The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union

Europe is a region of relatively high population density and productive agriculture subject to substantial government intervention under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Many habitats and species of high conservation interest have been created by the maintenance of agricultural practices over long periods. These practices are often no longer profitable, and nature conservation initiatives require government support to cover the cost for them to be continued. The CAP has been reformed both to reduce production of agricultural commodities at costs in excess of world prices and to establish incentives for landholders to adopt voluntary conservation measures. A separate nature conservation policy has established an extensive series of protected sites (Natura 2000) that has, as yet, failed to halt the loss of biodiversity. Additional broader scale approaches have been advocated for conservation in the wider landscape matrix, including the alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies, which remains a challenge. Possibilities for alignment include further shifting of funds from general support for farmers toward targeted payments for biodiversity goals at larger scales and adoption of an ecosystem approach. The European response to the competing demands for land resources may offer lessons globally as demands on rural land increase.     

Mapping opportunities and challenges for rewilding in Europe

Farmland abandonment takes place across the world due to socio‐economic and ecological drivers. In Europe agricultural and environmental policies aim to prevent abandonment and halt ecological succession. Ecological rewilding has been recently proposed as an alternative strategy. We developed a framework to assess opportunities for rewilding across different dimensions of wilderness in Europe. We mapped artificial light, human accessibility based on transport infrastructure, proportion of harvested primary productivity (i.e., ecosystem productivity appropriated by humans through agriculture or forestry), and deviation from potential natural vegetation in areas projected to be abandoned by 2040. At the continental level, the levels of artificial light were low and the deviation from potential natural vegetation was high in areas of abandonment. The relative importance of wilderness metrics differed regionally and was strongly connected to local environmental and socio‐economic contexts. Large areas of projected abandonment were often located in or around Natura 2000 sites. Based on these results, we argue that management should be tailored to restore the aspects of wilderness that are lacking in each region. There are many remaining challenges regarding biodiversity in Europe, but megafauna species are already recovering. To further potentiate large‐scale rewilding, Natura 2000 management would need to incorporate rewilding approaches. Our framework can be applied to assessing rewilding opportunities and challenges in other world regions, and our results could guide redirection of subsidies to manage social‐ecological systems.     

An Australian perspective on rewilding

Rewilding is increasingly recognized as a conservation tool but is often context specific, which inhibits broad application. Rewilding in Australia seeks to enhance ecosystem function and promote self-sustaining ecosystems. An absence of large-bodied native herbivores means trophic rewilding in mainland Australia has focused on the restoration of functions provided by apex predators and small mammals. Because of the pervasive influence of introduced mesopredators, predator-proof fences, and establishment of populations on predator-free islands are common rewilding approaches. This sets Australian rewilding apart from most jurisdictions and provides globally relevant insights but presents challenges to restoring function to broader landscapes. Passive rewilding is of limited utility in arid zones. Although increasing habitat extent and quality in mesic coastal areas may work, it will likely be necessary to undertake active management. Because much of Australia's population is in urban areas, rewilding efforts must include urban areas to maximize effectiveness. Thus rewilding is not synonymous with wilderness and can occur over multiple scales. Rewilding efforts must recognize human effects on other species and benefit both nature and humans. Rewilding in Australia requires development of a shared vision and strategy and proof-of-concept projects to demonstrate the benefits. The repackaging of existing conservation activities as rewilding may confuse and undermine the success of rewilding programs and should be avoided. As elsewhere, rewilding in Australia should be viewed as an important conservation tool.     

Guiding principles for rewilding

There has been much recent interest in the concept of rewilding as a tool for nature conservation, but also confusion over the idea, which has limited its utility. We developed a unifying definition and 10 guiding principles for rewilding through a survey of 59 rewilding experts, a summary of key organizations’ rewilding visions, and workshops involving over 100 participants from around the world. The guiding principles convey that rewilding exits on a continuum of scale, connectivity, and level of human influence and aims to restore ecosystem structure and functions to achieve a self-sustaining autonomous nature. These principles clarify the concept of rewilding and improve its effectiveness as a tool to achieve global conservation targets, including those of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Finally, we suggest differences in rewilding perspectives lie largely in the extent to which it is seen as achievable and in specific interventions. An understanding of the context of rewilding projects is the key to success, and careful site-specific interpretations will help achieve the aims of rewilding.     

