1
|
Virtanen EA, Söderholm M, Moilanen A. How threats inform conservation planning—A systematic review protocol. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0269107. [PMID: 35639722 PMCID: PMC9154108 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2022] [Accepted: 05/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Conservation planning addresses the development and expansion of protected areas and requires data on for instance species, habitats, and biodiversity. Data on threats is often minimal, although necessary in conservation planning. In principle, threats should guide which conservation actions to take and where, and how to allocate resources. The lack of threat information may also limit the validity of areas to be conserved, if the condition of areas is degraded by threats unknown. The protocol described here outlines the methodology for a systematic review to explore how threats are theoretically and methodologically understood and used in conservation plans across freshwater, marine and terrestrial environments. Our primary research question is: how have threats informed conservation planning? Studies will be categorized according to the types of threats and conservation features used, theoretical and methodological approaches applied, geographical context, and biome. The results are expected to increase our understanding about how threats can and should be addressed in conservation planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elina A. Virtanen
- Finnish Natural History Museum, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Marine Research Centre, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland
- * E-mail:
| | - Maria Söderholm
- Information Services, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Natural History Museum, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Moilanen A, Lehtinen P, Kohonen I, Jalkanen J, Virtanen EA, Kujala H. Novel methods for spatial prioritization with applications in conservation, land use planning and ecological impact avoidance. Methods Ecol Evol 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/2041-210x.13819] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 17, FI‐ 00014 University of Helsinki Finland
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, FI‐00014 University of Helsinki Finland
| | - Pauli Lehtinen
- Finnish Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 17, FI‐ 00014 University of Helsinki Finland
| | - Ilmari Kohonen
- Finnish Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 17, FI‐ 00014 University of Helsinki Finland
| | - Joel Jalkanen
- Finnish Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 17, FI‐ 00014 University of Helsinki Finland
| | - Elina A. Virtanen
- Finnish Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 17, FI‐ 00014 University of Helsinki Finland
- Marine Research Centre Finnish Environment Institute Helsinki Finland
| | - Heini Kujala
- Finnish Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 17, FI‐ 00014 University of Helsinki Finland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Moilanen A, Kotiaho JS. Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets. Conserv Biol 2021; 35:197-205. [PMID: 32390216 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13533] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2019] [Revised: 03/29/2020] [Accepted: 04/30/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Biodiversity offsetting is the practice of using conservation actions, such as habitat restoration, management, or protection, to compensate for ecological losses caused by development activity, including construction projects. The typical goal of offsetting is no net loss (NNL), which means that all ecological losses are compensated for by commensurate offset gains. We focused on a conceptual and methodological exploration of net positive impact (NPI), an ambitious goal that implies commitment beyond NNL and that has recently received increasing attention from big business and environmental nongovernmental organizations. We identified 3 main ways NPI could be delivered: use of an additional NPI multiplier; use of slowly developing permanent offsets to deliver additional gains after NNL has first been reached during a shorter offset evaluation time interval; and the combination of permanent offsets with partially temporary losses. An important and novel variant of the last mechanism is the use of an alternate mitigation hierarchy so that gains from the traditional third step of the mitigation hierarchy (i.e., onsite rehabilitation) are no longer be counted toward reduced offset requirements. The outcome from these 3 factors is that for the same ecological damage, larger offsets will be required than previously, thereby improving offset success. As a corollary, we show that offsets are NNL only at 1 ephemeral point in time, before which they are net negative and after which they become either NPI or net negative impact, depending on whether permanent offsets are combined with partially temporary losses or if temporary offset gains are combined with partially permanent losses. To achieve NPI, offsets must be made permanent, and they must achieve NNL during an agreed-upon offset evaluation period. An additional NPI-multiplier and use of the modified mitigation hierarchy will deliver additional NPI gains. Achieving NPI is fully conditional on prior achievement of NNL, and NNL offsets have been frequently observed to fail due to inadequate policy requirements, poor planning, or incomplete implementation. Nevertheless, achieving NPI becomes straightforward if NNL can be credibly reached first.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Natural History Museum, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 17, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
| | - Janne S Kotiaho
- Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, Jyväskylä, FI-40014, Finland
- School of Resource Wisdom, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, FI-40014, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Santangeli A, Girardello M, Buechley ER, Botha A, Minin ED, Moilanen A. Importance of complementary approaches for efficient vulture conservation: reply to Efrat et al. Conserv Biol 2020; 34:1308-1310. [PMID: 32588448 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13579] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2020] [Revised: 06/04/2020] [Accepted: 06/05/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Santangeli
- The Helsinki Lab of Ornithology, Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, DST-NRF Centre of Excellence, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Marco Girardello
- cE3c - Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes/Azorean Biodiversity Group and Universidade dos Acores - Depto de Ciencias e Engenharia do Ambiente, Angra do Heroısmo, Acores, PT-9700-042, Portugal
| | - Evan R Buechley
- HawkWatch International, Salt Lake City, UT, 84106, U.S.A
- Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, U.S.A
| | - Andre Botha
- Endangered Wildlife Trust, Modderfontein, 1609, South Africa
| | - Enrico Di Minin
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
- Digital Geography Lab, Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4000, South Africa
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 17, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Moilanen A, Kujala H, Mikkonen N. A practical method for evaluating spatial biodiversity offset scenarios based on spatial conservation prioritization outputs. Methods Ecol Evol 2020. [DOI: 10.1111/2041-210x.13381] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Museum of Natural History University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland
- Department of Geosciences and Geography University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland
| | - Heini Kujala
- Finnish Museum of Natural History University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland
- School of BioSciences The University of Melbourne Melbourne Vic. Australia
- National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Recovery Hub Melbourne Vic. Australia
| | - Ninni Mikkonen
- Department of Geosciences and Geography University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland
- Finnish Environment Institute Helsinki Finland
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Santangeli A, Girardello M, Buechley E, Botha A, Minin ED, Moilanen A. Priority areas for conservation of Old World vultures. Conserv Biol 2019; 33:1056-1065. [PMID: 30645009 PMCID: PMC6849836 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2018] [Revised: 12/31/2018] [Accepted: 01/11/2019] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
The prosperity and well-being of human societies relies on healthy ecosystems and the services they provide. However, the biodiversity crisis is undermining ecosystems services and functions. Vultures are among the most imperiled taxonomic groups on Earth, yet they have a fundamental ecosystem function. These obligate scavengers rapidly consume large amounts of carrion and human waste, a service that may aid in both disease prevention and control of mammalian scavengers, including feral dogs, which in turn threaten humans. We combined information about the distribution of all 15 vulture species found in Europe, Asia, and Africa with their threats and used detailed expert knowledge on threat intensity to prioritize critical areas for conserving vultures in Africa and Eurasia. Threats we identified included poisoning, mortality due to collision with wind energy infrastructures, and other anthropogenic activities related to human land use and influence. Areas important for vulture conservation were concentrated in southern and eastern Africa, South Asia, and the Iberian Peninsula, and over 80% of these areas were unprotected. Some vulture species required larger areas for protection than others. Finally, countries that had the largest share of all identified important priority areas for vulture conservation were those with the largest expenditures related to rabies burden (e.g., India, China, and Myanmar). Vulture populations have declined markedly in most of these countries. Restoring healthy vulture populations through targeted actions in the priority areas we identified may help restore the ecosystem services vultures provide, including sanitation and potentially prevention of diseases, such as rabies, a heavy burden afflicting fragile societies. Our findings may guide stakeholders to prioritize actions where they are needed most in order to achieve international goals for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Santangeli
- The Helsinki Lab of Ornithology, Finnish Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFI‐00014Finland
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFI‐00014Finland
| | - Marco Girardello
- cE3c ‐ Centre for EcologyEvolution and Environmental Changes/Azorean Biodiversity Group and Universidade. dos Açores – Depto de Ciências e Engenharia do AmbienteAngra do HeroísmoAçoresPT‐9700‐042Portugal
| | - Evan Buechley
- HawkWatch InternationalSalt Lake CityUT 84106U.S.A.
