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.     

Evaluating Private Land Conservation in the Cape Lowlands,South Africa

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

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

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

Improving effectiveness of systematic conservation planning with density data

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

Economic costs of achieving current conservation goals in the future as climate changes

Conservation of biologically diverse regions has thus far been accomplished largely through the establishment and maintenance of protected areas. Climate change is expected to shift climate space of many species outside existing reserve boundaries. We used climate-envelope models to examine shifts in climate space of 11 species that are representative of the Mount Hamilton Project area (MHPA) (California, U.S.A.), which includes areas within Alameda, Santa Clara, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, and San Benito counties and is in the state's Central Coast ecoregion. We used Marxan site-selection software to determine the minimum area required as climate changes to achieve a baseline conservation goal equal to 80% of existing climate space for all species in the MHPA through 2050 and 2100. Additionally, we assessed the costs associated with use of existing conservation strategies (land acquisition and management actions such as species translocation, monitoring, and captive breeding) necessary to meet current species-conservation goals as climate changes. Meeting conservation goals as climate changes through 2050 required an additional 256,000 ha (332%) of protected area, primarily to the south and west of the MHPA. Through 2050 the total cost of land acquisition and management was estimated at US$1.67-1.79 billion, or 139-149% of the cost of achieving the same conservation goals with no climate change. To maintain 80% of climate space through 2100 required nearly 380,000 additional hectares that would cost $2.46-2.62 billion, or 209-219% of the cost of achieving the same conservation goals with no climate change. Furthermore, maintaining 80% of existing climate space within California for 27% of the focal species was not possible by 2100 because climate space for these species did not exist in the state. The high costs of conserving species as the climate changes-that we found in an assessment of one conservation project-highlights the need for tools that will aid in iterative goal setting given the uncertainty of the effects of climate change and adaptive management that includes new conservation strategies and consideration of the long-term economic costs of conservation.     

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

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

Using abiotic variables to predict importance of sites for species representation

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

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     

Effects of national forest‐management regimes on unprotected forests of the Himalaya

Globally, deforestation continues, and although protected areas effectively protect forests, the majority of forests are not in protected areas. Thus, how effective are different management regimes to avoid deforestation in non‐protected forests? We sought to assess the effectiveness of different national forest‐management regimes to safeguard forests outside protected areas. We compared 2000–2014 deforestation rates across the temperate forests of 5 countries in the Himalaya (Bhutan, Nepal, China, India, and Myanmar) of which 13% are protected. We reviewed the literature to characterize forest management regimes in each country and conducted a quasi‐experimental analysis to measure differences in deforestation of unprotected forests among countries and states in India. Countries varied in both overarching forest‐management goals and specific tenure arrangements and policies for unprotected forests, from policies emphasizing economic development to those focused on forest conservation. Deforestation rates differed up to 1.4% between countries, even after accounting for local determinants of deforestation, such as human population density, market access, and topography. The highest deforestation rates were associated with forest policies aimed at maximizing profits and unstable tenure regimes. Deforestation in national forest‐management regimes that emphasized conservation and community management were relatively low. In India results were consistent with the national‐level results. We interpreted our results in the context of the broader literature on decentralized, community‐based natural resource management, and our findings emphasize that the type and quality of community‐based forestry programs and the degree to which they are oriented toward sustainable use rather than economic development are important for forest protection. Our cross‐national results are consistent with results from site‐ and regional‐scale studies that show forest‐management regimes that ensure stable land tenure and integrate local‐livelihood benefits with forest conservation result in the best forest outcomes.     

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.     

