Rewilding in the face of climate change

Expansion of the global protected-area network has been proposed as a strategy to address threats from accelerating climate change and species extinction. A key step in increasing the effectiveness of such expansion is understanding how novel threats to biodiversity from climate change alter concepts such as rewilding, which have underpinned many proposals for large interconnected reserves. We reviewed potential challenges that climate change poses to rewilding and found that the conservation value of large protected areas persists under climate change. Nevertheless, more attention should be given to protection of microrefugia, macrorefugia, complete environmental gradients, and areas that connect current and future suitable climates and to maintaining ecosystem processes and stabilizing feedbacks via conservation strategies that are resilient to uncertainty regarding climate trends. Because a major element of the threat from climate change stems from its novel geographic patterns, we examined, as an example, the implications for climate-adaptation planning of latitudinal, longitudinal (continental to maritime), and elevational gradients in climate-change exposure across the Yellowstone-to-Yukon region, the locus of an iconic conservation proposal initially designed to conserve wide-ranging carnivore species. In addition to a continued emphasis on conserving intact landscapes, restoration of degraded low-elevation areas within the region is needed to capture sites important for landscape-level climate resilience. Extreme climate exposure projected for boreal North America suggests the need for ambitious goals for expansion of the protected-area network there to include refugia created by topography and ecological features, such as peatlands, whose conservation can also reduce emissions from carbon stored in soil. Qualitative understanding of underlying reserve design rules and the geography of climate-change exposure can strengthen the outcomes of inclusive regional planning processes that identify specific sites for protection.     

Matching the Multiple Scales of Conservation with the Multiple Scales of Climate Change

Abstract:  To anticipate the rapidly changing world resulting from global climate change, the projections of climate models must be incorporated into conservation. This requires that the scales of conservation be aligned with the scales of climate-change projections. We considered how conservation has incorporated spatial scale into protecting biodiversity, how the projections of climate-change models vary with scale, and how the two do or do not align. Conservation planners use information about past and current ecological conditions at multiple scales to identify conservation targets and threats and guide conservation actions. Projections of climate change are also made at multiple scales, from global and regional circulation models to projections downscaled to local scales. These downscaled projections carry with them the uncertainties associated with the broad-scale models from which they are derived; thus, their high resolution may be more apparent than real. Conservation at regional or global scales is about establishing priorities and influencing policy. At these scales, the coarseness and uncertainties of global and regional climate models may be less important than what they reveal about possible futures. At the ecoregional scale, the uncertainties associated with downscaling climate models become more critical because the distributions of conservation targets on which plans are founded may shift under future climates. At a local scale, variations in topography and land cover influence local climate, often overriding the projections of broad-scale climate models and increasing uncertainty. Despite the uncertainties, ecologists and conservationists must work with climate-change modelers to focus on the most likely projections. The future will be different from the past and full of surprises; judicious use of model projections at appropriate scales may help us prepare.     

Incorporating geodiversity into conservation decisions

In a rapidly changing climate, conservation practitioners could better use geodiversity in a broad range of conservation decisions. We explored selected avenues through which this integration might improve decision making and organized them within the adaptive management cycle of assessment, planning, implementation, and monitoring. Geodiversity is seldom referenced in predominant environmental law and policy. With most natural resource agencies mandated to conserve certain categories of species, agency personnel are challenged to find ways to practically implement new directives aimed at coping with climate change while retaining their species‐centered mandate. Ecoregions and ecological classifications provide clear mechanisms to consider geodiversity in plans or decisions, the inclusion of which will help foster the resilience of conservation to climate change. Methods for biodiversity assessment, such as gap analysis, climate change vulnerability analysis, and ecological process modeling, can readily accommodate inclusion of a geophysical component. We adapted others’ approaches for characterizing landscapes along a continuum of climate change vulnerability for the biota they support from resistant, to resilient, to susceptible, and to sensitive and then summarized options for integrating geodiversity into planning in each landscape type. In landscapes that are relatively resistant to climate change, options exist to fully represent geodiversity while ensuring that dynamic ecological processes can change over time. In more susceptible landscapes, strategies aiming to maintain or restore ecosystem resilience and connectivity are paramount. Implementing actions on the ground requires understanding of geophysical constraints on species and an increasingly nimble approach to establishing management and restoration goals. Because decisions that are implemented today will be revisited and amended into the future, increasingly sophisticated forms of monitoring and adaptation will be required to ensure that conservation efforts fully consider the value of geodiversity for supporting biodiversity in the face of a changing climate.     