- Department of BiologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUT 84112U.S.A.
| | - Andre Botha
- Endangered Wildlife TrustModderfontein1609South Africa
| | - Enrico Di Minin
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFI‐00014Finland
- Digital Geography Lab, Department of Geosciences and GeographyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFI‐00014Finland
- School of Life SciencesUniversity of KwaZulu‐NatalDurban4000South Africa
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Museum of Natural History LuomusUniversity of HelsinkiP.O. Box 17HelsinkiFI‐00014Finland
- Department of Geosciences and GeographyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFI‐00014Finland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Di Minin E, Brooks TM, Toivonen T, Butchart SHM, Heikinheimo V, Watson JEM, Burgess ND, Challender DWS, Goettsch B, Jenkins R, Moilanen A. Identifying global centers of unsustainable commercial harvesting of species. Sci Adv 2019; 5:eaau2879. [PMID: 30949571 PMCID: PMC6447386 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aau2879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2018] [Accepted: 02/13/2019] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
Overexploitation is one of the main threats to biodiversity, but the intensity of this threat varies geographically. We identified global concentrations, on land and at sea, of 4543 species threatened by unsustainable commercial harvesting. Regions under high-intensity threat (based on accessibility on land and on fishing catch at sea) cover 4.3% of the land and 6.1% of the seas and contain 82% of all species threatened by unsustainable harvesting and >80% of the ranges of Critically Endangered species threatened by unsustainable harvesting. Currently, only 16% of these regions are covered by protected areas on land and just 6% at sea. Urgent actions are needed in these centers of unsustainable harvesting to ensure that use of species is sustainable and to prevent further species' extinctions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enrico Di Minin
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa
| | - Thomas M. Brooks
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 28 Rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
- World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna 4031, Philippines
- Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
| | - Tuuli Toivonen
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
| | - Stuart H. M. Butchart
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - Vuokko Heikinheimo
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
| | - James E. M. Watson
- Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY, USA
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Neil D. Burgess
- UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, UK
- CMEC, Natural History Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Daniel W. S. Challender
- Department of Zoology and Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3SZ, UK
| | | | | | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
- Finnish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 17, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Lehtomäki J, Kusumoto B, Shiono T, Tanaka T, Kubota Y, Moilanen A. Spatial conservation prioritization for the East Asian islands: A balanced representation of multitaxon biogeography in a protected area network. DIVERS DISTRIB 2018. [DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Joona Lehtomäki
- Environmental Geography Group, Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life SciencesVrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
| | - Buntarou Kusumoto
- Center for Strategic Research ProjectUniversity of the Ryukyus Nishihara Okinawa Japan
| | - Takayuki Shiono
- Faculty of ScienceUniversity of the Ryukyus Nishihara Okinawa Japan
| | - Takayuki Tanaka
- Department of Mountain and Environmental Science, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and TechnologyShinshu University Matsumoto, Nagano Japan
| | - Yasuhiro Kubota
- Faculty of ScienceUniversity of the Ryukyus Nishihara Okinawa Japan
- Marine and Terrestrial Field Ecology, Tropical Biosphere Research CenterUniversity of the Ryukyus Nishihara Okinawa Japan
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Natural History Museum, and the Department of GeosciencesUniversity of Helsinki Helsinki Finland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kujala H, Lahoz‐Monfort JJ, Elith J, Moilanen A. Not all data are equal: Influence of data type and amount in spatial conservation prioritisation. Methods Ecol Evol 2018. [DOI: 10.1111/2041-210x.13084] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Heini Kujala
- School of BiosciencesThe University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia
| | | | - Jane Elith
- School of BiosciencesThe University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia
- ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental DecisionsThe University of Melbourne Melbourne Australia
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Natural History MuseumUniversity of Helsinki Helsinki Finland
- Department of Geosciences and GeographyUniversity of Helsinki Helsinki Finland
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Moilanen A, Lindqvist J, Björkman M, Riikonen R, Nicorici D, Mattila E, Abbineni C, Jaleel M, Eriksson J, Kallio P. ODM-207: A novel BET bromodomain inhibitor with antitumor activity in nonclinical models of ER+ breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2018. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy268.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
11
|
Mugwedi LF, Ray-Mukherjee J, Roy KE, Egoh BN, Pouzols FM, Douwes E, Boon R, O’Donoghue S, Slotow R, Di Minin E, Moilanen A, Rouget M. Restoration planning for climate change mitigation and adaptation in the city of Durban, South Africa. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 2018. [DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2018.1483967] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Lutendo F. Mugwedi
- School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, South Africa
| | | | - Kathryn E. Roy
- School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, South Africa
- Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department, eThekwini Municipality, Durban, South Africa
| | - Benis N. Egoh
- School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, South Africa
- Natural Resources and the Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| | | | - Errol Douwes
- Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department, eThekwini Municipality, Durban, South Africa
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville, South Africa
| | - Richard Boon
- Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department, eThekwini Municipality, Durban, South Africa
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville, South Africa
| | - Sean O’Donoghue
- Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department, eThekwini Municipality, Durban, South Africa
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville, South Africa
| | - Rob Slotow
- Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department, eThekwini Municipality, Durban, South Africa
- Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College, London, UK
| | - Enrico Di Minin
- Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department, eThekwini Municipality, Durban, South Africa
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Mathieu Rouget
- School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, South Africa
- CIRAD, UMR PVBMT, La Réunion, France
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kareksela S, Moilanen A, Ristaniemi O, Välivaara R, Kotiaho JS. Exposing ecological and economic costs of the research-implementation gap and compromises in decision making. Conserv Biol 2018; 32:9-17. [PMID: 29139572 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2016] [Revised: 04/14/2017] [Accepted: 05/10/2017] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
The frequently discussed gap between conservation science and practice is manifest in the gap between spatial conservation prioritization plans and their implementation. We analyzed the research-implementation gap of one zoning case by comparing results of a spatial prioritization analysis aimed at avoiding ecological impact of peat mining in a regional zoning process with the final zoning plan. We examined the relatively complex planning process to determine the gaps among research, zoning, and decision making. We quantified the ecological costs of the differing trade-offs between ecological and socioeconomic factors included in the different zoning suggestions by comparing the landscape-level loss of ecological features (species occurrences, habitat area, etc.) between the different solutions for spatial allocation of peat mining. We also discussed with the scientists and planners the reasons for differing zoning suggestions. The implemented plan differed from the scientists suggestion in that its focus was individual ecological features rather than all the ecological features for which there were data; planners and decision makers considered effects of peat mining on areas not included in the prioritization analysis; zoning was not truly seen as a resource-allocation process and not emphasized in general minimizing ecological losses while satisfying economic needs (peat-mining potential); and decision makers based their prioritization of sites on site-level information showing high ecological value and on single legislative factors instead of finding a cost-effective landscape-level solution. We believe that if the zoning and decision-making processes are very complex, then the usefulness of science-based prioritization tools is likely to be reduced. Nevertheless, we found that high-end tools were useful in clearly exposing trade-offs between conservation and resource utilization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Santtu Kareksela
- Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, Finland
- Metsähallitus, Parks & Wildlife Finland, Kalevankatu 8, FI-40100 Jyväskylä, Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014, Finland
| | - Olli Ristaniemi
- Regional Council of Central Finland, Cygnaeuksenkatu 1, FI-40100 Jyväskylä, Finland
| | - Reima Välivaara
- Regional Council of Central Finland, Cygnaeuksenkatu 1, FI-40100 Jyväskylä, Finland
| | - Janne S Kotiaho
- Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Affiliation(s)
- Heini Kujala
- School of BioSciences The University of Melbourne Melbourne Vic. Australia
- National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Threatened Species Recovery Hub Melbourne Vic. Australia
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland
| | - Ascelin Gordon
- National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Threatened Species Recovery Hub Melbourne Vic. Australia
- School of Global, Urban and Social Studies RMIT University Melbourne Vic. Australia
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Veach V, Moilanen A, Di Minin E. Threats from urban expansion, agricultural transformation and forest loss on global conservation priority areas. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0188397. [PMID: 29182662 PMCID: PMC5705113 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188397] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2017] [Accepted: 11/06/2017] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Including threats in spatial conservation prioritization helps identify areas for conservation actions where biodiversity is at imminent risk of extinction. At the global level, an important limitation when identifying spatial priorities for conservation actions is the lack of information on the spatial distribution of threats. Here, we identify spatial conservation priorities under three prominent threats to biodiversity (residential and commercial development, agricultural expansion, and forest loss), which are primary drivers of habitat loss and threaten the persistence of the highest number of species in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, and for which spatial data is available. We first explore how global priority areas for the conservation of vertebrate (mammals, birds, and amphibians) species coded in the Red List as vulnerable to each threat differ spatially. We then identify spatial conservation priorities for all species vulnerable to all threats. Finally, we identify the potentially most threatened areas by overlapping the identified priority areas for conservation with maps for each threat. We repeat the same with four other well-known global conservation priority area schemes, namely Key Biodiversity Areas, Biodiversity Hotspots, the global Protected Area Network, and Wilderness Areas. We find that residential and commercial development directly threatens only about 4% of the global top 17% priority areas for species vulnerable under this threat. However, 50% of the high priority areas for species vulnerable to forest loss overlap with areas that have already experienced some forest loss. Agricultural expansion overlapped with ~20% of high priority areas. Biodiversity Hotspots had the greatest proportion of their total area under direct threat from all threats, while expansion of low intensity agriculture was found to pose an imminent threat to Wilderness Areas under future agricultural expansion. Our results identify areas where limited resources should be allocated to mitigate risks to vertebrate species from habitat loss.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria Veach
