Judging adaptive management practices of U.S. agencies

All U.S. federal agencies administering environmental laws purport to practice adaptive management (AM), but little is known about how they actually implement this conservation tool. A gap between the theory and practice of AM is revealed in judicial decisions reviewing agency adaptive management plans. We analyzed all U.S. federal court opinions published through 1 January 2015 to identify the agency AM practices courts found most deficient. The shortcomings included lack of clear objectives and processes, monitoring thresholds, and defined actions triggered by thresholds. This trio of agency shortcuts around critical, iterative steps characterizes what we call AM‐lite. Passive AM differs from active AM in its relative lack of management interventions through experimental strategies. In contrast, AM‐lite is a distinctive form of passive AM that fails to provide for the iterative steps necessary to learn from management. Courts have developed a sophisticated understanding of AM and often offer instructive rather than merely critical opinions. The role of the judiciary is limited by agency discretion under U.S. administrative law. But courts have overturned some agency AM‐lite practices and insisted on more rigorous analyses to ensure that the promised benefits of structured learning and fine‐tuned management have a reasonable likelihood of occurring. Nonetheless, there remains a mismatch in U.S. administrative law between the flexibility demanded by adaptive management and the legal objectives of transparency, public participation, and finality.     

Scale Mismatches,Conservation Planning,and the Value of Social‐Network Analyses

Many of the challenges conservation professionals face can be framed as scale mismatches. The problem of scale mismatch occurs when the planning for and implementation of conservation actions is at a scale that does not reflect the scale of the conservation problem. The challenges in conservation planning related to scale mismatch include ecosystem or ecological process transcendence of governance boundaries; limited availability of fine‐resolution data; lack of operational capacity for implementation; lack of understanding of social‐ecological system components; threats to ecological diversity that operate at diverse spatial and temporal scales; mismatch between funding and the long‐term nature of ecological processes; rate of action implementation that does not reflect the rate of change of the ecological system; lack of appropriate indicators for monitoring activities; and occurrence of ecological change at scales smaller or larger than the scale of implementation or monitoring. Not recognizing and accounting for these challenges when planning for conservation can result in actions that do not address the multiscale nature of conservation problems and that do not achieve conservation objectives. Social networks link organizations and individuals across space and time and determine the scale of conservation actions; thus, an understanding of the social networks associated with conservation planning will help determine the potential for implementing conservation actions at the required scales. Social‐network analyses can be used to explore whether these networks constrain or enable key social processes and how multiple scales of action are linked. Results of network analyses can be used to mitigate scale mismatches in assessing, planning, implementing, and monitoring conservation projects. Discordancia de Escalas, Planificación de la Conservación y el Valor del Análisis de Redes Sociales     

Meeting report

SUMMARY

In many developing countries, the determination of a ranking of investments designed to improve and extend the road system is a commonplace prerequisite of planning for the transport sector as a whole and the road sub-sector within it. A major objective of determining investment priorities is to secure the greatest efficiency in the use of resources allocated to the sector and, for this reason, any system of assigning priorities must rely upon conventional investment appraisal techniques producing quantifiable measures of worth. Exercises of this kind, in which road investments are identified and ranked, are usually undertaken to produce a road sector investment plan. The implementation of such plans is, however, often compromised because of perceived deficiencies with a methodology which places undue reliance on investment appraisal and fails to properly address the issue of public interest and sustainability. This paper attempts to produce a pragmatic set of ground rules which, while mindful of the need to promote economic efficiency, allow for other factors to be embraced in a more holistic methodology.     

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     

Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting

A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well‐established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill‐defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations. Seis Errores Comunes en la Definición de Prioridades de Conservación     

Effectiveness of protected areas for vertebrates based on taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity

Establishing protected areas is the primary goal and tool for preventing irreversible biodiversity loss. However, the effectiveness of protected areas that target specific species has been questioned for some time because targeting key species for conservation may impair the integral regional pool of species diversity and phylogenetic and functional diversity are seldom considered. We assessed the efficacy of protected areas in China for the conservation of phylogenetic diversity based on the ranges and phylogenies of 2279 terrestrial vertebrates. Phylogenetic and taxonomic diversity were strongly and positively correlated, and only 12.1–43.8% of priority conservation areas are currently protected. However, the patterns and coverage of phylogenetic diversity were affected when weighted by species richness. These results indicated that in China, protected areas targeting high species richness protected phylogenetic diversity well overall but failed to do so in some regions with more unique or threatened communities (e.g., coastal areas of eastern China, where severely threatened avian communities were less protected). Our results suggest that the current distribution of protected areas could be improved, although most protected areas protect both taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity.     

危险废物多目标规划模型研究

根据危险废物系统管理的原则,采用全过程管理理念,运用最优化理论和系统分析方法,充分考虑各种因素,建立了危险废物多目标规划模型,并提出模型的求解方法。考虑废物间的相容性和复合效用函数,将所建立的危险废物多目标规划模型应用于重庆市主城区危险废物系统管理规划。结果表明,在设计的案例和场景下,分别以环境影响、经济因素、综合考虑环境因素和经济因素为首要因素考虑时,得到不同的优化方案。该模型的应用为环境管理者对危险废物系统管理提供了决策支持。     

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.     

常宁庙前自然风景区景观规划与设计

庙前自然风景区是常宁市天堂山旅游风景区的四大景区之一,它以自然地貌的溶洞、溶岩、峰谷、石林为景观特色,本文就充分利用这些奇特的自然景观资源进行了详细规划,并提出了切实可行的建议。