Conservation Development Practices,Extent, and Land‐Use Effects in the United States

Abstract: Conservation development projects combine real‐estate development with conservation of land and other natural resources. Thousands of such projects have been conducted in the United States and other countries through the involvement of private developers, landowners, land trusts, and government agencies. Previous research has demonstrated the potential value of conservation development for conserving species, ecological functions, and other resource values on private lands, especially when traditional sources of conservation funding are not available. Nevertheless, the aggregate extent and effects of conservation development were previously unknown. To address this gap, we estimated the extent and trends of conservation development in the United States and characterized its key attributes to understand its aggregate contribution to land‐conservation and growth‐management objectives. We interviewed representatives from land trusts, planning agencies, and development companies, searched the Internet for conservation development projects and programs, and compiled existing databases of conservation development projects. We collected data on 3884 projects encompassing 1.38 million ha. About 43% of the projects targeted the conservation of specific plant or animal species or ecological communities of conservation concern; 84% targeted the protection of native ecosystems representative of the project area; and 42% provided buffers to existing protected areas. The percentage of protected land in conservation development projects ranged from <40% to >99%, and the effects of these projects on natural resources differed widely. We estimate that conservation development projects have protected roughly 4 million ha of land in the United States and account for about 25% of private‐land conservation activity nationwide.     

The Power of Bioenergy‐Related Standards to Protect Biodiversity

Abstract: The sustainable production of bioenergy is vital to avoiding negative impacts on environmental goods such as climate, soil, water, and especially biodiversity. We propose three key issues that should be addressed in any biodiversity risk‐mitigation strategy: conservation of areas of significant biodiversity value; mitigation of negative effects related to indirect land‐use change; and promotion of agricultural practices with few negative impacts on biodiversity. Focusing on biodiversity concerns, we compared principles and criteria set to address biodiversity and other environmental and social issues in seven standards (defined here as commodity‐based standards or roundtables, or relevant European legislation): five voluntary initiatives related to bioenergy feedstocks, the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (United Kingdom), and the European Renewable Energy Source Directive. Conservation of areas of significant biodiversity value was fairly well covered by these standards. Nevertheless, mitigation of negative impacts related to indirect land‐use change was underrepresented. Although the EU directive, with its bonus system for the use of degraded land and a subquota system for noncrop biofuels, offered the most robust standards to mitigate potential negative effects, all of the standards fell short in promoting agricultural practices with low negative impacts on biodiversity. We strongly recommend that each standard be benchmarked against related standards, as we have done here, and that efforts should be made to strengthen the elements that are weak or missing. This would be a significant step toward achieving a bioenergy industry that safeguards Earth's living heritage.     

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.     

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.     

Ecological Efficiency of Voluntary Conservation of Boreal-Forest Biodiversity

Abstract: Current networks of protected areas are biased in many countries toward landscapes of low productivity. Voluntary conservation incentives have been suggested as a socially acceptable way to supplement existing networks with more productive, privately owned areas of high priority for nature conservation. The limited resources committed to nature conservation demand cost‐efficiency. Efficiency, however, depends not only on costs incurred to society from alternative ways of maintaining biodiversity but also on ecological values that can be captured. We examined the ecological efficiency of the new market‐based voluntary program to preserve forest habitats on private land in southwestern Finland. We compared sites that have become protected (10‐year contracts) in the program with managed forests, with sites that have been negotiated for protection for which no contract has been signed, and with the most ecologically valuable privately owned sites in the region that have not been offered for protection by forest owners. We surveyed sites for the amount of dead wood, wood‐decomposing fungi, and epiphytic lichens to evaluate their ecological quality. Contracted sites had more features important for overall biodiversity than managed forests and negotiated sites with no contract. These results indicate that procedures used during site selection and negotiations were appropriate and not opportunistic. The contracted sites were also as valuable in ecological terms as the best, still‐unprotected, privately owned forests in the region that have not been offered for protection. We conclude that voluntary conservation programs have the potential to yield ecologically valuable sites for protection if the site‐selection procedures are appropriate. Reliance on completely voluntary programs, however, may entail uncertainties and inadequacies, for example, in terms of spatial configuration and persistence of the ecological values. Thus, such programs may often need to be supplemented with alternative methods such as land purchase to achieve an ecologically effective network of protected sites.     