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Enrico Di Minin
- Department of Geosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Verhagen W, Kukkala AS, Moilanen A, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH. Use of demand for and spatial flow of ecosystem services to identify priority areas. Conserv Biol 2017; 31:860-871. [PMID: 27943463 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12872] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2016] [Revised: 10/27/2016] [Accepted: 11/27/2016] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
Policies and research increasingly focus on the protection of ecosystem services (ESs) through priority-area conservation. Priority areas for ESs should be identified based on ES capacity and ES demand and account for the connections between areas of ES capacity and demand (flow) resulting in areas of unique demand-supply connections (flow zones). We tested ways to account for ES demand and flow zones to identify priority areas in the European Union. We mapped the capacity and demand of a global (carbon sequestration), a regional (flood regulation), and 3 local ESs (air quality, pollination, and urban leisure). We used Zonation software to identify priority areas for ESs based on 6 tests: with and without accounting for ES demand and 4 tests that accounted for the effect of ES flow zone. There was only 37.1% overlap between the 25% of priority areas that encompassed the most ESs with and without accounting for ES demand. The level of ESs maintained in the priority areas increased from 23.2% to 57.9% after accounting for ES demand, especially for ESs with a small flow zone. Accounting for flow zone had a small effect on the location of priority areas and level of ESs maintained but resulted in fewer flow zones without ES maintained relative to ignoring flow zones. Accounting for demand and flow zones enhanced representation and distribution of ESs with local to regional flow zones without large trade-offs relative to the global ES. We found that ignoring ES demand led to the identification of priority areas in remote regions where benefits from ES capacity to society were small. Incorporating ESs in conservation planning should therefore always account for ES demand to identify an effective priority network for ESs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Willem Verhagen
- Environmental Geography Group, Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Aija S Kukkala
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 68, FIN-00014, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Centre of Excellence on Metapopulation Biology, Department of Biosciences, Biocenter 3, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Astrid J A van Teeffelen
- Environmental Geography Group, Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peter H Verburg
- Environmental Geography Group, Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Veach V, Di Minin E, Pouzols FM, Moilanen A. Species richness as criterion for global conservation area placement leads to large losses in coverage of biodiversity. DIVERS DISTRIB 2017. [DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria Veach
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology; Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; Helsinki Finland
| | - Enrico Di Minin
- Department of Geosciences and Geography; University of Helsinki; Helsinki Finland
- School of Life Sciences; University of KwaZulu-Natal; Durban South Africa
| | - Federico M. Pouzols
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology; Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; Helsinki Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology; Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; Helsinki Finland
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Hausmann A, Toivonen T, Slotow R, Tenkanen H, Moilanen A, Heikinheimo V, Di Minin E. Social Media Data Can Be Used to Understand Tourists’ Preferences for Nature-Based Experiences in Protected Areas. Conserv Lett 2017. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12343] [Citation(s) in RCA: 193] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Hausmann
- Amarula Elephant Research Programme, School of Life Sciences; University of KwaZulu-Natal; Durban 4041 South Africa
| | - Tuuli Toivonen
- Department of Geosciences and Geography; University of Helsinki; FI-00014 Helsinki Finland
| | - Rob Slotow
- Amarula Elephant Research Programme, School of Life Sciences; University of KwaZulu-Natal; Durban 4041 South Africa
- Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment; University College; London WC1E 6BT UK
| | - Henrikki Tenkanen
- Department of Geosciences and Geography; University of Helsinki; FI-00014 Helsinki Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Research, Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; 00014 Helsinki Finland
| | - Vuokko Heikinheimo
- Department of Geosciences and Geography; University of Helsinki; FI-00014 Helsinki Finland
| | - Enrico Di Minin
- Amarula Elephant Research Programme, School of Life Sciences; University of KwaZulu-Natal; Durban 4041 South Africa
- Department of Geosciences and Geography; University of Helsinki; FI-00014 Helsinki Finland
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Reside AE, VanDerWal J, Moilanen A, Graham EM. Examining current or future trade-offs for biodiversity conservation in north-eastern Australia. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0172230. [PMID: 28222199 PMCID: PMC5319782 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172230] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2016] [Accepted: 02/01/2017] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
With the high rate of ecosystem change already occurring and predicted to occur in the coming decades, long-term conservation has to account not only for current biodiversity but also for the biodiversity patterns anticipated for the future. The trade-offs between prioritising future biodiversity at the expense of current priorities must be understood to guide current conservation planning, but have been largely unexplored. To fill this gap, we compared the performance of four conservation planning solutions involving 662 vertebrate species in the Wet Tropics Natural Resource Management Cluster Region in north-eastern Australia. Input species data for the four planning solutions were: 1) current distributions; 2) projected distributions for 2055; 3) projected distributions for 2085; and 4) current, 2055 and 2085 projected distributions, and the connectivity between each of the three time periods for each species. The four planning solutions were remarkably similar (up to 85% overlap), suggesting that modelling for either current or future scenarios is sufficient for conversation planning for this region, with little obvious trade-off. Our analyses also revealed that overall, species with small ranges occurring across steep elevation gradients and at higher elevations were more likely to be better represented in all solutions. Given that species with these characteristics are of high conservation significance, our results provide confidence that conservation planning focused on either current, near- or distant-future biodiversity will account for these species.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- April E. Reside
- Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Sciences, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
- Centre for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
- * E-mail:
| | - Jeremy VanDerWal
- Centre for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
- eResearch Centre, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, (Viikinkaari 1), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Erin M. Graham
- eResearch Centre, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Kukkala AS, Moilanen A. Ecosystem services and connectivity in spatial conservation prioritization. Landsc Ecol 2016; 32:5-14. [PMID: 32336879 PMCID: PMC7154789 DOI: 10.1007/s10980-016-0446-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2016] [Accepted: 09/21/2016] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Spatial conservation prioritization (SCP) concerns, for example, identification of spatial priorities for biodiversity conservation or for impact avoidance in economic development. Software useable for SCP include Marxan, C-Plan and Zonation. SCP is often based on data about the distributions of biodiversity features (e.g., species, habitats), costs, threats, and/or ecosystem services (ES). OBJECTIVES AND METHODS At simplest ES can be entered into a SCP analysis as independent supply maps, but this is not very satisfactory because connectivity requirements and consequent ideal spatial priority patterns may vary between ES. Therefore, we examine different ES and their connectivity requirements at the conceptual level. RESULTS We find that the ideal spatial priority pattern for ES may differ in terms of: local supply area size and regional network requirements for the maintenance of ES provision, for flow between provision and demand, and with respect to the degree of dispersion that is needed for ES provision and access across different administrative regions. We then identify existing technical options in the Zonation software for dealing with such connectivity requirements of ES in SCP. CONCLUSIONS This work helps users of SCP to improve how ES are accounted for in analysis together with biodiversity and other considerations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aija S. Kukkala
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, PO Box 65, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, PO Box 68, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, PO Box 65, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Mazziotta A, Pouzols FM, Mönkkönen M, Kotiaho JS, Strandman H, Moilanen A. Optimal conservation resource allocation under variable economic and ecological time discounting rates in boreal forest. J Environ Manage 2016; 180:366-374. [PMID: 27262031 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2015] [Revised: 02/11/2016] [Accepted: 05/24/2016] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
Resource allocation to multiple alternative conservation actions is a complex task. A common trade-off occurs between protection of smaller, expensive, high-quality areas versus larger, cheaper, partially degraded areas. We investigate optimal allocation into three actions in boreal forest: current standard forest management rules, setting aside of mature stands, or setting aside of clear-cuts. We first estimated how habitat availability for focal indicator species and economic returns from timber harvesting develop through time as a function of forest type and action chosen. We then developed an optimal resource allocation by accounting for budget size and habitat availability of indicator species in different forest types. We also accounted for the perspective adopted towards sustainability, modeled via temporal preference and economic and ecological time discounting. Controversially, we found that in boreal forest set-aside followed by protection of clear-cuts can become a winning cost-effective strategy when accounting for habitat requirements of multiple species, long planning horizon, and limited budget. It is particularly effective when adopting a long-term sustainability perspective, and accounting for present revenues from timber harvesting. The present analysis assesses the cost-effective conditions to allocate resources into an inexpensive conservation strategy that nevertheless has potential to produce high ecological values in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adriano Mazziotta
- Center for Macroecology Evolution and Climate, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyväskylä, Finland.