Fine‐resolution conservation planning with limited climate‐change information

Climate‐change induced uncertainties in future spatial patterns of conservation‐related outcomes make it difficult to implement standard conservation‐planning paradigms. A recent study translates Markowitz's risk‐diversification strategy from finance to conservation settings, enabling conservation agents to use this diversification strategy for allocating conservation and restoration investments across space to minimize the risk associated with such uncertainty. However, this method is information intensive and requires a large number of forecasts of ecological outcomes associated with possible climate‐change scenarios for carrying out fine‐resolution conservation planning. We developed a technique for iterative, spatial portfolio analysis that can be used to allocate scarce conservation resources across a desired level of subregions in a planning landscape in the absence of a sufficient number of ecological forecasts. We applied our technique to the Prairie Pothole Region in central North America. A lack of sufficient future climate information prevented attainment of the most efficient risk‐return conservation outcomes in the Prairie Pothole Region. The difference in expected conservation returns between conservation planning with limited climate‐change information and full climate‐change information was as large as 30% for the Prairie Pothole Region even when the most efficient iterative approach was used. However, our iterative approach allowed finer resolution portfolio allocation with limited climate‐change forecasts such that the best possible risk‐return combinations were obtained. With our most efficient iterative approach, the expected loss in conservation outcomes owing to limited climate‐change information could be reduced by 17% relative to other iterative approaches.     

Capacity of Management Plans for Aquatic Invasive Species to Integrate Climate Change

Abstract:  The consequences of climate change will affect aquatic ecosystems, including aquatic invasive species (AIS) that are already affecting these ecosystems. Effects on AIS include range shifts and more frequent overwintering of species. These effects may create new challenges for AIS management. We examined available U.S. state AIS management plans to assess each program's capacity to adapt to climate-change effects. We scored the adaptive capacity of AIS management plans on the basis of whether they addressed potential impacts resulting from climate change; demonstrated a capacity to adapt to changing conditions; provided for monitoring strategies; provided for plan revisions; and described funding for implementation. Most plans did not mention climate change specifically, but some did acknowledge climatic boundaries of species and ecosystem sensitivities to changing conditions. Just under half the plans mentioned changing environmental conditions as a factor, most frequently as part of research activities. Activities associated with monitoring showed the highest capacity to include information on changing conditions, and future revisions to management plans are likely to be the easiest avenue through which to address climate-change effects on AIS management activities. Our results show that programs have the capacity to incorporate information about climate-change effects and that the adaptive-management framework may be an appropriate approach.     

Current Practices and Future Opportunities for Policy on Climate Change and Invasive Species

Abstract:  Climate change and invasive species are often treated as important, but independent, issues. Nevertheless, they have strong connections: changes in climate and societal responses to climate change may exacerbate the impacts of invasive species, whereas invasive species may affect the magnitude, rate, and impact of climate change. We argue that the design and implementation of climate-change policy in the United States should specifically consider the implications for invasive species; conversely, invasive-species policy should address consequences for climate change. The development of such policies should be based on (1) characterization of interactions between invasive species and climate change, (2) identification of areas where climate-change policies could negatively affect invasive-species management, and (3) identification of areas where policies could benefit from synergies between climate change and invasive-species management.     