Gaps and opportunities for the World Heritage Convention to contribute to global wilderness conservation

Wilderness areas are ecologically intact landscapes predominantly free of human uses, especially industrial‐scale activities that result in substantial biophysical disturbance. This definition does not exclude land and resource use by local communities who depend on such areas for subsistence and bio‐cultural connections. Wilderness areas are important for biodiversity conservation and sustain key ecological processes and ecosystem services that underpin planetary life‐support systems. Despite these widely recognized benefits and values of wilderness, they are insufficiently protected and are consequently being rapidly eroded. There are increasing calls for multilateral environmental agreements to make a greater and more systematic contribution to wilderness conservation before it is too late. We created a global map of remaining terrestrial wilderness following the established last‐of‐the‐wild method, which identifies the 10% of areas with the lowest human pressure within each of Earth's 62 biogeographic realms and identifies the 10 largest contiguous areas and all contiguous areas >10,000 km². We used our map to assess wilderness coverage by the World Heritage Convention and to identify gaps in coverage. We then identified large nationally designated protected areas with good wilderness coverage within these gaps. One‐quarter of natural and mixed (i.e., sites of both natural and cultural value) World Heritage Sites (WHS) contained wilderness (total of 545,307 km²), which is approximately 1.8% of the world's wilderness extent. Many WHS had excellent wilderness coverage, for example, the Okavango Delta in Botswana (11,914 km²) and the Central Suriname Nature Reserve (16,029 km²). However, 22 (35%) of the world's terrestrial biorealms had no wilderness representation within WHS. We identified 840 protected areas of >500 km² that were predominantly wilderness (>50% of their area) and represented 18 of the 22 missing biorealms. These areas offer a starting point for assessing the potential for the designation of new WHSs that could help increase wilderness representation on the World Heritage list. We urge the World Heritage Convention to ensure that the ecological integrity and outstanding universal value of existing WHS with wilderness values are preserved.     

Estimating the Effect of Protected Lands on the Development and Conservation of Their Surroundings

Abstract:  The fate of private lands is widely seen as key to the fate of biodiversity in much of the world. Organizations that work to protect biodiversity on private lands often hope that conservation actions on one piece of land will leverage the actions of surrounding landowners. Few researchers have, however, examined whether protected lands do in fact encourage land conservation nearby or how protected lands affect development in the surrounding landscape. Using spatiotemporal data sets on land cover and land protection for three sites (western North Carolina, central Massachusetts, and central Arizona), we examined whether the existence of a protected area correlates with an increased rate of nearby land conservation or a decreased rate of nearby land development. At all sites, newly protected conservation areas tended to cluster close to preexisting protected areas. This may imply that the geography of contemporary conservation actions is influenced by past decisions on land protection, often made for reasons far removed from concerns about biodiversity. On the other hand, we found no evidence that proximity to protected areas correlates with a reduced rate of nearby land development. Indeed, on two of our three sites the development rate was significantly greater in regions with more protected land. This suggests that each conservation action should be justified and valued largely for what is protected on the targeted land, without much hope of broader conservation leverage effects.     

Value of protected areas to avian persistence across 20 years of climate and land-use change

Establishing protected areas, where human activities and land cover changes are restricted, is among the most widely used strategies for biodiversity conservation. This practice is based on the assumption that protected areas buffer species from processes that drive extinction. However, protected areas can maintain biodiversity in the face of climate change and subsequent shifts in distributions have been questioned. We evaluated the degree to which protected areas influenced colonization and extinction patterns of 97 avian species over 20 years in the northeastern United States. We fitted single-visit dynamic occupancy models to data from Breeding Bird Atlases to quantify the magnitude of the effect of drivers of local colonization and extinction (e.g., climate, land cover, and amount of protected area) in heterogeneous landscapes that varied in the amount of area under protection. Colonization and extinction probabilities improved as the amount of protected area increased, but these effects were conditional on landscape context and species characteristics. In this forest-dominated region, benefits of additional land protection were greatest when both forest cover in a grid square and amount of protected area in neighboring grid squares were low. Effects did not vary with species’ migratory habit or conservation status. Increasing the amounts of land protection benefitted the range margins species but not the core range species. The greatest improvements in colonization and extinction rates accrued for forest birds relative to open-habitat or generalist species. Overall, protected areas stemmed extinction more than they promoted colonization. Our results indicate that land protection remains a viable conservation strategy despite changing habitat and climate, as protected areas both reduce the risk of local extinction and facilitate movement into new areas. Our findings suggest conservation in the face of climate change favors creation of new protected areas over enlarging existing ones as the optimal strategy to reduce extinction and provide stepping stones for the greatest number of species.     