| | - Federico Montesino Pouzols
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Science & Technology Facilities Council, Harwell Oxford Campus, UK
| | - Mikko Mönkkönen
- Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyväskylä, Finland
| | - Janne S Kotiaho
- Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyväskylä, Finland
| | - Harri Strandman
- School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Di Minin E, Slotow R, Hunter LTB, Montesino Pouzols F, Toivonen T, Verburg PH, Leader-Williams N, Petracca L, Moilanen A. Global priorities for national carnivore conservation under land use change. Sci Rep 2016; 6:23814. [PMID: 27034197 PMCID: PMC4817124 DOI: 10.1038/srep23814] [Citation(s) in RCA: 107] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2015] [Accepted: 03/15/2016] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Mammalian carnivores have suffered the biggest range contraction among all biodiversity and are particularly vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation. Therefore, we identified priority areas for the conservation of mammalian carnivores, while accounting for species-specific requirements for connectivity and expected agricultural and urban expansion. While prioritizing for carnivores only, we were also able to test their effectiveness as surrogates for 23,110 species of amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles and 867 terrestrial ecoregions. We then assessed the risks to carnivore conservation within each country that makes a contribution to global carnivore conservation. We found that land use change will potentially lead to important range losses, particularly amongst already threatened carnivore species. In addition, the 17% of land targeted for protection under the Aichi Target 11 was found to be inadequate to conserve carnivores under expected land use change. Our results also highlight that land use change will decrease the effectiveness of carnivores to protect other threatened species, especially threatened amphibians. In addition, the risk of human-carnivore conflict is potentially high in countries where we identified spatial priorities for their conservation. As meeting the global biodiversity target will be inadequate for carnivore protection, innovative interventions are needed to conserve carnivores outside protected areas to compliment any proposed expansion of the protected area network.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enrico Di Minin
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.,School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa
| | - Rob Slotow
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa.,Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Luke T B Hunter
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa.,Panthera, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Federico Montesino Pouzols
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.,Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Science &Technology Facilities Council, Harwell Oxford Campus, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK
| | - Tuuli Toivonen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.,Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Peter H Verburg
- Faculty Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| | - Nigel Leader-Williams
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge, CB2 3EN, UK
| | | | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Snäll T, Lehtomäki J, Arponen A, Elith J, Moilanen A. Green Infrastructure Design Based on Spatial Conservation Prioritization and Modeling of Biodiversity Features and Ecosystem Services. Environ Manage 2016; 57:251-6. [PMID: 26395184 PMCID: PMC4712240 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-015-0613-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2015] [Accepted: 09/12/2015] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
There is high-level political support for the use of green infrastructure (GI) across Europe, to maintain viable populations and to provide ecosystem services (ES). Even though GI is inherently a spatial concept, the modern tools for spatial planning have not been recognized, such as in the recent European Environment Agency (EEA) report. We outline a toolbox of methods useful for GI design that explicitly accounts for biodiversity and ES. Data on species occurrence, habitats, and environmental variables are increasingly available via open-access internet platforms. Such data can be synthesized by statistical species distribution modeling, producing maps of biodiversity features. These, together with maps of ES, can form the basis for GI design. We argue that spatial conservation prioritization (SCP) methods are effective tools for GI design, as the overall SCP goal is cost-effective allocation of conservation efforts. Corridors are currently promoted by the EEA as the means for implementing GI design, but they typically target the needs of only a subset of the regional species pool. SCP methods would help to ensure that GI provides a balanced solution for the requirements of many biodiversity features (e.g., species, habitat types) and ES simultaneously in a cost-effective manner. Such tools are necessary to make GI into an operational concept for combating biodiversity loss and promoting ES.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tord Snäll
- Swedish Species Information Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), PO 7007, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
| | - Joona Lehtomäki
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Viikinkaari 1, P.O. Box 65, 00014, Helsinki, Finland.
| | - Anni Arponen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Viikinkaari 1, P.O. Box 65, 00014, Helsinki, Finland.
| | - Jane Elith
- School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Viikinkaari 1, P.O. Box 65, 00014, Helsinki, Finland.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [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
|
24
|
Abstract
Biodiversity offsetting has quickly gained political support all around the world. Avoided loss (averted risk) offsetting means compensation for ecological damage via averted loss of anticipated impacts through the removal of threatening processes in compensation areas. Leakage means the phenomenon of environmentally damaging activity relocating elsewhere after being stopped locally by avoided loss offsetting. Indirect leakage means that locally avoided losses displace to other administrative areas or spread around diffusely via market effects. Synthesis and applications. Indirect leakage can lead to high net biodiversity loss. It is difficult to measure or prevent, raising doubts about the value of avoided loss offsetting. Market demand for commodities is on the rise, following increasing human population size and per capita consumption, implying that indirect leakage will be a rule rather than an exception. Leakage should be accounted for when determining offset multipliers (ratios) even if multipliers become extremely high.