An economic evaluation framework for land-use-based conservation policy instruments in a changing climate

Climate change is a key threat to biodiversity. To conserve species under climate change, ecologists and conservation scientists suggest 2 main conservation strategies regarding land use: supporting species’ range shifts to enable it to follow its climatic requirements by creating migration pathways, such as corridors and stepping stones, and conserving climate refugia (i.e., existing habitat areas that are somewhat buffered from climate change). The policy instruments that could be used to implement these conservation strategies have yet to be evaluated comprehensively from an economic perspective. The economic analyses of environmental policy instruments are often based on ecological effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria. We adapted these general criteria to evaluate policy instruments for species’ conservation under climate change and applied them to a conceptual analysis of land purchases, offsets, and conservation payments. Depending on whether the strategy supporting species’ range shifts or conserving climate refugia is selected, the evaluation of the policy instruments differed substantially. For example, to ensure ecological effectiveness, habitat persistence over time was especially important for climate refugia and was best achieved by a land-purchase policy instrument. In contrast, for the strategy supporting range shifts to be ecologically effective, a high degree of flexibility in the location of conserved sites was required to ensure that new habitat sites can be created in the species’ new range. Offset programs were best suited for that because the location of conservation sites can be chosen comparatively freely and may also be adapted over time.     

Planning for Climate Change: Identifying Minimum-Dispersal Corridors for the Cape Proteaceae

Abstract:  Climate change poses a challenge to the conventional approach to biodiversity conservation, which relies on fixed protected areas, because the changing climate is expected to shift the distribution of suitable areas for many species. Some species will persist only if they can colonize new areas, although in some cases their dispersal abilities may be very limited. To address this problem we devised a quantitative method for identifying multiple corridors of connectivity through shifting habitat suitabilities that seeks to minimize dispersal demands first and then the area of land required. We applied the method to Proteaceae mapped on a 1-minute grid for the western part of the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, to supplement the existing protected areas, using Worldmap software. Our goal was to represent each species in at least 35 grid cells (approximately 100 km²) at all times between 2000 and 2050 despite climate change. Although it was possible to achieve the goal at reasonable cost, caution will be needed in applying our method to reserves or other conservation investments until there is further information to support or refine the climate-change models and the species' habitat-suitability and dispersal models.     

Monitoring and Evaluation in Conservation: a Review of Trends and Approaches

Abstract:  There is growing recognition among conservation practitioners and scholars that good project management is integrally linked to well-designed monitoring and evaluation systems. Most conservation organizations have attempted to develop and implement monitoring and evaluation systems, often with mixed results. One problem seems to be that organizations are trying to build their systems from scratch, overlooking lessons learned from the many efforts to develop useful and practical monitoring and evaluation approaches. Thus, we undertook a review of monitoring and evaluation approaches in conservation and other fields including international development, public health, family planning, education, social services, and business. Here, we present our results for the field of conservation. We categorized the considerable variety of monitoring and evaluation approaches into four broad purposes: basic research; accounting and certification; status assessment; and effectiveness measurement. We focus here on status assessment and effectiveness measurement. Specific lessons that emerged follow: different monitoring and evaluation needs require different approaches; conceptual similarities are widespread among prevailing approaches; inconsistent language impedes communication; confusion among monitoring and evaluation components hinders practitioner ability to choose the appropriate component; and monitoring only quantitative biological variables is insufficient. We suggest that the conservation community continue support of collaborative initiatives to improve monitoring and evaluation, establish clear definitions of commonly used terms, clarify monitoring and evaluation system components, apply available approaches appropriately, and include qualitative and social variables in monitoring efforts.     

Transforming conservation science and practice for a postnormal world

We examine issues to consider when reframing conservation science and practice in the context of global change. New framings of the links between ecosystems and society are emerging that are changing peoples’ values and expectations of nature, resulting in plural perspectives on conservation. Reframing conservation for global change can thus be regarded as a stage in the evolving relationship between people and nature rather than some recent trend. New models of how conservation links with transformative adaptation include how decision contexts for conservation can be reframed and integrated with an adaptation pathways approach to create new options for global‐change‐ready conservation. New relationships for conservation science and governance include coproduction of knowledge that supports social learning. New processes for implementing adaptation for conservation outcomes include deliberate practices used to develop new strategies, shift world views, work with conflict, address power and intergenerational equity in decisions, and build consciousness and creativity that empower agents to act. We argue that reframing conservation for global change requires scientists and practitioners to implement approaches unconstrained by discipline and sectoral boundaries, geopolitical polarities, or technical problematization. We consider a stronger focus on inclusive creation of knowledge and the interaction of this knowledge with societal values and rules is likely to result in conservation science and practice that meets the challenges of a postnormal world.     

