Systematic conservation planning in marine environments: sensitivities of the planning framework to aspects of scale

Problems of scale abound in the science, governance, and conservation planning of complex social-ecological systems. In systematic conservation planning processes, which aim to effectively and efficiently allocate conservation interventions in space and time, nearly half of the stages in the planning framework involve decisions directly related to scale. The implications of scale-related problems are still poorly understood by conservation planners and researchers, as well as approaches to deal with these problems and integrate explicit multiscale thinking into the planning process. Thus, the overall goal of this thesis is to improve understanding of the different influences of scale on conservation planning outcomes, with the ultimate goal of making specific recommendations to improve the conservation planning framework to deal with scale more explicitly. As such, the structure of this thesis mirrors the relevant stages in the planning framework that involve scale-explicit decisions, organized by the two groups of scale considerations: technical versus practical. The first research objective of my thesis seeks to understand the extent to which technical aspects of setting spatial priorities for marine conservation ('spatial prioritisations') influence where priorities are determined, and how this relates to conservation strategies that rely on broad, coarse-resolution prioritisations to guide the locations of finer-resolution priorities are actions. I address this objective in Chapter 2 by quantifying the individual and interacting effects of three prioritisation factors on spatial priorities for marine conservation: (1) planning-unit size, (2) thematic resolution of coral reef classes, and (3) spatial variability of socioeconomic costs. I used Fiji and Micronesia as case studies and found that all three factors influenced spatial priorities to different extents, with the spatial variability of socioeconomic costs having the largest influence, followed by planning-unit size and thematic resolution of reef classes. Furthermore, I identified an interaction effect between the thematic resolution of reef classes and the socioeconomic cost data used. These findings have important implications for the strategy of relying on coarse-resolution prioritisations to guide finer-resolution assessments and invalidate a number of implicit assumptions that are made when adopting such strategy. Progressing to practical considerations of scale, my second research objective seeks to investigate the implications of another strategy commonly assumed or proposed to overcome scale mismatches between regional and local perspectives: dynamically iterating between regionalextent planning and locally applied actions ('iterative planning'), as conservation plans are incrementally implemented across a region. To address this objective in Chapter 3, I specifically explore how frequently regional priorities should be updated as local actions are gradually implemented. Using Fiji as a case study region, I found that changes in the frequency of updating regional priorities did not influence the total time taken to achieve conservation objectives, or the total extent of final reserve systems. However, I did identify two potential benefits to updating priorities more frequently: faster achievement of objectives for high-priority features, and greater potential to capitalise on areas that have previously had conservation efforts applied. This work provides insights into trade-offs to consider regarding the frequency of updating regional conservation assessments, which vary depending on specific planning contexts. My third research objective seeks to determine if there is an optimal scale at which to conduct conservation planning, as a precursor to understanding how best to integrate planning across multiple scales ('multiscale conservation planning'). I address this in Chapter 4 by elucidating the respective strengths and weaknesses of conservation plans developed at different jurisdictional levels in the Coral Triangle region (e.g., local, national) to adequately consider multiple social and ecological scales. I found that no plans I assessed were able to adequately address all social and ecological scales, and that plans generally best addressed social and ecological components representative of the same level at which the plan was developed. This research adds nuanced appreciation of the limitations of lower- versus higher-level conservation planning. While these respective limitations are understood as the general inability to consider components at other scales, I demonstrate that these limitations can be attributed to differences in technical versus conceptual abilities. My findings demonstrate the necessity for vertical integration between planning levels as a means to overcome their respective limitations. The fourth and final research objective of my thesis seeks to investigate the concept of multiscale conservation planning. It is overwhelmingly evident that the consideration and understanding of any social and ecological system must consider multiple scales explicitly. Thus, my thesis culminates in Chapter 5 with a theoretical and empirical examination of what it might mean to conduct multiscale conservation planning, a critical frontier in this field. Using Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands as case studies, I provide empirical evidence that refutes the conventional notion that conservation planning across multiple scales occurs unidirectionally ('scaling up' versus 'scaling down') and present a novel archetype that more realistically reflects multiscale planning in practice: 'multidirectional scaling'. I also evaluate factors that impeded or facilitated successful outcomes across multiple scales and reveal six scale-explicit characteristics for effective multiscale planning, the first two of which are novel concepts to the literature: (1) multiscale understanding, (2) scale jumping, (3) leadership characteristics, (4) stakeholder engagement, (5) policy frameworks, and (6) institutional settings. I propose these six characteristics constitute a new form of conservation capital, 'scalar capital', as a necessary resource or investment for successful outcomes across multiple scales. My thesis contributes nuanced understanding of the sensitivities of the conservation planning framework to aspects of scale, in both theory and practice. I offer specific recommendations for each of the relevant stages in the conservation planning framework that involve scale-explicit concerns and illuminate some implications of existing problems and influences of scale. Essentially, it is the aim of my thesis to conduct research that can enable conservation practitioners to consider aspects of scale more explicitly and improve the efficacy of conservation planning outcomes. Conservation planning in practice must progress to view any system to manage and govern as inherently complex and multiscale; similarly, planning processes across multiple scales should adopt a 'planning system identity' (such as in complex systems) to correspond in design with the systems that they seek to manage

Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of conservation planning at different scales: the Coral Triangle as a case study

Each year, hundreds of conservation plans are developed to direct limited resources toward conservation in priority areas. Conservation plans are developed at different levels, defined here as points on a range of spatial extent varying from global to local. However, approaches to integrate plans effectively across levels remain elusive. To plan across multiple levels most effectively, the relative strengths and weaknesses of planning at different levels must be understood. Taking the Coral Triangle region of the western Pacific Ocean as a case study, we apply an adapted social-ecological system (SES) framework to assess the scalar coverage of conservation plans, i.e., the extent to which plans developed at one level adequately consider the social and ecological levels and components (i.e., resource units, resource systems, governance systems, actors) of an SES. No conservation plans we assessed had complete cross-level coverage. Plans most adequately addressed social and ecological components at the same level of planning and, to a lesser extent, lower levels. In line with previous literature suggesting that social factors are most relevant at local levels, we found that local-level plans engaged with the greatest number of stakeholder groups, whereas higher level plans more adequately addressed ecological components. Given that it appears more practicable for higher level plans to consider components at lower levels, the onus should fall on higher level planning to link to lower levels. Achieving complete cross-level coverage will require vertical interactions between planning processes at different levels, and conceiving of planning processes across all levels as connected planning systems. We demonstrate how an adapted SES framework can be used by conservation planners to assess the cross-level coverage of their own plans and to formulate appropriate conservation objectives to address social and ecological components at different levels

Scalar capital as ingredient of success in conservation governance: evidence from Melanesia

Problems of scale abound in the governance of complex social-ecological systems. Conservation governance, for example, typically occurs at a single scale, but needs to inform governance and action at other scales to be truly effective at achieving social and ecological outcomes. This process is conventionally conceived as unidirectional - either scaling down or scaling up - in the way it both exploits and creates the natural, social, human, institutional, and financial resources and benefits that are collectively known as conservation 'capital'. Here we analyse multiscale conservation governance and the different types of capital that impede or facilitate its effectiveness. Comparative analysis of conservation planning in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, through in-depth document review, key informant interview, and participant observation, reveals limited evidence of unidirectional processes. Instead, we observe multidirectional scaling pathways, cultivated by the following six scale-explicit characteristics of effective conservation governance: 1) multiscale understanding, 2) scale jumping, 3) scaled leadership characteristics, 4) scaled stakeholder engagement, 5) scaled policy frameworks, and 6) scaled institutional settings. While the latter four are familiar concepts, though not always recognised as explicitly scalar, we know little about the first two attributes of conservation governance. Based on this novelty and relevance, we propose a new form of capital - 'scalar capital' - to complement natural, social, human, institutional, and financial capitals as both input and outcome of effective conservation governance. We find that scalar capital facilitates flows of different resources (data, conservation objectives, practitioner experience, institutional support, and funding) in multiple directions. Critically, we present empirical evidence that conservation governance can foster scalar capital to improve outcomes across multiple scales

Spatially Congruent Sites of Importance for Global Shark and Ray Biodiversity

Many important areas identified for conservation priorities focus on areas of high species richness, however, it is unclear whether these areas change depending on what aspect of richness is considered (e.g. evolutionary distinctiveness, endemicity, or threatened species). Furthermore, little is known of the extent of spatial congruency between biodiversity measures in the marine realm. Here, we used the distribution maps of all known marine sharks, rays, and chimaeras (class Chondrichthyes) to examine the extent of spatial congruency across the hotspots of three measures of species richness: total number of species, evolutionarily distinct species, and endemic species. We assessed the spatial congruency between hotspots considering all species, as well as on the subset of the threatened species only. We consider three definitions of hotspot (2.5%, 5%, and 10% of cells with the highest numbers of species) and three levels of spatial resolution (1°, 4°, and 8° grid cells). Overall, we found low congruency among all three measures of species richness, with the threatened species comprising a smaller subset of the overall species patterns irrespective of hotspot definition. Areas of congruency at 1° and 5% richest cells contain over half (64%) of all sharks and rays and occurred off the coasts of: (1) Northern Mexico Gulf of California, (2) USA Gulf of Mexico, (3) Ecuador, (4) Uruguay and southern Brazil, (5) South Africa, southern Mozambique, and southern Namibia, (6) Japan, Taiwan, and parts of southern China, and (7) eastern and western Australia. Coarsening resolution increases congruency two-fold for all species but remains relatively low for threatened measures, and geographic locations of congruent areas also change. Finally, for pairwise comparisons of biodiversity measures, evolutionarily distinct species richness had the highest overlap with total species richness regardless of resolution or definition of hotspot. We suggest that focusing conservation attention solely on areas of high total species richness will not necessarily contribute efforts towards species that are most at risk, nor will it protect other important dimensions of species richness