Addressing transboundary conservation challenges through marine spatial prioritization

The Adriatic and Ionian Region is an important area for both strategic maritime development and biodiversity conservation in the European Union (EU). However, given that both EU and non‐EU countries border the sea, multiple legal and regulatory frameworks operate at different scales, which can hinder the coordinated long‐term sustainable development of the region. Transboundary marine spatial planning can help overcome these challenges by building consensus on planning objectives and making the trade‐offs between biodiversity conservation and its influence on economically important sectors more explicit. We address this challenge by developing and testing 4 spatial prioritization strategies with the decision‐support tool Marxan, which meets targets for biodiversity conservation while minimizing impacts to users. We evaluated these strategies in terms of how priority areas shift under different scales of target setting (e.g., regional vs. country level). We also examined the trade‐off between cost‐efficiency and how equally solutions represent countries and maritime industries (n = 14) operating in the region with the protection‐equality metric. We found negligible differences in where priority conservation areas were located when we set targets for biodiversity at the regional versus country scale. Conversely, the prospective impacts on industries, when considered as costs to be minimized, were highly divergent across scenarios and biased the placement of protection toward industries located in isolation or where there were few other industries. We recommend underpinning future marine spatial planning efforts in the region through identification of areas of national significance, transboundary areas requiring cooperation between countries, and areas where impacts on maritime industries require careful consideration of the trade‐off between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic objectives.     

How economics can further the success of ecological restoration

Restoration scientists and practitioners have recently begun to include economic and social aspects in the design and investment decisions for restoration projects. With few exceptions, ecological restoration studies that include economics focus solely on evaluating costs of restoration projects. However, economic principles, tools, and instruments can be applied to a range of other factors that affect project success. We considered the relevance of applying economics to address 4 key challenges of ecological restoration: assessing social and economic benefits, estimating overall costs, project prioritization and selection, and long‐term financing of restoration programs. We found it is uncommon to consider all types of benefits (such as nonmarket values) and costs (such as transaction costs) in restoration programs. Total benefit of a restoration project can be estimated using market prices and various nonmarket valuation techniques. Total cost of a project can be estimated using methods based on property or land‐sale prices, such as hedonic pricing method and organizational surveys. Securing continuous (or long‐term) funding is also vital to accomplishing restoration goals and can be achieved by establishing synergy with existing programs, public–private partnerships, and financing through taxation.     

Adaptive social impact management for conservation and environmental management

Concerns about the social consequences of conservation have spurred increased attention the monitoring and evaluation of the social impacts of conservation projects. This has resulted in a growing body of research that demonstrates how conservation can produce both positive and negative social, economic, cultural, health, and governance consequences for local communities. Yet, the results of social monitoring efforts are seldom applied to adaptively manage conservation projects. Greater attention is needed to incorporating the results of social impact assessments in long‐term conservation management to minimize negative social consequences and maximize social benefits. We bring together insights from social impact assessment, adaptive management, social learning, knowledge coproduction, cross‐scale governance, and environmental planning to propose a definition and framework for adaptive social impact management (ASIM). We define ASIM as the cyclical process of monitoring and adaptively managing social impacts over the life‐span of an initiative through the 4 stages of profiling, learning, planning, and implementing. We outline 14 steps associated with the 4 stages of the ASIM cycle and provide guidance and potential methods for social‐indicator development, predictive assessments of social impacts, monitoring and evaluation, communication of results, and identification and prioritization of management responses. Successful ASIM will be aided by engaging with best practices – including local engagement and collaboration in the process, transparent communication of results to stakeholders, collective deliberation on and choice of interventions, documentation of shared learning at the site level, and the scaling up of insights to inform higher‐level conservation policies‐to increase accountability, trust, and perceived legitimacy among stakeholders. The ASIM process is broadly applicable to conservation, environmental management, and development initiatives at various scales and in different contexts.     