Guidelines and Incentives for Conservation Development in Local Land‐Use Regulations

Effective conservation of biological diversity on private lands will require changes in land‐use policy and development practice. Conservation development (CD) is an alternative form of residential development in which homes are built on smaller lots and clustered together and the remainder of the property is permanently protected for conservation purposes. We assessed the degree to which CD is permitted and encouraged by local land‐use regulations in 414 counties in the western United States. Thirty‐two percent of local planning jurisdictions have adopted CD ordinances, mostly within the past 10 years. CD ordinances were adopted in counties with human population densities that were 3.0 times greater and in counties with 2.5 times more land use at urban, suburban, and exurban densities than counties without CD ordinances. Despite strong economic incentives for CD (e.g., density bonuses, which allow for a mean of 66% more homes to be built per subdivision area), several issues may limit the effectiveness of CD for biological diversity conservation. Although most CD ordinances required a greater proportion of the site area be protected than in a typical residential development, just 13% (n = 17) of the ordinances required an ecological site analysis to identify and map features that should be protected. Few CD ordinances provided guidelines regarding the design and configuration of the protected lands, including specifying a minimum size for protected land parcels or encouraging contiguity with other protected lands within or near to the site. Eight percent (n =11) of CD ordinances encouraged consultation with a biological expert or compliance with a conservation plan. We recommend that conservation scientists help to improve the effectiveness of CD by educating planning staff and government officials regarding biological diversity conservation, volunteering for their local planning boards, or consulting on development reviews. Guías e Incentivos para el Desarrollo de la Conservación en Regulaciones de Uso Local de Suelos     

How percentage-protected targets can support positive biodiversity outcomes

Global targets for the percentage area of land protected, such as 30% by 2030, have gained increasing prominence, but both their scientific basis and likely effectiveness have been questioned. As with emissions-reduction targets based on desired climate outcomes, percentage-protected targets combine values and science by estimating the area over which conservation actions are required to help achieve desired biodiversity outcomes. Protected areas are essential for achieving many biodiversity targets, in part because many species are highly sensitive to human-associated disturbance. However, because the contribution of protected areas to biodiversity outcomes is contingent on their location, management, governance, threats, and what occurs across the broader landscape matrix, global percentage-protected targets are unavoidably empirical generalizations of ecological patterns and processes across diverse geographies. Percentage-protected targets are insufficient in isolation but can complement other actions and contribute to biodiversity outcomes within a framework that balances accuracy and pragmatism in a global context characterized by imperfect biodiversity data. Ideally, percentage-protected targets serve as anchors that strengthen comprehensive national biodiversity strategies by communicating the level of ambition necessary to reverse current trends of biodiversity loss. If such targets are to fulfill this role within the complex societal process by which both values and science impel conservation actions, conservation scientists must clearly communicate the nature of the evidence base supporting percentage-protected targets and how protected areas can function within a broader landscape managed for sustainable coexistence between people and nature. A new paradigm for protected and conserved areas recognizes that national coordination, incentives, and monitoring should support rather than undermine diverse locally led conservation initiatives. However, the definition of a conserved area must retain a strong focus on biodiversity to remain consistent with the evidence base from which percentage-protected targets were originally derived.     

History and Importance of Land Use and Protection in the North Quabbin Region of Massachusetts (USA)

Evaluating the consequences and future of land protection requires broad temporal and spatial perspectives of ecological and cultural factors. We assessed the development of a system of protected areas comprising 37% of central Massachusetts in terms of changing rates and means of land protection. We compared protected areas to the surrounding matrix in terms of physical, biological, and historical features and used these results to raise issues concerning future planning. The rate, purpose, and means of land protection in the North Quabbin Region (168,312 ha) have been dynamic as a result of changes in cultural values and transformation of the landscape from predominantly agriculture to forest. Protected lands are managed by 25 federal and state agencies, private groups, and municipal departments and commissions and are physically and biologically typical of the regional landscape which results from (1) participation of diverse organizations with varied agendas; (2) predominance of large government acquisitions driven by landscape-scale criteria; and (3) absence of coordination among groups. The large area, relative homogeneity and largely undeveloped status of the North Quabbin Region suggest conservation goals distinct from those in the fragmented and extensively developed neighboring areas of the Connecticut River Valley and Cape Cod and Islands Region. Large tracts of forests, wetlands, and lakes in the North Quabbin Region provide (1) habitat for species requiring extensive, intact areas; (2) the opportunity to maintain broad-scale ecological processes; (3) connections to regional conservation areas; and (4) recreation. To realize the area's potential, a comprehensive plan must be based on a broad-scale perspective and historical understanding of the landscape.     