Overfishing Drives Over One-Third of All Sharks and Rays Toward a Global Extinction Crisis

The scale and drivers of marine biodiversity loss are being revealed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessment process. We present the first global reassessment of 1,199 species in Class Chondrichthyes-sharks, rays, and chimeras. The first global assessment (in 2014) concluded that one-quarter (24%) of species were threatened. Now, 391 (32.6%) species are threatened with extinction. When this percentage of threat is applied to Data Deficient species, more than one-third (37.5%) of chondrichthyans are estimated to be threatened, with much of this change resulting from new information. Three species are Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct), representing possibly the first global marine fish extinctions due to overfishing. Consequently, the chondrichthyan extinction rate is potentially 25 extinctions per million species years, comparable to that of terrestrial vertebrates. Overfishing is the universal threat affecting all 391 threatened species and is the sole threat for 67.3% of species and interacts with three other threats for the remaining third: loss and degradation of habitat (31.2% of threatened species), climate change (10.2%), and pollution (6.9%). Species are disproportionately threatened in tropical and subtropical coastal waters. Science-based limits on fishing, effective marine protected areas, and approaches that reduce or eliminate fishing mortality are urgently needed to minimize mortality of threatened species and ensure sustainable catch and trade of others. Immediate action is essential to prevent further extinctions and protect the potential for food security and ecosystem functions provided by this iconic lineage of predators

The plans they are a-changin': more frequent iterative adjustment of regional priorities in the transition to local actions can benefit implementation

Aim: Regional-scale assessments are frequently conceived to guide the strategic application of conservation actions. Although changes to priority areas from initial assessments are inevitable, the transition from regional-scale assessment to implementing local actions is poorly understood. An outstanding question concerns the frequency with which regionally assessed priorities should be updated as actions are implemented. We address this gap by simulating the incremental implementation of local actions guided by regional conservation assessments, exploring how update frequency can influence aspects of translating regional assessments to local actions. Location: Fiji coral reefs. Methods: Our simulations were designed within the framework of systematic conservation planning, with implemented actions simulated based on conservation value in achieving objectives and feature rarity. Other decision rule-sets were put in place to simulate on-the-ground negotiations that are often necessary when transitioning from regional-scale conservation assessments to local actions. We use our simulations to evaluate how the frequency of updating regional priorities influences (1) total time taken to achieve objectives represented by numbers of planning units investigated, (2) total extent of final reserve systems and (3) spatial overlap between initial regional priorities and final implemented reserves. Results: Changes in the frequencies of updating did not influence the time taken to achieve conservation objectives, nor the total extent of final reserve systems. However, there was a significant difference in the number of times planning units were re-investigated for implementing actions within in scenarios that involved more frequent updates. Spatial overlap between initial regional priorities and final implemented reserves increased with decreases in update frequency. Main conclusions: We find two potential benefits to updating priorities more frequently: (1) faster achievement of objectives for high-priority features and (2) greater potential to capitalize on areas previously investigated. Our findings provide insights into trade-offs to consider regarding the frequency of updating regional assessments, which varies depending on the plannin

Sympathy for the Devil: Detailing the Effects of Planning-Unit Size, Thematic Resolution of Reef Classes, and Socioeconomic Costs on Spatial Priorities for Marine Conservation - Fig 1

<p><b>Regional context and enlarged maps of the two study regions: (A) Micronesia and (B) Fiji.</b> Buffers are shown around Micronesian nations to increase visibility of the numerous small coral islands and atolls.</p

Spatial dissimilarity between all 2000 solutions for the Fiji case study.

<p>Spatial dissimilarity between all 2000 solutions for the Fiji case study.</p

Example map showing distribution of cost variability across the Fiji planning region.

<p>Values, shown here for large planning units, are based on distance to fisher populations as a proxy for opportunity cost.</p

Example maps of planning-unit sizes and thematic resolutions explored in the Fiji dataset.

<p>All maps represent the same spatial extent and location; grey polygons represent Fiji terrestrial areas (islands). (a) Planning-unit sizes: ‘small’ (1 km²; blue squares) and ‘large’ (25 km²; red squares); 25 small planning units are nested within each large, non-edge planning unit. Note that both planning-unit grids were clipped to all reef areas, resulting in irregular planning units on the perimeters. (b) & (c) Examples of two of the five levels of thematic resolution: (b) level 2 (11 total reef classes in Fiji), and (c) level 4 (43 total reef classes in Fiji).</p