Indirect leakage can lead to high net biodiversity loss. It is difficult to measure or prevent, raising doubts about the value of avoided loss offsetting. Market demand for commodities is on the rise, following increasing human population size and per capita consumption, implying that indirect leakage will be a rule rather than an exception. Leakage should be accounted for when determining offset multipliers (ratios) even if multipliers become extremely high.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences University of Helsinki P.O. Box 65 FIN-00014 Helsinki Finland
| | - Jussi Laitila
- Department of Biosciences University of Helsinki P.O. Box 65 FIN-00014 Helsinki Finland
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Korkalainen M, Moilanen A, Täubel M, Kirjavainen P, Hyvärinen A, Komulainen H, Viluksela M. Interactions between microbial toxins and structural components from moisture-damaged buildings modify inflammatory responses of macrophages. Toxicol Lett 2015. [DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2015.08.666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
26
|
Tervonen TA, Belitškin D, Pant SM, Englund JI, Marques E, Ala-Hongisto H, Nevalaita L, Sihto H, Heikkilä P, Leidenius M, Hewitson K, Ramachandra M, Moilanen A, Joensuu H, Kovanen PE, Poso A, Klefström J. Deregulated hepsin protease activity confers oncogenicity by concomitantly augmenting HGF/MET signalling and disrupting epithelial cohesion. Oncogene 2015; 35:1832-46. [DOI: 10.1038/onc.2015.248] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2015] [Revised: 04/14/2015] [Accepted: 05/10/2015] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
|
27
|
Affiliation(s)
- Janne S. Kotiaho
- Department of Biological and Environmental Science; University of Jyväskylä; P.O. Box 35 FIN-40014 Jyväskylä Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; P.O. Box 65 FIN-00014 Helsinki Finland
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Di Minin E, Laitila J, Montesino-Pouzols F, Leader-Williams N, Slotow R, Goodman PS, Conway AJ, Moilanen A. Identification of policies for a sustainable legal trade in rhinoceros horn based on population projection and socioeconomic models. Conserv Biol 2015; 29:545-55. [PMID: 25331485 PMCID: PMC4405060 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2014] [Revised: 07/10/2014] [Accepted: 08/08/2014] [Indexed: 05/12/2023]
Abstract
Between 1990 and 2007, 15 southern white (Ceratotherium simum simum) and black (Diceros bicornis) rhinoceroses on average were killed illegally every year in South Africa. Since 2007 illegal killing of southern white rhinoceros for their horn has escalated to >950 individuals/year in 2013. We conducted an ecological-economic analysis to determine whether a legal trade in southern white rhinoceros horn could facilitate rhinoceros protection. Generalized linear models were used to examine the socioeconomic drivers of poaching, based on data collected from 1990 to 2013, and to project the total number of rhinoceroses likely to be illegally killed from 2014 to 2023. Rhinoceros population dynamics were then modeled under 8 different policy scenarios that could be implemented to control poaching. We also estimated the economic costs and benefits of each scenario under enhanced enforcement only and a legal trade in rhinoceros horn and used a decision support framework to rank the scenarios with the objective of maintaining the rhinoceros population above its current size while generating profit for local stakeholders. The southern white rhinoceros population was predicted to go extinct in the wild <20 years under present management. The optimal scenario to maintain the rhinoceros population above its current size was to provide a medium increase in antipoaching effort and to increase the monetary fine on conviction. Without legalizing the trade, implementing such a scenario would require covering costs equal to approximately $147,000,000/year. With a legal trade in rhinoceros horn, the conservation enterprise could potentially make a profit of $717,000,000/year. We believe the 35-year-old ban on rhinoceros horn products should not be lifted unless the money generated from trade is reinvested in improved protection of the rhinoceros population. Because current protection efforts seem to be failing, it is time to evaluate, discuss, and test alternatives to the present policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enrico Di Minin
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology, Department of Biosciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014, University of HelsinkiFinland
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-NatalDurban, 4041, South Africa
- **email
| | - Jussi Laitila
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology, Department of Biosciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014, University of HelsinkiFinland
| | - Federico Montesino-Pouzols
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology, Department of Biosciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014, University of HelsinkiFinland
| | - Nigel Leader-Williams
- Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing PlaceCambridge, CB2 3EN, United Kingdom
| | - Rob Slotow
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-NatalDurban, 4041, South Africa
| | - Peter S Goodman
- Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal WildlifeP.O. Box 13053, Cascades 3202, South Africa
| | - Anthony J Conway
- Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal WildlifeP.O. Box 13053, Cascades 3202, South Africa
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology, Department of Biosciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014, University of HelsinkiFinland
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Laitila J, Moilanen A, Pouzols FM. A method for calculating minimum biodiversity offset multipliers accounting for time discounting, additionality and permanence. Methods Ecol Evol 2014; 5:1247-1254. [PMID: 25821578 PMCID: PMC4374704 DOI: 10.1111/2041-210x.12287] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2014] [Accepted: 10/01/2014] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Biodiversity offsetting, which means compensation for ecological and environmental damage caused by development activity, has recently been gaining strong political support around the world. One common criticism levelled at offsets is that they exchange certain and almost immediate losses for uncertain future gains. In the case of restoration offsets, gains may be realized after a time delay of decades, and with considerable uncertainty. Here we focus on offset multipliers, which are ratios between damaged and compensated amounts (areas) of biodiversity. Multipliers have the attraction of being an easily understandable way of deciding the amount of offsetting needed. On the other hand, exact values of multipliers are very difficult to compute in practice if at all possible. We introduce a mathematical method for deriving minimum levels for offset multipliers under the assumption that offsetting gains must compensate for the losses (no net loss offsetting). We calculate absolute minimum multipliers that arise from time discounting and delayed emergence of offsetting gains for a one-dimensional measure of biodiversity. Despite the highly simplified model, we show that even the absolute minimum multipliers may easily be quite large, in the order of dozens, and theoretically arbitrarily large, contradicting the relatively low multipliers found in literature and in practice. While our results inform policy makers about realistic minimal offsetting requirements, they also challenge many current policies and show the importance of rigorous models for computing (minimum) offset multipliers. The strength of the presented method is that it requires minimal underlying information. We include a supplementary spreadsheet tool for calculating multipliers to facilitate application.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jussi Laitila
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
| | - Federico M Pouzols
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Kullberg P, Moilanen A. How do recent spatial biodiversity analyses support the convention on biological diversity in the expansion of the global conservation area network? ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2014. [DOI: 10.4322/natcon.2014.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
31
|
Affiliation(s)
- Enrico Di Minin
- Department of Biosciences; Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology; University of Helsinki; PO Box 65 Helsinki FI-00014 Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences; Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology; University of Helsinki; PO Box 65 Helsinki FI-00014 Finland
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Kareksela S, Moilanen A, Tuominen S, Kotiaho JS. Use of inverse spatial conservation prioritization to avoid biological diversity loss outside protected areas. Conserv Biol 2013; 27:1294-1303. [PMID: 24033397 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12146] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2012] [Accepted: 04/11/2013] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Abstract
