Assessing the shelf life of cost‐efficient conservation plans for species at risk across gradients of agricultural land use

High costs of land in agricultural regions warrant spatial prioritization approaches to conservation that explicitly consider land prices to produce protected‐area networks that accomplish targets efficiently. However, land‐use changes in such regions and delays between plan design and implementation may render optimized plans obsolete before implementation occurs. To measure the shelf life of cost‐efficient conservation plans, we simulated a land‐acquisition and restoration initiative aimed at conserving species at risk in Canada's farmlands. We accounted for observed changes in land‐acquisition costs and in agricultural intensity based on censuses of agriculture taken from 1986 to 2011. For each year of data, we mapped costs and areas of conservation priority designated using Marxan. We compared plans to test for changes through time in the arrangement of high‐priority sites and in the total cost of each plan. For acquisition costs, we measured the savings from accounting for prices during site selection. Land‐acquisition costs and land‐use intensity generally rose over time independent of inflation (24–78%), although rates of change were heterogeneous through space and decreased in some areas. Accounting for spatial variation in land price lowered the cost of conservation plans by 1.73–13.9%, decreased the range of costs by 19–82%, and created unique solutions from which to choose. Despite the rise in plan costs over time, the high conservation priority of particular areas remained consistent. Delaying conservation in these critical areas may compromise what optimized conservation plans can achieve. In the case of Canadian farmland, rapid conservation action is cost‐effective, even with moderate levels of uncertainty in how to implement restoration goals.     

Mapping Human and Social Dimensions of Conservation Opportunity for the Scheduling of Conservation Action on Private Land

Abstract Spatial prioritization techniques are applied in conservation‐planning initiatives to allocate conservation resources. Although typically they are based on ecological data (e.g., species, habitats, ecological processes), increasingly they also include nonecological data, mostly on the vulnerability of valued features and economic costs of implementation. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of conservation actions implemented through conservation‐planning initiatives is a function of the human and social dimensions of social‐ecological systems, such as stakeholders’ willingness and capacity to participate. We assessed human and social factors hypothesized to define opportunities for implementing effective conservation action by individual land managers (those responsible for making day‐to‐day decisions on land use) and mapped these to schedule implementation of a private land conservation program. We surveyed 48 land managers who owned 301 land parcels in the Makana Municipality of the Eastern Cape province in South Africa. Psychometric statistical and cluster analyses were applied to the interview data so as to map human and social factors of conservation opportunity across a landscape of regional conservation importance. Four groups of landowners were identified, in rank order, for a phased implementation process. Furthermore, using psychometric statistical techniques, we reduced the number of interview questions from 165 to 45, which is a preliminary step toward developing surrogates for human and social factors that can be developed rapidly and complemented with measures of conservation value, vulnerability, and economic cost to more‐effectively schedule conservation actions. This work provides conservation and land management professionals direction on where and how implementation of local‐scale conservation should be undertaken to ensure it is feasible.     

Constraints of philanthropy on determining the distribution of biodiversity conservation funding

Caught between ongoing habitat destruction and funding shortfalls, conservation organizations are using systematic planning approaches to identify places that offer the highest biodiversity return per dollar invested. However, available tools do not account for the landscape of funding for conservation or quantify the constraints this landscape imposes on conservation outcomes. Using state‐level data on philanthropic giving to and investments in land conservation by a large nonprofit organization, we applied linear regression to evaluate whether the spatial distribution of conservation philanthropy better explained expenditures on conservation than maps of biodiversity priorities, which were derived from a planning process internal to the organization and return on investment (ROI) analyses based on data on species richness, land costs, and existing protected areas. Philanthropic fund raising accounted for considerably more spatial variation in conservation spending (r² = 0.64) than either of the 2 systematic conservation planning approaches (r² = 0.08–0.21). We used results of one of the ROI analyses to evaluate whether increases in flexibility to reallocate funding across space provides conservation gains. Small but plausible “tax” increments of 1–10% on states redistributed to the optimal funding allocation from the ROI analysis could result in gains in endemic species protected of 8.5–80.2%. When such increases in spatial flexibility are not possible, conservation organizations should seek to cultivate increased support for conservation in priority locations. We used lagged correlations of giving to and spending by the organization to evaluate whether investments in habitat protection stimulate future giving to conservation. The most common outcome at the state level was that conservation spending quarters correlated significantly and positively with lagged fund raising quarters. In effect, periods of high fund raising for biodiversity followed (rather than preceded) periods of high expenditure on land conservation projects, identifying one mechanism conservation organizations could explore to seed greater activity in priority locations. Our results demonstrate how limitations on the ability of conservation organizations to reallocate their funding across space can impede organizational effectiveness and elucidate ways conservation planning tools could be more useful if they quantified and incorporated these constraints.     