Current Practice and Future Prospects for Social Data in Coastal and Ocean Planning

Coastal and ocean planning comprises a broad field of practice. The goals, political processes, and approaches applied to planning initiatives may vary widely. However, all planning processes ultimately require adequate information on both the biophysical and social attributes of a planning region. In coastal and ocean planning practice, there are well‐established methods to assess biophysical attributes; however, less is understood about the role and assessment of social data. We conducted the first global assessment of the incorporation of social data in coastal and ocean planning. We drew on a comprehensive review of planning initiatives and a survey of coastal and ocean practitioners. There was significantly more incorporation of social data in multiuse versus conservation‐oriented planning. Practitioners engaged a wide range of social data, including governance, economic, and cultural attributes of planning regions and human impacts data. Less attention was given to ecosystem services and social–ecological linkages, both of which could improve coastal and ocean planning practice. Although practitioners recognize the value of social data, little funding is devoted to its collection and incorporation in plans. Increased capacity and sophistication in acquiring critical social and ecological data for planning is necessary to develop plans for more resilient coastal and ocean ecosystems and communities. We suggest that improving social data monitoring, and in particular spatial social data, to complement biophysical data, is necessary for providing holistic information for decision‐support tools and other methods. Moving beyond people as impacts to people as beneficiaries, through ecosystem services assessments, holds much potential to better incorporate the tenets of ecosystem‐based management into coastal and ocean planning by providing targets for linked biodiversity conservation and human welfare outcomes. La Práctica Actual y los Prospectos Futuros para los Datos Sociales en la Planeación Costera y Oceánica     

Conservation and Adaptation to Climate Change

Abstract: The need to adapt to climate change has become increasingly apparent, and many believe the practice of biodiversity conservation will need to alter to face this challenge. Conservation organizations are eager to determine how they should adapt their practices to climate change. This involves asking the fundamental question of what adaptation to climate change means. Most studies on climate change and conservation, if they consider adaptation at all, assume it is equivalent to the ability of species to adapt naturally to climate change as stated in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Adaptation, however, can refer to an array of activities that range from natural adaptation, at one end of the spectrum, to sustainability science in coupled human and natural systems at the other. Most conservation organizations deal with complex systems in which adaptation to climate change involves making decisions on priorities for biodiversity conservation in the face of dynamic risks and involving the public in these decisions. Discursive methods such as analytic deliberation are useful for integrating scientific knowledge with public perceptions and values, particularly when large uncertainties and risks are involved. The use of scenarios in conservation planning is a useful way to build shared understanding at the science–policy interface. Similarly, boundary organizations—organizations or institutions that bridge different scales or mediate the relationship between science and policy—could prove useful for managing the transdisciplinary nature of adaptation to climate change, providing communication and brokerage services and helping to build adaptive capacity. The fact that some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are active across the areas of science, policy, and practice makes them well placed to fulfill this role in integrated assessments of biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate change.     