Striking a Balance between Biodiversity Conservation and Socioeconomic Viability in the Design of Marine Protected Areas

Abstract: The establishment of marine protected areas is often viewed as a conflict between conservation and fishing. We considered consumptive and nonconsumptive interests of multiple stakeholders (i.e., fishers, scuba divers, conservationists, managers, scientists) in the systematic design of a network of marine protected areas along California's central coast in the context of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. With advice from managers, administrators, and scientists, a representative group of stakeholders defined biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic goals that accommodated social needs and conserved marine ecosystems, consistent with legal requirements. To satisfy biodiversity goals, we targeted 11 marine habitats across 5 depth zones, areas of high species diversity, and areas containing species of special status. We minimized adverse socioeconomic impacts by minimizing negative effects on fishers. We included fine‐scale fishing data from the recreational and commercial fishing sectors across 24 fisheries. Protected areas designed with consideration of commercial and recreational fisheries reduced potential impact to the fisheries approximately 21% more than protected areas designed without consideration of fishing effort and resulted in a small increase in the total area protected (approximately 3.4%). We incorporated confidential fishing data without revealing the identity of specific fisheries or individual fishing grounds. We sited a portion of the protected areas near land parks, marine laboratories, and scientific monitoring sites to address nonconsumptive socioeconomic goals. Our results show that a stakeholder‐driven design process can use systematic conservation‐planning methods to successfully produce options for network design that satisfy multiple conservation and socioeconomic objectives. Marine protected areas that incorporate multiple stakeholder interests without compromising biodiversity conservation goals are more likely to protect marine ecosystems.     

Linking Management Effectiveness Indicators to Observed Effects of Protected Areas on Fire Occurrence in the Amazon Rainforest

Management‐effectiveness scores are used widely by donors and implementers of conservation projects to prioritize, track, and evaluate investments in protected areas. However, there is little evidence that these scores actually reflect the capacity of protected areas to deliver conservation outcomes. We examined the relation between indicators of management effectiveness in protected areas and the effectiveness of protected areas in reducing fire occurrence in the Amazon rainforest. We used data collected with the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) scorecard, adopted by some of the world's largest conservation organizations to track management characteristics believed to be crucial for protected‐area effectiveness. We used the occurrence of forest fires from 2000 through 2010 as a measure of the effect of protected areas on undesired land‐cover change in the Amazon basin. We used matching to compare the estimated effect of protected areas with low versus high METT scores on fire occurrence. We also estimated effects of individual protected areas on fire occurrence and explored the relation between these effects and METT scores. The relations between METT scores and effects of protected areas on fire occurrence were weak. Protected areas with higher METT scores in 2005 did not seem to have performed better than protected areas with lower METT scores at reducing fire occurrence over the last 10 years. Further research into the relations between management‐effectiveness indicators and conservation outcomes in protected areas seems necessary, and our results show that the careful application of matching methods can be a suitable method for that purpose. Vinculación de Indicadores de Efectividad de Manejo con los Efectos Observados de la Ocurrencia de Fuego en Áreas Protegidas en la Amazonia     

Assessing the Ecological and Social Benefits of Private Land Conservation in Colorado