Reorienting Systematic Conservation Assessment for Effective Conservation Planning

Abstract: Systematic conservation assessment (an information‐gathering and prioritization process used to select the spatial foci of conservation initiatives) is often considered vital to conservation‐planning efforts, yet published assessments have rarely resulted in conservation action. Conservation assessments may lead more directly to effective conservation action if they are reoriented to inform conservation decisions. Toward this goal, we evaluated the relative priority for conservation of 7 sites proposed for the first forest reserves in the Union of the Comoros, an area with high levels of endemism and rapidly changing land uses in the western Indian Ocean. Through the analysis of 30 indicator variables measured at forest sites and nearby villages, we assessed 3 prioritization criteria at each site: conservation value, threat to loss of biological diversity from human activity, and feasibility of reserve establishment. Our results indicated 2 sites, Yiméré and Hassera‐Ndrengé, were priorities for conservation action. Our approach also informed the development of an implementation strategy and enabled an evaluation of previously unexplored relations among prioritization criteria. Our experience suggests that steps taken to ensure the closer involvement of practitioners, include a broader range of social data, encourage stakeholder participation, and consider the feasibility of conservation action can improve the relevance of assessments for conservation planning, strengthen the scientific basis for conservation decisions, and result in a more realistic evaluation of conservation alternatives.     

Effects of cost metric on cost‐effectiveness of protected‐area network design in urban landscapes

A common goal in conservation planning is to acquire areas that are critical to realizing biodiversity goals in the most cost‐effective manner. The way monetary acquisition costs are represented in such planning is an understudied but vital component to realizing cost efficiencies. We sought to design a protected‐area network within a forested urban region that would protect 17 birds of conservation concern. We compared the total costs and spatial structure of the optimal protected‐area networks produced using three acquisition‐cost surrogates (area, agricultural land value, and tax‐assessed land value). Using the tax‐assessed land values there was a 73% and 78% cost savings relative to networks derived using area or agricultural land value, respectively. This cost reduction was due to the considerable heterogeneity in acquisition costs revealed in tax‐assessed land values, especially for small land parcels, and the corresponding ability of the optimization algorithm to identify lower‐cost parcels for inclusion that had equal value to our target species. Tax‐assessed land values also reflected the strong spatial differences in acquisition costs (US$0.33/m²–$55/m²) and thus allowed the algorithm to avoid inclusion of high‐cost parcels when possible. Our results add to a nascent but growing literature that suggests conservation planners must consider the cost surrogate they use when designing protected‐area networks. We suggest that choosing cost surrogates that capture spatial‐ and size‐dependent heterogeneity in acquisition costs may be relevant to establishing protected areas in urbanizing ecosystems.     

Building robust conservation plans

Systematic conservation planning optimizes trade‐offs between biodiversity conservation and human activities by accounting for socioeconomic costs while aiming to achieve prescribed conservation objectives. However, the most cost‐efficient conservation plan can be very dissimilar to any other plan achieving the set of conservation objectives. This is problematic under conditions of implementation uncertainty (e.g., if all or part of the plan becomes unattainable). We determined through simulations of parallel implementation of conservation plans and habitat loss the conditions under which optimal plans have limited chances of implementation and where implementation attempts would fail to meet objectives. We then devised a new, flexible method for identifying conservation priorities and scheduling conservation actions. This method entails generating a number of alternative plans, calculating the similarity in site composition among all plans, and selecting the plan with the highest density of neighboring plans in similarity space. We compared our method with the classic method that maximizes cost efficiency with synthetic and real data sets. When implementation was uncertain—a common reality—our method provided higher likelihood of achieving conservation targets. We found that χ, a measure of the shortfall in objectives achieved by a conservation plan if the plan could not be implemented entirely, was the main factor determining the relative performance of a flexibility enhanced approach to conservation prioritization. Our findings should help planning authorities prioritize conservation efforts in the face of uncertainty about future condition and availability of sites.     