Scale dependency in effectiveness,isolation, and social‐ecological spillover of protected areas

Protected areas are considered vital for the conservation of biodiversity. Given their central role in many conservation strategies, it is important to know whether they adequately protect biodiversity within their boundaries; whether they are becoming more isolated from other natural areas over time; and whether they play a role in facilitating or reducing land‐cover change in their surroundings. We used matching methods and national and local analyses of land‐cover change to evaluate the combined effectiveness (i.e., avoided natural‐cover loss), isolation (i.e., changes in adjacent areas), and spillover effects (i.e., impacts on adjacent areas) of 19 national parks in South Africa from 2000 to 2009. All parks had either similar or lower rates of natural‐cover loss than matched control samples. On a national level, mean net loss of natural cover and mean net gain of cultivation cover decreased with distance from park boundary, but there was considerable variation in trends around individual parks, providing evidence for both increased isolation and buffering of protected areas. Fourteen parks had significant positive spillover and reduced natural‐cover loss in their surroundings, whereas five parks experienced elevated levels of natural‐cover loss. Conclusions about social‐ecological spillover effects from protected areas depended heavily on the measures of land‐cover change used and the scale at which the results were aggregated. Our findings emphasize the need for high‐resolution data when assessing spatially explicit phenomena such as land‐cover change and challenge the usefulness of large‐scale (coarse grain, broad extent) studies for understanding social‐ecological dynamics around protected areas.     

Conservation Planning with Multiple Organizations and Objectives

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

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.     

Defining the balance point between conservation and development

In the face of the current global ecological crisis and the threats it poses to human survival and security, the fundamental solution is to resolve the deep contradiction between conservation and economic development. We considered the 3 key and basic questions of why to protect, how much to protect, and where to protect natural areas. Human survival depends on functioning ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide. In this regard, conserving core biodiversity conservation priority areas (BCPAs) can provide maximum conservation benefit. The goals of protected area (PA) systems globally and nationally must be clearly defined so as to sustain the survival and development of people and to coordinate and balance other objectives with this goal at the center. There is an urgent need to study, calculate, and define the extent of the natural world to ensure the well-being of people. We call this area over which natural areas of land and sea extend across the world or a country nature proportion (N%). Especially, a minimum area that ensures human survival should be protected, and we suggest that this area should cover core BCPAs so that it can achieve the maximum conservation benefit. These recommendations could be applied at global or national levels. The Chinese government proposes “developing a protected-area system composed mainly of national parks,” and it has unified the administration of PAs into a central management authority. At this key time in the reform of the PA system, should this proposal be adopted, conservation will garner the greatest social consensus and support, and planning at the national level for BCPA coverage will be improved. We believe these recommendations are critical for China and other countries and extremely important for the world because they will pave the way toward a balance between nature conservation and human development as the projected human population reaches 10 billion by 2050.     

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.     

Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity

Abstract: In a time of increasing urbanization, the fundamental value of conserving urban biodiversity remains controversial. How much of a fixed budget should be spent on conservation in urban versus nonurban landscapes? The answer should depend on the goals that drive our conservation actions, yet proponents of urban conservation often fail to specify the motivation for protecting urban biodiversity. This is an important shortcoming on several fronts, including a missed opportunity to make a stronger appeal to those who believe conservation biology should focus exclusively on more natural, wilder landscapes. We argue that urban areas do offer an important venue for conservation biology, but that we must become better at choosing and articulating our goals. We explored seven possible motivations for urban biodiversity conservation: preserving local biodiversity, creating stepping stones to nonurban habitat, understanding and facilitating responses to environmental change, conducting environmental education, providing ecosystem services, fulfilling ethical responsibilities, and improving human well‐being. To attain all these goals, challenges must be faced that are common to the urban environment, such as localized pollution, disruption of ecosystem structure, and limited availability of land. There are, however, also challenges specific only to particular goals, meaning that different goals will require different approaches and actions. This highlights the importance of specifying the motivations behind urban biodiversity conservation. If the goals are unknown, progress cannot be assessed.     