Abstract: Conservation of private land through conservation easements, development agreements, and clustered housing has increased greatly as have criticisms of the laws, public programs, and incentives that motivate landowners to use them. Rapid land‐use change at the urban–rural interface in Larimer County, Colorado, has given rise to programs that provide a variety of land‐conservation options for landowners. As of January 2005, roughly 60% of Larimer County was publicly owned, and 3% or 16,200 ha was privately owned with some form of protection. We used document analysis, a landowner survey, targeted interviews, and a landscape‐level spatial analysis to analyze the patterns, quantities, and qualities of private land conservation. We created a jurisdiction‐specific typology of desired benefits from local government‐planning documents to help evaluate conservation parcels. Most easements and other conservation documents used general terms and did not describe the site‐specific values of the land being conserved. Landowners were able to describe some benefits not included in parcel‐specific documents, and our spatial analysis revealed parcel‐specific and cumulative conservation benefits such as the amount of buffering, infill, connectivity, protected agricultural land, riparian protection, and other benefits not referenced by either documents or landowners. Conservation benefits provided by a parcel varied depending on its geographic location, the specific institution such as a land trust or open space program that a landowner worked with, and the conservation mechanism used, such as voluntary easement or residential clustering requirements. The methods we used provide a template for jurisdictions wishing to undertake a similar analysis. Our findings may assist other jurisdictions and institutions interested in improving how land‐conservation benefits are described; justify and inform future investments in private land conservation; assist local governments and other institutions with the assessment of program effectiveness; and be useful for conservation planners who wish to become more involved in on‐the‐ground implementation of conservation actions.     

Spatial,socio‐economic,and ecological implications of incorporating minimum size constraints in marine protected area network design

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are the cornerstone of most marine conservation strategies, but the effectiveness of each one partly depends on its size and distance to other MPAs in a network. Despite this, current recommendations on ideal MPA size and spacing vary widely, and data are lacking on how these constraints might influence the overall spatial characteristics, socio‐economic impacts, and connectivity of the resultant MPA networks. To address this problem, we tested the impact of applying different MPA size constraints in English waters. We used the Marxan spatial prioritization software to identify a network of MPAs that met conservation feature targets, whilst minimizing impacts on fisheries; modified the Marxan outputs with the MinPatch software to ensure each MPA met a minimum size; and used existing data on the dispersal distances of a range of species found in English waters to investigate the likely impacts of such spatial constraints on the region's biodiversity. Increasing MPA size had little effect on total network area or the location of priority areas, but as MPA size increased, fishing opportunity cost to stakeholders increased. In addition, as MPA size increased, the number of closely connected sets of MPAs in networks and the average distance between neighboring MPAs decreased, which consequently increased the proportion of the planning region that was isolated from all MPAs. These results suggest networks containing large MPAs would be more viable for the majority of the region's species that have small dispersal distances, but dispersal between MPA sets and spill‐over of individuals into unprotected areas would be reduced. These findings highlight the importance of testing the impact of applying different MPA size constraints because there are clear trade‐offs that result from the interaction of size, number, and distribution of MPAs in a network.     

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.     

Climate change and the cost of conserving species in Madagascar

We examined the cost of conserving species as climate changes. We used a Maxent species distribution model to predict the ranges from 2000 to 2080 of 74 plant species endemic to the forests of Madagascar under 3 climate scenarios. We set a conservation target of achieving 10,000 ha of forest cover for each species and calculated the cost of achieving this target under each scenario. We interviewed managers of projects to restore native forests and conducted a literature review to obtain the net present cost per hectare of management actions to maintain or establish forest cover. For each species, we added hectares of land from lowest to highest cost per additional year of forest cover until the conservation target was achieved throughout the time period. Climate change was predicted to reduce the size of species' ranges, the overlap between species' ranges and existing or planned protected areas, and the overlap between species' ranges and existing forest. As a result, climate change increased the cost of achieving the conservation target by necessitating successively more costly management actions: additional management within existing protected areas (US$0-60/ha); avoidance of forest degradation (i.e., loss of biomass) in community-managed areas ($160-576/ha); avoidance of deforestation in unprotected areas ($252-1069/ha); and establishment of forest on nonforested land within protected areas ($802-2710/ha), in community-managed areas ($962-3226/ha), and in unprotected areas ($1054-3719/ha). Our results suggest that although forest restoration may be required for the conservation of some species as climate changes, it is more cost-effective to maintain existing forest wherever possible.     