Globally expanding human land use sets constantly increasing pressure for maintenance of biological diversity and functioning ecosystems. To fight the decline of biological diversity, conservation science has broken ground with methods such as the operational model of systematic conservation planning (SCP), which focuses on design and on-the-ground implementation of conservation areas. The most commonly used method in SCP is reserve selection that focuses on the spatial design of reserve networks and their expansion. We expanded these methods by introducing another form of spatial allocation of conservation effort relevant for land-use zoning at the landscape scale that avoids negative ecological effects of human land use outside protected areas. We call our method inverse spatial conservation prioritization. It can be used to identify areas suitable for economic development while simultaneously limiting total ecological and environmental effects of that development at the landscape level by identifying areas with highest economic but lowest ecological value. Our method is not based on a priori targets, and as such it is applicable to cases where the effects of land use on, for example, individual species or ecosystem types are relatively small and would not lead to violation of regional or national conservation targets. We applied our method to land-use allocation to peat mining. Our method identified a combination of profitable production areas that provides the needed area for peat production while retaining most of the landscape-level ecological value of the ecosystem. The results of this inverse spatial conservation prioritization are being used in land-use zoning in the province of Central Finland.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Santtu Kareksela
- Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, Jyväskylä, Finland.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Di Minin E, Macmillan DC, Goodman PS, Escott B, Slotow R, Moilanen A. Conservation businesses and conservation planning in a biological diversity hotspot. Conserv Biol 2013; 27:808-820. [PMID: 23565917 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2012] [Accepted: 11/05/2012] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Abstract
The allocation of land to biological diversity conservation competes with other land uses and the needs of society for development, food, and extraction of natural resources. Trade-offs between biological diversity conservation and alternative land uses are unavoidable, given the realities of limited conservation resources and the competing demands of society. We developed a conservation-planning assessment for the South African province of KwaZulu-Natal, which forms the central component of the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany biological diversity hotspot. Our objective was to enhance biological diversity protection while promoting sustainable development and providing spatial guidance in the resolution of potential policy conflicts over priority areas for conservation at risk of transformation. The conservation-planning assessment combined spatial-distribution models for 646 conservation features, spatial economic-return models for 28 alternative land uses, and spatial maps for 4 threats. Nature-based tourism businesses were competitive with other land uses and could provide revenues of >US$60 million/year to local stakeholders and simultaneously help meeting conservation goals for almost half the conservation features in the planning region. Accounting for opportunity costs substantially decreased conflicts between biological diversity, agricultural use, commercial forestry, and mining. Accounting for economic benefits arising from conservation and reducing potential policy conflicts with alternative plans for development can provide opportunities for successful strategies that combine conservation and sustainable development and facilitate conservation action.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enrico Di Minin
- School of Anthropology and Conservation, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, CT2 7NR Canterbury, United Kingdom.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Affiliation(s)
- Federico Montesino Pouzols
- Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; PO Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1); FI-00014; Helsinki; Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; PO Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1); FI-00014; Helsinki; Finland
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Abstract
Climate change is affecting biodiversity worldwide, but conservation responses are constrained by considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude, rate and ecological consequences of expected climate change. Here we propose a framework to account for several sources of uncertainty in conservation prioritization. Within this framework we account for uncertainties arising from (i) species distributions that shift following climate change, (ii) basic connectivity requirements of species, (iii) alternative climate change scenarios and their impacts, (iv) in the modelling of species distributions, and (v) different levels of confidence about present and future. When future impacts of climate change are uncertain, robustness of decision-making can be improved by quantifying the risks and trade-offs associated with climate scenarios. Sensible prioritization that accounts simultaneously for the present and potential future distributions of species is achievable without overly jeopardising present-day conservation values. Doing so requires systematic treatment of uncertainties and testing of the sensitivity of results to assumptions about climate. We illustrate the proposed framework by identifying priority areas for amphibians and reptiles in Europe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heini Kujala
- Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Miguel B. Araújo
- Department of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid, Spain
- ‘Rui Nabeiro’ Biodiversity Chair, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, University of Évora, Évora, Portugal
- Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Mar Cabeza
- Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Moilanen A. Planning impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting using software for spatial conservation prioritisation. Wildl Res 2013. [DOI: 10.1071/wr12083] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Context
Impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting are measures that can be used for alleviating environmental impacts of economic development projects. Offsetting is frequently implemented via habitat restoration. Biodiversity offsets should be designed in a cost-effective manner.
Aims
To investigate how spatial conservation prioritisation methods, most commonly used for reserve network design, could be used for informing impact avoidance and biodiversity offsetting.
Methods
Zonation is a publicly available framework and software for grid-based, large-scale, high-resolution spatial conservation prioritisation. Zonation produces a hierarchical, balanced, and complementarity-based priority ranking through the landscape, identifying areas of both highest and lowest conservation value in one analysis. It is shown how these capabilities can be utilised in the context of impact avoidance and offsetting.
Key results
Impact avoidance can be implemented by focusing environmentally harmful activity into low-priority areas of the spatial priority ranking. Offsets can be implemented via a more complicated analysis setup. First, identify development areas unavailable for conservation, which leads to a decrease in the quality of conservation value achievable in the landscape. Second, develop compensation layers that describe the difference made by allocation of extra conservation action. Running a spatial prioritisation, integrating information about where species are (representation), what areas and features are damaged (reduced condition and negative connectivity effects), and the difference made by remedial action, allows identification of areas where extra conservation effort maximally compensates for damage. Factors such as connectivity and costs can be included in this analysis. Impact avoidance and offsetting can also be combined in the procedure.
Conclusions
Spatial conservation-prioritisation methods can inform both impact avoidance and offsetting design.
Implications
Decision support tools that are commonly associated with reserve selection can be used for planning of impact avoidance and offsetting, conditional on the availability of high-quality data about the distributions of biodiversity features (e.g. species, habitat type, ecosystem services).
Collapse
|
37
|
Kukkala AS, Moilanen A. Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2012; 88:443-64. [PMID: 23279291 PMCID: PMC3654170 DOI: 10.1111/brv.12008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 140] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2012] [Revised: 11/09/2012] [Accepted: 11/20/2012] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Systematic conservation planning (SCP) is a field of conservation biology concerned with delivering on-the-ground actions that achieve conservation goals. It describes a set of operational models that cover both design and implementation of conservation, with a strong focus on mobilising the collective action typically required to implement conservation. SCP, as it was originally described, was composed of six different stages: collection of data, identification of conservation goals, evaluation of the existing protected area network, design of expansions, implementation of conservation action, and long-term maintenance of biodiversity in the network. Since then, the operational model has been expanded into several different variants. Conservation actions applied inside SCP include establishment and expansion of reserve networks and allocation of habitat restoration and management. Within the broader context of SCP, there is a fundamental biogeographic-economic analysis frequently called spatial conservation prioritisation or conservation assessment, which is used for identifying where important areas for biodiversity are and how conservation goals might be achieved efficiently. Here, we review the usage and meaning of the 12 biogeographic-economic core concepts of SCP: adequacy, complementarity, comprehensiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, flexibility, irreplaceability, replacement cost, representation, representativeness, threat, and vulnerability. Some of the concepts have clear definitions whereas others may have alternative and possibly conflicting definitions. With a comprehensive literature review literature, we elucidate the historical backgrounds of these concepts, the first definitions and usages, alternative later definitions, key applications, and prior reviews. This review reduces linguistic uncertainty in the application of SCP. Since SCP is a global activity with a multitude of different stakeholders involved, it is vital that those involved can speak the same language. Through these concepts, this review serves as a source of information about the historical development of SCP. It provides a comprehensive review for anyone wishing to understand the key concepts of spatial prioritisation within SCP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aija S Kukkala