Intact Faunal Assemblages in the Modern Era

Abstract: In light of limited conservation funding, global conservation initiatives are increasingly focused on regions of the planet that have been identified as valuable on the basis of their species diversity, the vulnerability of resident species to extinction, or the perceived pristine nature of their ecosystems. Regions that have been resilient to high rates of extinction have not yet been systematically considered in conservation efforts. We used published range maps for 392 vertebrate species to compare historical and current species ranges. We used the results of the comparison to identify regions of the globe in which no known vertebrate species has been extirpated in the past 200 years. In 17 regions, no detectable vertebrate extinctions occurred in the past 200 years. In 6 other regions, reintroductions of species restored the full historic complement of vertebrate species. The effects of humans on a landscape, as measured by the human‐footprint index, although useful, was not a singularly good predictor of faunal intactness because more than 20% of intact land area was in heavily affected areas (50% of Earth's land area), and several regions where humans have had very little effect did not have intact faunas. Only 22% of intact land area was within protected‐area networks. High‐latitude areas were particularly underrepresented; they made up 3 of the 4 least‐protected areas in our analyses. Our results indicate that although protected areas are in some cases associated with the prevention of extinctions, there are many regions in which human activity coexists with intact vertebrate assemblages. In addition, our new approach for assessing the value of global regions for conservation identifies several regions that are not represented in other prioritization metrics.     

Comparison of Marine and Terrestrial Protected Areas under Federal Jurisdiction in the United States

Abstract: There is a significant disparity in the protection of terrestrial and marine environments in the United States. Despite the considerable literature dedicated to the subject of protected areas, both terrestrial and marine, in the United States, we are not aware of work explicitly describing this dichotomy. We compared marine and terrestrial areas under federal jurisdiction to provide a quantitative assessment of the differences between the conservation of land and sea in the United States. Specifically, we compared national marine sanctuaries (including sanctuary preservation areas and ecological reserves) with national parks, national forests, and national wildlife refuges (including national wilderness preservation areas). Our results suggest that marine sanctuaries are fewer in number, smaller in total area, and smaller in percentage of area covered than are terrestrial protected areas.     

Importance of Roadless Areas in Biodiversity Conservation in Forested Ecosystems: Case Study of the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion of the United States

Abstract: Although many roadless areas on federal lands have been mapped in the United States since the 1970s, there has been little specific research on how and to what degree roadless areas contribute to biodiversity conservation. We examined the ecological attributes of mapped roadless areas for the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion of northwestern California and southwestern Oregon (U.S.A.). Attributes examined include special elements (such as natural heritage, serpentine geology, late-seral forests, Port Orford cedar [ Chamaecyparis lawsoniana ] ), and key watersheds; elevation and habitat representation; and overall landscape connectivity. We compared designated wilderness to roadless areas, giving special attention to the relative importance of small roadless areas (405–2024 ha). We mapped nearly 500 roadless areas of ≥405 ha. Roadless areas occupied more than twice the land area of wilderness (approximately 27% of the entire ecoregion) and contained approximately 36% of the known occurrences of heritage elements, 37% of the mapped serpentine habitats, 36% of the remaining late-seral forests, 60% of Port Orford cedar strongholds, and 42% of key watersheds for aquatic biodiversity. In addition, roadless areas were composed of significant amounts of low- and mid-elevation sites and a substantial number of the 214 mapped physical-biological habitat types with strong complementarity with designated wilderness. Fragmentation analyses showed that roadless areas contributed to regional connectivity in important ways. Also, small roadless areas were an important component of the roadless-areas conservation assessment. For the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, roadless areas and designated wilderness provide an important foundation upon which to develop a comprehensive regional conservation strategy.     