Efficacy of created and restored nesting sites for the conservation of colonial Laridae in the South of France

By rapidly modifying key habitat components, habitat restoration is at risk of producing attractive cues for animals without providing habitats of sufficient quality. As such, individual fitness components, such as reproduction, could be reduced and restored habitats could become ecological traps. This risk notably appears by using artificial constructions in restoration projects, yet few studies have evaluated their efficacy in a robust way. We investigated this by analyzing 154 islets that were created or restored to improve the conservation status of 7 colonial Laridae species in the South of France. From 2007 to 2016, we compared occupancy dynamics and breeding parameters of these species between the restored sites and 846 unmanaged nesting sites. We also explored species’ preference for different nesting site characteristics and their respective effect on breeding parameters. Restored nesting sites were 2–9 times as attractive as unmanaged sites for all species except the Black-headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus). Colonization probability was up to 100 times higher in sites already used by other species the previous year and increased with distance to the shore until >0.2 when distance was over 250 m. Abandonment probability was 29–70% lower when breeding was successful the previous year in all species except the Sandwich Tern (Thalasseus sandvicensis). Productivity and breeding success probability were 2 times higher on managed sites. Distance from the shore was an important attractive characteristic of artificial nesting sites in all species. Other nesting site characteristics had species-specific effects on colonization, abandonment, and breeding success. Our results indicate that managed nesting sites are successful conservation tools for colonial Laridae in the Mediterranean and do not act as ecological traps. Our study showed that testing the ecological trap hypothesis is a robust way to evaluate the success of restoration projects of breeding habitats.     

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.     

Conserving Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function through Limited Development: an Empirical Evaluation

Abstract:  Suburban, exurban, and rural development in the United States consumes nearly 1 million hectares of land per year and is a leading threat to biodiversity. In response to this threat, conservation development has been advanced as a way to combine land development and land conservation while providing functional protection for natural resources. Yet, although conservation development techniques have been in use for decades, there have been few critical evaluations of their conservation effectiveness. We addressed this deficiency by assessing the conservation outcomes of one type of conservation development project: conservation and limited development projects (CLDPs). Conducted by land trusts, landowners, and developers, CLDPs use revenue from limited development to finance the protection of land and natural resources. We compared a sample of 10 CLDPs from the eastern United States with their respective baseline scenarios (conventional development) and with a sample of conservation subdivisions—a different conservation development technique characterized by higher-density development. To measure conservation success, we created an evaluation method containing eight indicators that quantify project impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at the site and in the surrounding landscape. The CLDPs protected and managed threatened natural resources including rare species and ecological communities. In terms of conservation benefits, the CLDPs significantly outperformed their respective baseline scenarios and the conservation subdivisions. These results imply that CLDPs can offer a low-impact alternative to conventional development and a low-cost method for protecting land when conventional conservation techniques are too expensive. In addition, our evaluation method demonstrates how planners and developers can incorporate appropriate ecological considerations when designing, reviewing, and evaluating conservation development projects.     

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.     

A Multiscale Network Analysis of Protected‐Area Connectivity for Mammals in the United States

Abstract: Protected areas must be close, or connected, enough to allow for the preservation of large‐scale ecological and evolutionary processes, such as gene flow, migration, and range shifts in response to climate change. Nevertheless, it is unknown whether the network of protected areas in the United States is connected in a way that will preserve biodiversity over large temporal and spatial scales. It is also unclear whether protected‐area networks that function for larger species will function for smaller species. We assessed the connectivity of protected areas in the three largest biomes in the United States. With methods from graph theory—a branch of mathematics that deals with connectivity and flow—we identified and measured networks of protected areas for three different groups of mammals. We also examined the value of using umbrella species (typically large‐bodied, far‐ranging mammals) in designing large‐scale networks of protected areas. Although the total amount of protected land varied greatly among biomes in the United States, overall connectivity did not. In general, protected‐area networks were well connected for large mammals but not for smaller mammals. Additionally, it was not possible to predict connectivity for small mammals on the basis of connectivity for large mammals, which suggests the umbrella species approach may not be an appropriate design strategy for conservation networks intended to protect many species. Our findings indicate different strategies should be used to increase the likelihood of persistence for different groups of species. Strategic linkages of existing lands should be a conservation priority for smaller mammals, whereas conservation of larger mammals would benefit most from the protection of more land.