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, PO Box 65, FIN-00014, Helsinki, Finland
| | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Thomas CD, Anderson BJ, Moilanen A, Eigenbrod F, Heinemeyer A, Quaife T, Roy DB, Gillings S, Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ. Reconciling biodiversity and carbon conservation. Ecol Lett 2012; 16 Suppl 1:39-47. [PMID: 23279784 DOI: 10.1111/ele.12054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2012] [Revised: 10/05/2012] [Accepted: 11/20/2012] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Climate change is leading to the development of land-based mitigation and adaptation strategies that are likely to have substantial impacts on global biodiversity. Of these, approaches to maintain carbon within existing natural ecosystems could have particularly large benefits for biodiversity. However, the geographical distributions of terrestrial carbon stocks and biodiversity differ. Using conservation planning analyses for the New World and Britain, we conclude that a carbon-only strategy would not be effective at conserving biodiversity, as have previous studies. Nonetheless, we find that a combined carbon-biodiversity strategy could simultaneously protect 90% of carbon stocks (relative to a carbon-only conservation strategy) and > 90% of the biodiversity (relative to a biodiversity-only strategy) in both regions. This combined approach encapsulates the principle of complementarity, whereby locations that contain different sets of species are prioritised, and hence disproportionately safeguard localised species that are not protected effectively by carbon-only strategies. It is efficient because localised species are concentrated into small parts of the terrestrial land surface, whereas carbon is somewhat more evenly distributed; and carbon stocks protected in one location are equivalent to those protected elsewhere. Efficient compromises can only be achieved when biodiversity and carbon are incorporated together within a spatial planning process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris D Thomas
- Department of Biology; University of York; Wentworth Way; York; YO10 5DD; UK
| | - Barbara J Anderson
- Department of Biology; University of York; Wentworth Way; York; YO10 5DD; UK
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1); FI-00014; Finland
| | - Felix Eigenbrod
- Centre for Biological Sciences, Faculty of Natural & Environmental Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus; Building 85; Southampton; SO17 1BJ; UK
| | - Andreas Heinemeyer
- Centre of Terrestrial Carbon Dynamics (York Centre), Stockholm Environment Institute at York & Environment Department, University of York; York; YO10 5DD; UK
| | - Tristan Quaife
- Department of Meteorology; University of Reading; Reading; RG6 6BB; UK
| | - David B Roy
- NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Wallingford; Oxfordshire; OX10 8BB; UK
| | - Simon Gillings
- British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery; Thetford; Norfolk; IP24 2PU; UK
| | - Paul R Armsworth
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; University of Tennessee; 569 Dabney Hall; Knoxville; TN 37996-1610; USA
| | - Kevin J Gaston
- Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter; Penryn; Cornwall; TR10 9EZ; UK
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Sharafi SM, Moilanen A, White M, Burgman M. Integrating environmental gap analysis with spatial conservation prioritization: a case study from Victoria, Australia. J Environ Manage 2012; 112:240-251. [PMID: 22935646 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2011] [Revised: 06/24/2012] [Accepted: 07/05/2012] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
Gap analysis is used to analyse reserve networks and their coverage of biodiversity, thus identifying gaps in biodiversity representation that may be filled by additional conservation measures. Gap analysis has been used to identify priorities for species and habitat types. When it is applied to identify gaps in the coverage of environmental variables, it embodies the assumption that combinations of environmental variables are effective surrogates for biodiversity attributes. The question remains of how to fill gaps in conservation systems efficiently. Conservation prioritization software can identify those areas outside existing conservation areas that contribute to the efficient covering of gaps in biodiversity features. We show how environmental gap analysis can be implemented using high-resolution information about environmental variables and ecosystem condition with the publicly available conservation prioritization software, Zonation. Our method is based on the conversion of combinations of environmental variables into biodiversity features. We also replicated the analysis by using Species Distribution Models (SDMs) as biodiversity features to evaluate the robustness and utility of our environment-based analysis. We apply the technique to a planning case study of the state of Victoria, Australia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seyedeh Mahdieh Sharafi
- Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
|
41
|
Sirkiä S, Lehtomäki J, Lindén H, Tomppo E, Moilanen A. Defining spatial priorities for capercaillieTetrao urogalluslekking landscape conservation in south-central Finland. Wildlife Biology 2012. [DOI: 10.2981/11-073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/01/2022]
|
42
|
Affiliation(s)
- Heini Kujala
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), FI‐00014, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Mark A. Burgman
- School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), FI‐00014, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Taberlet P, Zimmermann NE, Englisch T, Tribsch A, Holderegger R, Alvarez N, Niklfeld H, Coldea G, Mirek Z, Moilanen A, Ahlmer W, Marsan PA, Bona E, Bovio M, Choler P, Cieślak E, Colli L, Cristea V, Dalmas J, Frajman B, Garraud L, Gaudeul M, Gielly L, Gutermann W, Jogan N, Kagalo AA, Korbecka G, Küpfer P, Lequette B, Letz DR, Manel S, Mansion G, Marhold K, Martini F, Negrini R, Niño F, Paun O, Pellecchia M, Perico G, Piękoś‐Mirkowa H, Prosser F, Puşcaş M, Ronikier M, Scheuerer M, Schneeweiss GM, Schönswetter P, Schratt‐Ehrendorfer L, Schüpfer F, Selvaggi A, Steinmann K, Thiel‐Egenter C, Loo M, Winkler M, Wohlgemuth T, Wraber T, Gugerli F. Genetic diversity in widespread species is not congruent with species richness in alpine plant communities. Ecol Lett 2012; 15:1439-48. [DOI: 10.1111/ele.12004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 114] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2012] [Revised: 08/15/2012] [Accepted: 08/20/2012] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Pierre Taberlet
- Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine CNRS UMR 5553 Université Joseph Fourier BP 43 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9 France
| | - Niklaus E. Zimmermann
- WSL Swiss Federal Research Institute Zürcherstrasse 111 8903 Birmensdorf Switzerland
| | - Thorsten Englisch
- Faculty Centre of Biodiversity University of Vienna Rennweg 14 1030 Vienna Austria
| | - Andreas Tribsch
- Faculty Centre of Biodiversity University of Vienna Rennweg 14 1030 Vienna Austria
| | - Rolf Holderegger
- WSL Swiss Federal Research Institute Zürcherstrasse 111 8903 Birmensdorf Switzerland
| | - Nadir Alvarez
- Laboratoire de Botanique Evolutive Université de Neuchâtel 11, rue Emile‐Argand 2007 Neuchâtel Switzerland
| | - Harald Niklfeld
- Faculty Centre of Biodiversity University of Vienna Rennweg 14 1030 Vienna Austria
| | - Gheorghe Coldea
- Institute of Biological Research Str. Republicii nr. 48 400015 Cluj‐Napoca Romania
| | - Zbigniew Mirek
- Institute of Botany Polish Academy of Sciences Lubicz 46 31‐512 Kraków Poland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences P.O. Box 65 (Biocenter III) FI‐00014 University of Helsinki Finland
| | - Wolfgang Ahlmer
- University of Regensburg Institute of Botany 93040 Regensburg Germany
| | - Paolo Ajmone Marsan
- Biodiversity and ancient DNA Research Center – BioDNA – and Institute of Zootechnics Università Cattolica del S. Cuore via E. Parmense, 84 29122 Piacenza Italy
| | - Enzo Bona
- Dipartimento di Biologia Università di Trieste Via L. Giorgieri 10 34127 Trieste Italy
| | - Maurizio Bovio
- Dipartimento di Biologia Università di Trieste Via L. Giorgieri 10 34127 Trieste Italy
| | - Philippe Choler
- Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine CNRS UMR 5553 Université Joseph Fourier BP 43 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9 France
| | - Elżbieta Cieślak
- Institute of Botany Polish Academy of Sciences Lubicz 46 31‐512 Kraków Poland
| | - Licia Colli
- Biodiversity and ancient DNA Research Center – BioDNA – and Institute of Zootechnics Università Cattolica del S. Cuore via E. Parmense, 84 29122 Piacenza Italy
| | | | - Jean‐Pierre Dalmas
- Conservatoire Botanique National Alpin ‐ CBNA Domaine de Charance 05000 Gap France
| | - Božo Frajman
- Univerza v Ljubljani Oddelek za biologijo BF Večna pot 111 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia
| | - Luc Garraud
- Conservatoire Botanique National Alpin ‐ CBNA Domaine de Charance 05000 Gap France
| | - Myriam Gaudeul
- Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine CNRS UMR 5553 Université Joseph Fourier BP 43 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9 France