Offsetting the Impacts of Mining to Achieve No Net Loss of Native Vegetation

Offsets are a novel conservation tool, yet using them to achieve no net loss of biodiversity is challenging. This is especially true when using conservation offsets (i.e., protected areas) because achieving no net loss requires avoiding equivalent loss. Our objective was to determine if offsetting the impacts of mining achieves no net loss of native vegetation in Brazil's largest iron mining region. We used a land‐use change model to simulate deforestation by mining to 2020; developed a model to allocate conservation offsets to the landscape under 3 scenarios (baseline, no new offsets; current practice, like‐for‐like [by vegetation type] conservation offsetting near the impact site; and threat scenario, like‐for‐like conservation offsetting of highly threatened vegetation); and simulated nonmining deforestation to 2020 for each scenario to quantify avoided deforestation achieved with offsets. Mines cleared 3570 ha of native vegetation by 2020. Under a 1:4 offset ratio, mining companies would be required to conserve >14,200 ha of native vegetation, doubling the current extent of protected areas in the region. Allocating offsets under current practice avoided deforestation equivalent to 3% of that caused by mining, whereas allocating under the threat scenario avoided 9%. Current practice failed to achieve no net loss because offsets did not conserve threatened vegetation. Explicit allocation of offsets to threatened vegetation also failed because the most threatened vegetation was widely dispersed across the landscape, making conservation logistically difficult. To achieve no net loss with conservation offsets requires information on regional deforestation trajectories and the distribution of threatened vegetation. However, in some regions achieving no net loss through conservation may be impossible. In these cases, other offsetting activities, such as revegetation, will be required. Compensación de los Impactos de la Minería para Obtener Ninguna Pérdida Neta de la Vegetación Nativa     

关于景观的保护问题

景观作为自然与人类相互作用的一个基本单位，目前正在发生剧烈的变化。许多传统的文化建筑和土地利用方式和格局正在走向衰亡，景观的多样性和丰富性受到前所未有的威胁，常常被千篇一律的大片单调的景色所代替。本文主要讨论下列三个问题：景观的基本含义及其保护，景观保护的主要任务；景观保护是区域发展的基础。     

Use of Inverse Spatial Conservation Prioritization to Avoid Biological Diversity Loss Outside Protected Areas

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.     

Land Development in and around Protected Areas at the Wilderness Frontier

Protected areas’ chief conservation objectives are to include species within their boundaries and protect them from negative external pressures. Many protected areas are not achieving these goals, perhaps in part due to land development inside and outside protected areas. We conducted spatial analyses to evaluate the ability of Canadian protected areas to mitigate the effects of nearby land development. We investigated correlations of national patterns of land development in and around protected areas and then examined national patterns of roads, urban area, and croplands in protected areas. We calculated the amount of developed land in protected areas and within 25–100 km of protected‐area borders, the density of roads, and extent of urban and cropland area in protected areas. We constructed logistic‐regression models to test whether development in a protected area was associated with landscape and protected‐area characteristics. Land development was far less extensive inside than outside protected areas. However, several protected areas, particularly small southern areas near small urban centers had substantial development inside their boundaries, and nearly half of protected areas had roads. The cumulative extent of development within 50 km of protected areas was the best predictor of the probability of land development in protected areas. Canadian First Nations, industries, government, and nongovernmental organizations are currently planning an unprecedented number of new protected areas. Careful management of areas beyond protected‐area boundaries may prove critical to meeting their long‐term conservation objectives. Desarrollo de Tierras Dentro y Alrededor de Áreas Protegidas en la Frontera Silvestre     

Does the conservation of land reduce development? An econometric-based landscape simulation with land market feedbacks

We use an econometrically-based landscape simulation to investigate the effect of conservation on the net change in local development – the amount of land directly protected from development minus the amount of development that may occur on neighboring unprotected private land in response to conservation. First, we use spatial-panel data from Wisconsin to estimate parcel-level subdivision probabilities and density expectations, controlling for the endogenous location of open space. Second, we use these subdivision probabilities and density expectations in a landscape simulation model. Our simulation results indicate that 57% of conserved open space created between 1978 and 2009 generated close to zero net change in local development. This suggests that conserved open space mostly reallocated development in a small neighborhood (in a half-mile radius) rather than altering the total amount of development. We explore the landscape conditions that may lead to conservation having either a positive or negative effect on local development.     

The role of agri‐environment schemes in conservation and environmental management

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri‐environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta‐analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta‐analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri‐environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost‐effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.     

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.