Evaluating Private Land Conservation in the Cape Lowlands,South Africa

Abstract: Evaluation is important for judiciously allocating limited conservation resources and for improving conservation success through learning and strategy adjustment. We evaluated the application of systematic conservation planning goals and conservation gains from incentive‐based stewardship interventions on private land in the Cape Lowlands and Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. We collected spatial and nonspatial data (2003–2007) to determine the number of hectares of vegetation protected through voluntary contractual and legally nonbinding (informal) agreements with landowners; resources spent on these interventions; contribution of the agreements to 5‐ and 20‐year conservation goals for representation and persistence in the Cape Lowlands of species and ecosystems; and time and staff required to meet these goals. Conservation gains on private lands across the Cape Floristic Region were relatively high. In 5 years, 22,078 ha (27,800 ha of land) and 46,526 ha (90,000 ha of land) of native vegetation were protected through contracts and informal agreements, respectively. Informal agreements often were opportunity driven and cheaper and faster to execute than contracts. All contractual agreements in the Cape Lowlands were within areas of high conservation priority (identified through systematic conservation planning), which demonstrated the conservation plan's practical application and a high level of overlap between resource investment (approximately R1.14 million/year in the lowlands) and priority conservation areas. Nevertheless, conservation agreements met only 11% of 5‐year and 9% of 20‐year conservation goals for Cape Lowlands and have made only a moderate contribution to regional persistence of flora to date. Meeting the plan's conservation goals will take three to five times longer and many more staff members to maintain agreements than initially envisaged.     

Conservation Planning with Multiple Organizations and Objectives

Abstract: There has been a dramatic increase in the number of conservation organizations worldwide. It is now common for multiple organizations to operate in the same landscape in pursuit of different conservation goals. New objectives, such as maintenance of ecosystem services, will attract additional funding and new organizations to conservation. Systematic conservation planning helps in the design of spatially explicit management actions that optimally conserve multiple landscape features (e.g., species, ecosystems, or ecosystem services). But the methods used in its application implicitly assume that a single actor implements the optimal plan. We investigated how organizational behavior and conservation outcomes are affected by the presence of autonomous implementing organizations with different objectives. We used simulation models and game theory to explore how alternative behaviors (e.g., organizations acting independently or explicitly cooperating) affected an organization's ability to protect their feature of interest, and investigated how the distribution of features in the landscape influenced organizations’ attitudes toward cooperation. Features with highly correlated spatial distributions, although typically considered an opportunity for mutually beneficial conservation planning, can lead to organizational interactions that result in lower levels of protection. These detrimental outcomes can be avoided by organizations that cooperate when acquiring land. Nevertheless, for cooperative purchases to benefit both organizations’ objectives, each must forgo the protection of land parcels that they would consider to be of high conservation value. Transaction costs incurred during cooperation and the sources of conservation funding could facilitate or hinder cooperative behavior.     

Using abiotic variables to predict importance of sites for species representation

