of systematically collected evidence on effectiveness of conservation actions. Among 119 actions, 95 could be scored for feasibility of implementation, costs, and existence of evidence in UK, Spain and Finland. Sixteen to seventeen actions were potentially suitable for implementation by a voluntary non-monetary approach. This implies that the voluntary non-monetary approach could be widely applicable across many countries and environments. It is our hope that this study will represent a clarion call for conservation scientists to clearly recognize the voluntary non-monetary approach, its characteristics, and its potential for addressing conservation issues on private land. Adoption of such voluntary measures may be more dependent on encouragement (‘nudging’) than on the usual coercive or financial emphasis (‘shoving’).Peer reviewe

Preventing biodiversity loss with ecological restoration

Restoration of watersheds, wetlands, and forests is a way to compensate for the human-caused damage on biodiversity. Halting biodiversity loss is essential for safeguarding ecosystems and human well-being. A key to successful restoration is targeting large enough landscape units. For example, planning at a catchment level can ensure that a forest drainage conducted upstream does not threaten the condition of the waterbodies downstream

Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity

Island biogeography theory posits that species richness increases with island size and decreases with isolation. This logic underpins much conservation policy and regulation, with preference given to conserving large, highly connected areas, and relative ambivalence shown toward protecting small, isolated habitat patches. We undertook a global synthesis of the relationship between the conservation value of habitat patches and their size and isolation, based on 31 systematic conservation planning studies across four continents. We found that small, isolated patches are inordinately important for biodiversity conservation. Our results provide a powerful argument for redressing the neglect of small, isolated habitat patches, for urgently prioritizing their restoration, and for avoiding simplistic application of island biogeography theory in conservation decisions.Peer reviewe

Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism

Peer reviewe

Identifying national responsibility species based on spatial conservation prioritization

International audienceThe concept of National responsibility species (NRS) was developed to coordinate the conservation efforts of species occurring in multiple countries. Calculated as the fraction of the global species' distribution within a country, it measures the contribution of a local population to global survival of the species. However, there may be more co-occurring species in one region than another, making the conservation of a species more cost-efficient in the first than the latter. If cost-efficient resource allocation is the goal, then identifying NRS should also be based on spatial priorities. We propose that a species is considered NRS when a large part of its distribution falls within high priority areas in a country. We identify NRS from spatial conservation prioritization outputs to (1) maximize the overall cost-efficiency of allocation of conservation resources and (2) to provide information about which species the spatial priorities are based on. We analyzed data on vertebrates in the Birds and Habitats directives in the EU28 countries and compared the traditional NRS measure to three alternative strategies. While the majority of species maintained their NRS status in most countries regardless of the approach, differences occurred, with varying numbers and identities of responsibility species in a country, or responsibilities for species shifting between countries. The differences were largest in geographically marginal countries and for species that were distributed across a few countries. Other NRS approaches may also be useful, and the choice of approach should ultimately depend on the purpose and complement information on conservation status in decision-making

SIZE ISN'T EVERYTHING: THE IMPORTANCE OF SMALL HABITAT PATCHES WHEN PLANNING THE CONSERVATION OF SPECIES IN FRAGMENTED LANDSCAPES

Metapopulation theory and landscape ecology indicate that larger patches of habitat are more likely to support self-sustaining populations of more species. In spatial conservation planning, it makes sense that if all else is equal; one would prefer to conserve a large patch of habitat over a small patch. However, simplistic and selective application of these theories is having perverse impacts on the viability of rare and threatened species in fragmented landscapes. Preference toward conserving large patches and ambivalence toward protecting small patches is manifest in many land management policies and regulations. However, due to historical patterns of land-use and habitat loss, it is seldom the case that all else is equal in a choice between large and small patches. In many instances, small patches and large patches have different species composition. We hypothesized that the distribution of species most rare in the landscape will tend to be biased toward smaller patches. We analysed the relationships between species composition, rarity, irreplaceability and habitat fragment size in fragmented landscapes with contrasting histories of land-use and habitat change in Australia, Europe, Africa, and North America. We find that small habitat patches are inordinately important in the bulk of landscapes simply on the basis of their species compliment. We found a surprisingly clear and strong negative relationship between irreplaceability and most habitat fragmentation indices. This is driven by the fact that rare species distributions are biased toward small patches, while common species exist across all patch sizes. This result has strong implications for land-clearing regulations and offsetting policies. Selective application of ecological theory that downplays importance of small patches in fragmented landscapes will lead to catastrophic outcomes for rare and threatened species. Priority should be given to improving integrity of small patches through management of threats and restorationpeerReviewe

Biodiversitetsförlusten kan bekämpas med restaurering

Restaurering av vattendrag, myrmarker och skogar reparerar sådana skador på den biologiska mångfalden som orsakats av människan. Det är absolut nödvändigt att stoppa naturförlusten för att trygga ekosystemens och människornas välbefinnande. För att återställandet ska lyckas är det viktigt att åtgärderna inriktas på tillräckligt stora helheter. Till exempel kan planering på nivån av hela avrinningsområden säkerställa att skogsdikning i ett vattendrags övre lopp inte äventyrar vattendragets tillstånd i dess nedre lopp