Optimizing dispersal corridors for the Cape Proteaceae using network flow

We introduce a new way of measuring and optimizing connectivity in conservation landscapes through time, accounting for both the biological needs of multiple species and the social and financial constraint of minimizing land area requiring additional protection. Our method is based on the concept of network flow; we demonstrate its use by optimizing protected areas in the Western Cape of South Africa to facilitate autogenic species shifts in geographic range under climate change for a family of endemic plants, the Cape Proteaceae. In 2005, P. Williams and colleagues introduced a novel framework for this protected area design task. To ensure population viability, they assumed each species should have a range size of at least 100 km2 of predicted suitable conditions contained in protected areas at all times between 2000 and 2050. The goal was to design multiple dispersal corridors for each species, connecting suitable conditions between time periods, subject to each species' limited dispersal ability, and minimizing the total area requiring additional protection. We show that both minimum range size and limited dispersal abilities can be naturally modeled using the concept of network flow. This allows us to apply well-established tools from operations research and computer science for solving network flow problems. Using the same data and this novel modeling approach, we reduce the area requiring additional protection by a third compared to previous methods, from 4593 km2 to 3062 km , while still achieving the same conservation planning goals. We prove that this is the best solution mathematically possible: the given planning goals cannot be achieved with a smaller area, given our modeling assumptions and data. Our method allows for flexibility and refinement of the underlying climate-change, species-habitat-suitability, and dispersal models. In particular, we propose an alternate formalization of a minimum range size moving through time and use network flow to achieve the revised goals, again with the smallest possible newly protected area (2850 km2). We show how to relate total dispersal distance to probability of successful dispersal, and compute a trade-off curve between this quantity and the total amount of extra land that must be protected.     

Climate Change,Marine Environments,and the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Climate change is expected to be a top driver of global biodiversity loss in the 21st century. It poses new challenges to conserving and managing imperiled species, particularly in marine and estuarine ecosystems. The use of climate‐related science in statutorily driven species management, such as under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), is in its early stages. This article provides an overview of ESA processes, with emphasis on the mandate to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to manage listed marine, estuarine, and anadromous species. Although the ESA is specific to the United States, its requirements are broadly relevant to conservation planning. Under the ESA, species, subspecies, and “distinct population segments” may be listed as either endangered or threatened, and taking of most listed species (harassing, harming, pursuing, wounding, killing, or capturing) is prohibited unless specifically authorized via a case‐by‐case permit process. Government agencies, in addition to avoiding take, must ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or conduct are not likely to jeopardize a listed species’ continued existence or adversely affect designated critical habitat. Decisions for which climate change is likely to be a key factor include: determining whether a species should be listed under the ESA, designating critical habitat areas, developing species recovery plans, and predicting whether effects of proposed human activities will be compatible with ESA‐listed species’ survival and recovery. Scientific analyses that underlie these critical conservation decisions include risk assessment, long‐term recovery planning, defining environmental baselines, predicting distribution, and defining appropriate temporal and spatial scales. Although specific guidance is still evolving, it is clear that the unprecedented changes in global ecosystems brought about by climate change necessitate new information and approaches to conservation of imperiled species. El Cambio Climático, los Ecosistemas Marinos y el Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro     

Incorporating Climate Science in Applications of the U.S. Endangered Species Act for Aquatic Species

Aquatic species are threatened by climate change but have received comparatively less attention than terrestrial species. We gleaned key strategies for scientists and managers seeking to address climate change in aquatic conservation planning from the literature and existing knowledge. We address 3 categories of conservation effort that rely on scientific analysis and have particular application under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA): assessment of overall risk to a species; long‐term recovery planning; and evaluation of effects of specific actions or perturbations. Fewer data are available for aquatic species to support these analyses, and climate effects on aquatic systems are poorly characterized. Thus, we recommend scientists conducting analyses supporting ESA decisions develop a conceptual model that links climate, habitat, ecosystem, and species response to changing conditions and use this model to organize analyses and future research. We recommend that current climate conditions are not appropriate for projections used in ESA analyses and that long‐term projections of climate‐change effects provide temporal context as a species‐wide assessment provides spatial context. In these projections, climate change should not be discounted solely because the magnitude of projected change at a particular time is uncertain when directionality of climate change is clear. Identifying likely future habitat at the species scale will indicate key refuges and potential range shifts. However, the risks and benefits associated with errors in modeling future habitat are not equivalent. The ESA offers mechanisms for increasing the overall resilience and resistance of species to climate changes, including establishing recovery goals requiring increased genetic and phenotypic diversity, specifying critical habitat in areas not currently occupied but likely to become important, and using adaptive management. Incorporación de las Ciencias Climáticas en las Aplicaciones del Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro para Especies Acuáticas     