In systematic conservation planning, species distribution data for all sites in a planning area are used to prioritize each site in terms of the site's importance toward meeting the goal of species representation. But comprehensive species data are not available in most planning areas and would be expensive to acquire. As a shortcut, ecologists use surrogates, such as occurrences of birds or another well‐surveyed taxon, or land types defined from remotely sensed data, in the hope that sites that represent the surrogates also represent biodiversity. Unfortunately, surrogates have not performed reliably. We propose a new type of surrogate, predicted importance, that can be developed from species data for a q% subset of sites. With species data from this subset of sites, importance can be modeled as a function of abiotic variables available at no charge for all terrestrial areas on Earth. Predicted importance can then be used as a surrogate to prioritize all sites. We tested this surrogate with 8 sets of species data. For each data set, we used a q% subset of sites to model importance as a function of abiotic variables, used the resulting function to predict importance for all sites, and evaluated the number of species in the sites with highest predicted importance. Sites with the highest predicted importance represented species efficiently for all data sets when q = 25% and for 7 of 8 data sets when q = 20%. Predicted importance requires less survey effort than direct selection for species representation and meets representation goals well compared with other surrogates currently in use. This less expensive surrogate may be useful in those areas of the world that need it most, namely tropical regions with the highest biodiversity, greatest biodiversity loss, most severe lack of inventory data, and poorly developed protected area networks.     

Conservation Goals and the Relative Importance of Costs and Benefits in Reserve Selection

Abstract: Including both economic costs and biological benefits of sites in systematic reserve selection greatly increases cost‐efficiency. Nevertheless, limited funding generally forces conservation planners to choose which data to focus the most resources on; therefore, the relative importance of different types of data must be carefully assessed. We investigated the relative importance of including information about costs and benefits for 3 different commonly used conservation goals: 2 in which biological benefits were measured per site (species number and conservation value scores) and 1 in which benefits were measured on the basis of site complementarity (total species number in the reserve network). For each goal, we used site‐selection models with data on benefits only, costs only, and benefits and costs together, and we compared the efficiency of each model. Costs were more important to include than benefits for the goals in which benefits were measured per site. By contrast, for the complementarity‐based goal, benefits were more important to include. To understand this pattern, we compared the variability in benefits and in costs for each goal. By comparing the best and the worst possible selection of sites with regard to costs alone and benefits alone for each conservation goal, we introduced a simple and consistent variability measure that is applicable to all kinds of reserve‐selection situations. In our study, benefit variability depended strongly on how the conservation goal was formulated and was largest for the complementarity‐based conservation goal. We argue that from a cost‐efficiency point of view, most resources should be spent on collecting the most variable type of data for the conservation goal at hand.     

Safeguarding Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Little Karoo,South Africa

Abstract: Global declines in biodiversity and the widespread degradation of ecosystem services have led to urgent calls to safeguard both. Responses to this urgency include calls to integrate the needs of ecosystem services and biodiversity into the design of conservation interventions. The benefits of such integration are purported to include improvements in the justification and resources available for these interventions. Nevertheless, additional costs and potential trade‐offs remain poorly understood in the design of interventions that seek to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. We sought to investigate the synergies and trade‐offs in safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity in South Africa's Little Karoo. We used data on three ecosystem services—carbon storage, water recharge, and fodder provision—and data on biodiversity to examine several conservation planning scenarios. First, we investigated the amount of each ecosystem service captured incidentally by a conservation plan to meet targets for biodiversity only while minimizing opportunity costs. We then examined the costs of adding targets for ecosystem services into this conservation plan. Finally, we explored trade‐offs between biodiversity and ecosystem service targets at a fixed cost. At least 30% of each ecosystem service was captured incidentally when all of biodiversity targets were met. By including data on ecosystem services, we increased the amount of services captured by at least 20% for all three services without additional costs. When biodiversity targets were reduced by 8%, an extra 40% of fodder provision and water recharge were obtained and 58% of carbon could be captured for the same cost. The opportunity cost (in terms of forgone production) of safeguarding 100% of the biodiversity targets was about US$500 million. Our results showed that with a small decrease in biodiversity target achievement, substantial gains for the conservation of ecosystem services can be achieved within our biodiversity priority areas for no extra cost.     