Balancing making a difference with making a living in the conservation sector

Goals play important roles in people's lives because they focus attention, mobilize effort, and sustain motivation. Understanding conservationists’ satisfaction with goal progress may provide insights into real-world environmental trends and flag risks to their well-being and motivation. We asked 2694 conservationists working globally how satisfied they were with progress toward goals important to them. We then explored how this satisfaction varied among groups, including demographic and occupational. Finally, we looked at respondents' experiences associated with goal-progress satisfaction. Many (94.0%) indicated that making a meaningful contribution to conservation was an important goal for them, and over half were satisfied or very satisfied in this area (52.5%). However, respondents were generally dissatisfied with progress on collective conservation goals (e.g., stopping species loss). Some groups were more likely to report dissatisfaction than others. For instance, those in conservation for longer tended to be less satisfied with collective goal progress (log odds –0.21, 95% credibility interval [CI] –0.32 to –0.10), but practitioners reported greater satisfaction (log odds 0.38, 95% CI 0.15–0.60). Likewise, those who were more optimistic in life (log odds 0.24, 95% CI 0.17–0.32), male (log odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.10–0.41), and working in conservation practice (log odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.08–0.43) reported greater satisfaction with individual goal progress. Free-text responses suggested widespread dissatisfaction with livelihood goals, particularly related to job security and adequate compensation. Although contributing to conservation appeared to be a source of satisfaction, slow goal progress in other areas––particularly around making a living––looked to be a source of distress and demotivation. Employers, funders, professional societies, and others should consider ways to help those in the sector make a difference while making a satisfactory living by, for example, prioritizing conservationists′ well-being when allocating funding. This support could include avoiding exploitative practices, fostering supportive work environments, and celebrating positive outcomes.     

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.     

Global status of and prospects for protection of terrestrial geophysical diversity

Conservation of representative facets of geophysical diversity may help conserve biological diversity as the climate changes. We conducted a global classification of terrestrial geophysical diversity and analyzed how land protection varies across geophysical diversity types. Geophysical diversity was classified in terms of soil type, elevation, and biogeographic realm and then compared to the global distribution of protected areas in 2012. We found that 300 (45%) of 672 broad geophysical diversity types currently meet the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Target 11 of 17% terrestrial areal protection, which suggested that efforts to implement geophysical diversity conservation have a substantive basis on which to build. However, current protected areas were heavily biased toward high elevation and low fertility soils. We assessed 3 scenarios of protected area expansion and found that protection focused on threatened species, if fully implemented, would also protect an additional 29% of geophysical diversity types, ecoregional‐focused protection would protect an additional 24%, and a combined scenario would protect an additional 42%. Future efforts need to specifically target low‐elevation sites with productive soils for protection and manage for connectivity among geophysical diversity types. These efforts may be hampered by the sheer number of geophysical diversity facets that the world contains, which makes clear target setting and prioritization an important next step.     

Factors influencing property selection for conservation revolving funds

Finding sustainable ways to increase the amount of private land protected for biodiversity is challenging for many conservation organizations. In some countries, organizations use revolving‐fund programs, whereby land is purchased and then sold to conservation‐minded owners under condition they enter into a conservation covenant or easement. The sale proceeds are used to purchase, protect, and sell additional properties, incrementally increasing the amount of protected private land. Because the effectiveness of this approach relies on selecting appropriate properties, we explored factors currently considered by practitioners and how these are integrated into decision making. We conducted exploratory, semistructured interviews with managers from each of the 5 major revolving funds in Australia. Responses indicated although conservation factors are important, financial and social factors are also highly influential. A major determinant was whether the property could be resold within a reasonable period at a price that replenishes the fund. To facilitate resale, often selected properties include the potential for the construction of a dwelling. Practitioners face with clear trade‐offs between conservation, financial, amenity, and other factors in selecting properties and 3 main challenges: recovering the costs of acquisition, protection, and resale; reselling the property; and meeting conservation goals. Our findings suggest the complexity of these decisions may constrain revolving‐fund effectiveness. Drawing from participant responses, we identified potential strategies to mitigate these risks, such as providing adequate recreational space without jeopardizing ecological assets. We suggest managers could benefit from a shared‐learning and adaptive approach to property selection given the commonalities between programs. Understanding how practitioners deal with complex decisions in the implementation of revolving funds helps identify future research to improve the performance of this conservation tool.