Effects of climate and land-cover change on the conservation status of gibbons

Species shift their distribution in response to climate and land-cover change, which may result in a spatial mismatch between currently protected areas (PAs) and priority conservation areas (PCAs). We examined the effects of climate and land-cover change on potential range of gibbons and sought to identify PCAs that would conserve them effectively. We collected global gibbon occurrence points and modeled (ecological niche model) their current and potential 2050s ranges under climate-change and different land-cover-change scenarios. We examined change in range and PA coverage between the current and future ranges of each gibbon species. We applied spatial conservation prioritization to identify the top 30% PCAs for each species. We then determined how much of the PCAs are conserved in each country within the global range of gibbons. On average, 31% (SD 22) of each species’ current range was covered in PAs. PA coverage of the current range of 9 species was <30%. Nine species lost on average 46% (SD 29) of their potential range due to climate change. Under climate-change with an optimistic land-cover-change scenario (B1), 12 species lost 39% (SD 28) of their range. In a pessimistic land-cover-change scenario (A2), 15 species lost 36% (SD 28) of their range. Five species lost significantly more range under the A2 scenario than the B1 scenario (p = 0.01, SD 0.01), suggesting that gibbons will benefit from effective management of land cover. PA coverage of future range was <30% for 11 species. On average, 32% (SD 25) of PCAs were covered by PAs. Indonesia contained more species and PCAs and thus has the greatest responsibility for gibbon conservation. Indonesia, India, and Myanmar need to expand their PAs to fulfill their responsibility to gibbon conservation. Our results provide a baseline for global gibbon conservation, particularly for countries lacking gibbon research capacity.     

A Blueprint for the Oceans: Implications of Two National Commission Reports for Conservation Practitioners

Abstract:  In the first comprehensive reviews since 1969, two high-level reports on the status of U.S. marine ecosystems and resources have been released: that of the nongovernmental Pew Oceans Commission in 2003 and that of the congressionally mandated U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in 2004 . Although the two commissions differed in the breadth and depth of their mandates, their findings on the state of our oceans and need for new management approaches are similar, and their major recommendations for science, governance, management and conservation, and education echo and reinforce each other. The history behind the two commissions and the structure and objectives of each remind us of the crucial roles conservation practitioners and scientists must play in the implementation of report recommendations. The reports suggest priorities for conservation practitioners to improve science, management, conservation, governance, and education to better manage and protect ocean resources and ecosystems. To redirect activities affecting the state of global marine resources, integrated research; education and outreach by terrestrial, aquatic, and marine conservation practitioners; and a clear definition of their roles in the implementation of recommendations is essential. Marine ecosystems provide a test case of society's ability to manage complexity in human and natural systems in an integrated manner, with extensive opportunities for participation by conservation practitioners from all disciplines.     

Toward a Management Framework for Networks of Protected Areas in the Face of Climate Change

Abstract: Networks of sites of high importance for conservation of biological diversity are a cornerstone of current conservation strategies but are fixed in space and time. As climate change progresses, substantial shifts in species’ ranges may transform the ecological community that can be supported at a given site. Thus, some species in an existing network may not be protected in the future or may be protected only if they can move to sites that in future provide suitable conditions. We developed an approach to determine appropriate climate‐change adaptation strategies for individual sites within a network that was based on projections of future changes in the relative proportions of emigrants (species for which a site becomes climatically unsuitable), colonists (species for which a site becomes climatically suitable), and persistent species (species able to remain within a site despite the climatic change). Our approach also identifies key regions where additions to a network could enhance its future effectiveness. Using the sub‐Saharan African Important Bird Area (IBA) network as a case study, we found that appropriate conservation strategies for individual sites varied widely across sub‐Saharan Africa, and key regions where new sites could help increase network robustness varied in space and time. Although these results highlight the potential difficulties within any planning framework that seeks to address climate‐change adaptation needs, they demonstrate that such planning frameworks are necessary, if current conservation strategies are to be adapted effectively, and feasible, if applied judiciously.