Costs of Integrating Economics and Conservation Planning

Abstract: Recent literature on systematic conservation planning has focused strongly on economics. It is a necessary component of efficient conservation planning because the question is about effective resource allocation. Nevertheless, there is an increasing tendency toward economic factors overriding biological considerations. Focusing too narrowly on economic cost may lead us back toward solutions resembling those obtained by opportunistic choice of areas, the avoidance of which was the motivation for development of systematic approaches. Moreover, there are many overlooked difficulties in incorporating economic considerations reliably into conservation planning because available economic data and the free market are complex. For instance, economies based on free markets tend to be shortsighted, whereas biodiversity conservation aims far into the future. Although economic data are necessary, they should not be relied on too heavily or considered separately from other sociopolitical factors. We suggest focusing on development of more‐comprehensive ecological‐economic modeling, while not forgetting the importance of purely biological analyses that are needed as a point of reference for evaluating conservation outcomes.     

Improving effectiveness of systematic conservation planning with density data

Systematic conservation planning aims to design networks of protected areas that meet conservation goals across large landscapes. The optimal design of these conservation networks is most frequently based on the modeled habitat suitability or probability of occurrence of species, despite evidence that model predictions may not be highly correlated with species density. We hypothesized that conservation networks designed using species density distributions more efficiently conserve populations of all species considered than networks designed using probability of occurrence models. To test this hypothesis, we used the Zonation conservation prioritization algorithm to evaluate conservation network designs based on probability of occurrence versus density models for 26 land bird species in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. We assessed the efficacy of each conservation network based on predicted species densities and predicted species diversity. High‐density model Zonation rankings protected more individuals per species when networks protected the highest priority 10‐40% of the landscape. Compared with density‐based models, the occurrence‐based models protected more individuals in the lowest 50% priority areas of the landscape. The 2 approaches conserved species diversity in similar ways: predicted diversity was higher in higher priority locations in both conservation networks. We conclude that both density and probability of occurrence models can be useful for setting conservation priorities but that density‐based models are best suited for identifying the highest priority areas. Developing methods to aggregate species count data from unrelated monitoring efforts and making these data widely available through ecoinformatics portals such as the Avian Knowledge Network will enable species count data to be more widely incorporated into systematic conservation planning efforts.     

Local Land‐Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners’ Perspectives on What Works

Abstract: Because habitat loss due to urbanization is a primary threat to biodiversity, and land‐use decisions in urbanizing areas are mainly made at the local level, land‐use planning by municipal planning departments has a potentially important—but largely unrealized—role in conserving biodiversity. To understand planners’ perspectives on the factors that facilitate and impede biodiversity conservation in local planning, we interviewed directors of 17 municipal planning departments in the greater Seattle (Washington, U.S.A.) area and compared responses of planners from similar‐sized jurisdictions that were “high” and “low performing” with respect to incorporation of biodiversity conservation in local planning. Planners from low‐performing jurisdictions regarded mandates from higher governmental levels as the primary drivers of biodiversity conservation, whereas those from high‐performing jurisdictions regarded community values as the main drivers, although they also indicated that mandates were important. Biodiversity conservation was associated with presence of local conservation flagship elements (e.g., salmonids) and human‐centered benefits of biodiversity conservation (e.g., quality of life). Planners from high‐ and low‐performing jurisdictions favored different planning mechanisms for biodiversity conservation, perhaps reflecting differences in funding and staffing. High performers reported more collaborations with other entities on biodiversity issues. Planners’ comments indicated that the term biodiversity may be problematic in the context of local planning. The action most planners recommended to increase biodiversity conservation in local planning was public education. These results suggest that to advance biodiversity conservation in local land‐use planning, conservation biologists should investigate and educate the public about local conservation flagships and human benefits of local biodiversity, work to raise ecological literacy and explain biodiversity more effectively to the public, and promote collaboration on biodiversity conservation among jurisdictions and inclusion of biodiversity specialists in planning departments.     