| | - Ludovic Gielly
- Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine CNRS UMR 5553 Université Joseph Fourier BP 43 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9 France
| | - Walter Gutermann
- Faculty Centre of Biodiversity University of Vienna Rennweg 14 1030 Vienna Austria
| | - Nejc Jogan
- Univerza v Ljubljani Oddelek za biologijo BF Večna pot 111 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia
| | - Alexander A. Kagalo
- Institute of Ecology of the Carpathians N.A.S. of Ukraine 4 Kozelnitska str. 79026 Lviv Ukraine
| | - Grażyna Korbecka
- Institute of Botany Polish Academy of Sciences Lubicz 46 31‐512 Kraków Poland
| | - Philippe Küpfer
- Laboratoire de Botanique Evolutive Université de Neuchâtel 11, rue Emile‐Argand 2007 Neuchâtel Switzerland
| | - Benoît Lequette
- Parc national du Mercantour 23 rue d'Italie, BP 1316 06006 Nice Cedex 1 France
| | - Dominik Roman Letz
- Institute of Botany of Slovak Academy of Sciences Department of Vascular Plant Taxonomy Dúbravská cesta 9 845 23 Bratislava Slovakia
| | - Stéphanie Manel
- Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine CNRS UMR 5553 Université Joseph Fourier BP 43 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9 France
| | - Guilhem Mansion
- Laboratoire de Botanique Evolutive Université de Neuchâtel 11, rue Emile‐Argand 2007 Neuchâtel Switzerland
| | - Karol Marhold
- Institute of Botany of Slovak Academy of Sciences Department of Vascular Plant Taxonomy Dúbravská cesta 9 845 23 Bratislava Slovakia
| | - Fabrizio Martini
- Dipartimento di Biologia Università di Trieste Via L. Giorgieri 10 34127 Trieste Italy
| | - Riccardo Negrini
- Biodiversity and ancient DNA Research Center – BioDNA – and Institute of Zootechnics Università Cattolica del S. Cuore via E. Parmense, 84 29122 Piacenza Italy
| | - Fernando Niño
- Medias‐France/IRD CNES ‐ BPi 2102, 18, Av. Edouard Belin F‐31401 Toulouse Cedex 9 France
| | - Ovidiu Paun
- Faculty Centre of Biodiversity University of Vienna Rennweg 14 1030 Vienna Austria
| | - Marco Pellecchia
- Biodiversity and ancient DNA Research Center – BioDNA – and Institute of Zootechnics Università Cattolica del S. Cuore via E. Parmense, 84 29122 Piacenza Italy
| | - Giovanni Perico
- Dipartimento di Biologia Università di Trieste Via L. Giorgieri 10 34127 Trieste Italy
| | | | | | - Mihai Puşcaş
- Babes‐Bolyai University 400015 Cluj‐Napoca Romania
| | - Michał Ronikier
- Institute of Botany Polish Academy of Sciences Lubicz 46 31‐512 Kraków Poland
| | - Martin Scheuerer
- University of Regensburg Institute of Botany 93040 Regensburg Germany
| | | | - Peter Schönswetter
- Faculty Centre of Biodiversity University of Vienna Rennweg 14 1030 Vienna Austria
| | | | - Fanny Schüpfer
- Laboratoire de Botanique Evolutive Université de Neuchâtel 11, rue Emile‐Argand 2007 Neuchâtel Switzerland
| | - Alberto Selvaggi
- Istituto per le Piante da Legno e l'Ambiente c.so Casale, 476 10132 Torino Italy
| | - Katharina Steinmann
- WSL Swiss Federal Research Institute Zürcherstrasse 111 8903 Birmensdorf Switzerland
| | - Conny Thiel‐Egenter
- WSL Swiss Federal Research Institute Zürcherstrasse 111 8903 Birmensdorf Switzerland
| | - Marcela Loo
- Faculty Centre of Biodiversity University of Vienna Rennweg 14 1030 Vienna Austria
| | - Manuela Winkler
- Faculty Centre of Biodiversity University of Vienna Rennweg 14 1030 Vienna Austria
| | - Thomas Wohlgemuth
- WSL Swiss Federal Research Institute Zürcherstrasse 111 8903 Birmensdorf Switzerland
| | - Tone Wraber
- Univerza v Ljubljani Oddelek za biologijo BF Večna pot 111 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia
| | - Felix Gugerli
- WSL Swiss Federal Research Institute Zürcherstrasse 111 8903 Birmensdorf Switzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Moilanen A, Anderson BJ, Arponen A, Pouzols FM, Thomas CD. Edge artefacts and lost performance in national versus continental conservation priority areas. DIVERS DISTRIB 2012. [DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1) University of Helsinki FI‐00014 Helsinki Finland
| | | | - Anni Arponen
- Department of Biosciences P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1) University of Helsinki FI‐00014 Helsinki Finland
| | - Federico M. Pouzols
- Department of Biosciences P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1) University of Helsinki FI‐00014 Helsinki Finland
| | - Chris D. Thomas
- Department of Biology Wentworth Way University of York York YO10 5DD UK
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Arponen A, Lehtomäki J, Leppänen J, Tomppo E, Moilanen A. Effects of connectivity and spatial resolution of analyses on conservation prioritization across large extents. Conserv Biol 2012; 26:294-304. [PMID: 22268786 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01814.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/31/2023]
Abstract
The outcome of analyses that prioritize locations for conservation on the basis of distributions of species, land cover, or other elements is influenced by the spatial resolution of data used in the analyses. We explored the influence of data resolution on prioritization of Finnish forests with Zonation, a software program that ranks the priority of cells in a landscape for conservation. We used data on the distribution of different forest types that were aggregated to nine different resolutions ranging from 0.1 × 0.1 km to 25.6 × 25.6 km. We analyzed data at each resolution with two variants of Zonation that had different criteria for prioritization, with and without accounting for connectivity and with and without adjustment for the effect on the analysis of edges between areas at the project boundary and adjacent areas for which data do not exist. Spatial overlap of the 10% of cells ranked most highly when data were analyzed at different resolutions varied approximately from 15% to 60% and was greatest among analyses with similar resolutions. Inclusion of connectivity or edge adjustment changed the location of areas that were prioritized for conservation. Even though different locations received high priority for conservation in analyses with and without accounting for connectivity, accounting for connectivity did not reduce the representation of different forest types. Inclusion of connectivity influenced most the outcome of fine-resolution analyses because the connectivity extents that we based on dispersal distances of typical forest species were small. When we kept the area set aside for conservation constant, representation of the forest types increased as resolution increased. We do not think it is necessary to avoid use of high-resolution data in spatial conservation prioritization. Our results show that large extent, fine-resolution analyses are computationally feasible, and we suggest they can give more flexibility to implementation of well-connected reserve networks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anni Arponen
- Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Biosciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014, University of Helsinki, Finland.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
|
47
|
|
48
|
|
49
|
Moilanen A, Anderson BJ, Eigenbrod F, Heinemeyer A, Roy DB, Gillings S, Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ, Thomas CD. Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. Ecol Appl 2011; 21:1419-1426. [PMID: 21830691 DOI: 10.1890/10-1865.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/31/2023]
Abstract
Pressure on ecosystems to provide various different and often conflicting services is immense and likely to increase. The impacts and success of conservation prioritization will be enhanced if the needs of competing land uses are recognized at the planning stage. We develop such methods and illustrate them with data about competing land uses in Great Britain, with the aim of developing a conservation priority ranking that balances between needs of biodiversity conservation, carbon storage, agricultural value, and urban development potential. While both carbon stocks and biodiversity are desirable features from the point of view of conservation, they compete with the needs of agriculture and urban development. In Britain the greatest conflicts exist between biodiversity and urban areas, while the largest carbon stocks occur mostly in Scotland in areas with low agricultural or urban pressure. In our application, we were able successfully to balance the spatial allocation of alternative land uses so that conflicts between them were much smaller than had they been developed separately. The proposed methods and software, Zonation, are applicable to structurally similar prioritization problems globally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology, Department of Biosciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014, University of Helsinki, Finland.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Burgman MA, Wintle BA, Thompson CA, Moilanen A, Runge MC, Ben-Haim Y. Reconciling uncertain costs and benefits in Bayes nets for invasive species management. Risk Anal 2010; 30:277-284. [PMID: 19659556 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01273.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
Bayes nets are used increasingly to characterize environmental systems and formalize probabilistic reasoning to support decision making. These networks treat probabilities as exact quantities. Sensitivity analysis can be used to evaluate the importance of assumptions and parameter estimates. Here, we outline an application of info-gap theory to Bayes nets that evaluates the sensitivity of decisions to possibly large errors in the underlying probability estimates and utilities. We apply it to an example of management and eradication of Red Imported Fire Ants in Southern Queensland, Australia and show how changes in management decisions can be justified when uncertainty is considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M A Burgman
- Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3010, Australia.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|