The Grain of Spatially Referenced Economic Cost and Biodiversity Benefit Data and the Effectiveness of a Cost Targeting Strategy

Facing tight resource constraints, conservation organizations must allocate funds available for habitat protection as effectively as possible. Often, they combine spatially referenced economic and biodiversity data to prioritize land for protection. We tested how sensitive these prioritizations could be to differences in the spatial grain of these data by demonstrating how the conclusion of a classic debate in conservation planning between cost and benefit targeting was altered based on the available information. As a case study, we determined parcel‐level acquisition costs and biodiversity benefits of land transactions recently undertaken by a nonprofit conservation organization that seeks to protect forests in the eastern United States. Then, we used hypothetical conservation plans to simulate the types of ex ante priorities that an organization could use to prioritize areas for protection. We found the apparent effectiveness of cost and benefit targeting depended on the spatial grain of the data used when prioritizing parcels based on local species richness. However, when accounting for complementarity, benefit targeting consistently was more efficient than a cost targeting strategy regardless of the spatial grain of the data involved. More pertinently for other studies, we found that combining data collected over different spatial grains inflated the apparent effectiveness of a cost targeting strategy and led to overestimation of the efficiency gain offered by adopting a more integrative return‐on‐investment approach.     

Economic and Ecological Outcomes of Flexible Biodiversity Offset Systems

The commonly expressed goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss of specific biological features affected by development. However, strict equivalency requirements may complicate trading of offset credits, increase costs due to restricted offset placement options, and force offset activities to focus on features that may not represent regional conservation priorities. Using the oil sands industry of Alberta, Canada, as a case study, we evaluated the economic and ecological performance of alternative offset systems targeting either ecologically equivalent areas (vegetation types) or regional conservation priorities (caribou and the Dry Mixedwood natural subregion). Exchanging dissimilar biodiversity elements requires assessment via a generalized metric; we used an empirically derived index of biodiversity intactness to link offsets with losses incurred by development. We considered 2 offset activities: land protection, with costs estimated as the net present value of profits of petroleum and timber resources to be paid as compensation to resource tenure holders, and restoration of anthropogenic footprint, with costs estimated from existing restoration projects. We used the spatial optimization tool MARXAN to develop hypothetical offset networks that met either the equivalent‐vegetation or conservation‐priority targets. Networks that required offsetting equivalent vegetation cost 2–17 times more than priority‐focused networks. This finding calls into question the prudence of equivalency‐based systems, particularly in relatively undeveloped jurisdictions, where conservation focuses on limiting and directing future losses. Priority‐focused offsets may offer benefits to industry and environmental stakeholders by allowing for lower‐cost conservation of valued ecological features and may invite discussion on what land‐use trade‐offs are acceptable when trading biodiversity via offsets. Resultados Económicos y Ecológicos de Sistemas de Compensación de Biodiversidad Flexible Habib et al.     

Understanding the effects of different social data on selecting priority conservation areas

Conservation success is contingent on assessing social and environmental factors so that cost‐effective implementation of strategies and actions can be placed in a broad social–ecological context. Until now, the focus has been on how to include spatially explicit social data in conservation planning, whereas the value of different kinds of social data has received limited attention. In a regional systematic conservation planning case study in Australia, we examined the spatial concurrence of a range of spatially explicit social values and land‐use preferences collected using a public participation geographic information system and biological data. We used Zonation to integrate the social data with the biological data in a series of spatial‐prioritization scenarios to determine the effect of the different types of social data on spatial prioritization compared with biological data alone. The type of social data (i.e., conservation opportunities or constraints) significantly affected spatial prioritization outcomes. The integration of social values and land‐use preferences under different scenarios was highly variable and generated spatial prioritizations 1.2–51% different from those based on biological data alone. The inclusion of conservation‐compatible values and preferences added relatively few new areas to conservation priorities, whereas including noncompatible economic values and development preferences as costs significantly changed conservation priority areas (48.2% and 47.4%, respectively). Based on our results, a multifaceted conservation prioritization approach that combines spatially explicit social data with biological data can help conservation planners identify the type of social data to collect for more effective and feasible conservation actions.     

The Capacity of Australia's Protected‐Area System to Represent Threatened Species

Abstract: The acquisition or designation of new protected areas is usually based on criteria for representation of different ecosystems or land‐cover classes, and it is unclear how well‐threatened species are conserved within protected‐area networks. Here, we assessed how Australia's terrestrial protected‐area system (89 million ha, 11.6% of the continent) overlaps with the geographic distributions of threatened species and compared this overlap against a model that randomly placed protected areas across the continent and a spatially efficient model that placed protected areas across the continent to maximize threatened species’ representation within the protected‐area estate. We defined the minimum area needed to conserve each species on the basis of the species’ range size. We found that although the current configuration of protected areas met targets for representation of a given percentage of species’ ranges better than a random selection of areas, 166 (12.6%) threatened species occurred entirely outside protected areas and target levels of protection were met for only 259 (19.6%) species. Critically endangered species were among those with the least protection; 12 (21.1%) species occurred entirely outside protected areas. Reptiles and plants were the most poorly represented taxonomic groups, and amphibians the best represented. Spatial prioritization analyses revealed that an efficient protected‐area system of the same size as the current protected‐area system (11.6% of the area of Australia) could meet representation targets for 1272 (93.3%) threatened species. Moreover, the results of these prioritization analyses showed that by protecting 17.8% of Australia, all threatened species could reach target levels of representation, assuming all current protected areas are retained. Although this amount of area theoretically could be protected, existing land uses and the finite resources available for conservation mean land acquisition may not be possible or even effective for the recovery of threatened species. The optimal use of resources must balance acquisition of new protected areas, where processes that threaten native species are mitigated by the change in ownership or on‐ground management jurisdiction, and management of threatened species inside and outside the existing protected‐area system.     

Carbon Payments and Low‐Cost Conservation

Abstract: A price on carbon is expected to generate demand for carbon offset schemes. This demand could drive investment in tree‐based monocultures that provide higher carbon yields than diverse plantings of native tree and shrub species, which sequester less carbon but provide greater variation in vegetation structure and composition. Economic instruments such as species conservation banking, the creation and trading of credits that represent biological‐diversity values on private land, could close the financial gap between monocultures and more diverse plantings by providing payments to individuals who plant diverse species in locations that contribute to conservation and restoration goals. We studied a highly modified agricultural system in southern Australia that is typical of many temperate agriculture zones globally (i.e., has a high proportion of endangered species, high levels of habitat fragmentation, and presence of non‐native species). We quantified the economic returns from agriculture and from carbon plantings (monoculture and mixed tree and shrubs) under six carbon‐price scenarios. We also identified high‐priority locations for restoration of cleared landscapes with mixed tree and shrub carbon plantings. Depending on the price of carbon, direct annual payments to landowners of AU$7/ha/year to $125/ha/year (US$6–120/ha/year) may be sufficient to augment economic returns from a carbon market and encourage tree plantings that contribute more to the restoration of natural systems and endangered species habitats than monocultures. Thus, areas of high priority for conservation and restoration may be restored relatively cheaply in the presence of a carbon market. Overall, however, less carbon is sequestered by mixed native tree and shrub plantings.     

Obstacles to Bottom‐Up Implementation of Marine Ecosystem Management

Abstract: Ecosystem management (EM) offers a means to address multiple threats to marine resources. Despite recognition of the importance of stakeholder involvement, most efforts to implement EM in marine systems are the product of top‐down regulatory control. We describe a rare, stakeholder‐driven attempt to implement EM from the bottom up in San Juan County, Washington (U.S.A.). A citizens advisory group led a 2‐year, highly participatory effort to develop an ecosystem‐based management plan, guided by a preexisting conservation‐planning framework. A key innovation was to incorporate social dimensions by designating both sociocultural and biodiversity targets in the planning process. Multiple obstacles hindered implementation of EM in this setting. Despite using a surrogate scheme, the information‐related transaction costs of planning were substantial: information deficits prevented assessment of some biodiversity targets and insufficient resources combined with information deficits prevented scientific assessment of the sociocultural targets. Substantial uncertainty, practical constraints to stakeholder involvement, and the existence of multiple, potentially conflicting, objectives increased negotiation‐related costs. Although information deficits and uncertainty, coupled with underinvestment in the transaction costs of planning, could reduce the long‐term effectiveness of the plan itself, the social capital and momentum developed through the planning process could yield unforeseeable future gains in protection of marine resources. The obstacles we identified here will require early and sustained attention in efforts to implement ecosystem management in other grassroots settings.