Building a Regionally Connected Reserve Network in a Changing and Uncertain World

Abstract: Habitat connectivity is required at large spatial scales to facilitate movement of biota in response to climatic changes and to maintain viable populations of wide‐ranging species. Nevertheless, it may require decades to acquire habitat linkages at such scales, and areas that could provide linkages are often developed before they can be reserved. Reserve scheduling methods usually consider only current threats, but threats change over time as development spreads and reaches presently secure areas. We investigated the importance of considering future threats when implementing projects to maintain habitat connectivity at a regional scale. To do so, we compared forward‐looking scheduling strategies with strategies that consider only current threats. The strategies were applied to a Costa Rican case study, where many reserves face imminent isolation and other reserves will probably become isolated in the more distant future. We evaluated strategies in terms of two landscape‐scale connectivity metrics, a pure connectivity metric and a metric of connected habitat diversity. Those strategies that considered only current threats were unreliable because they often failed to complete planned habitat linkage projects. The most reliable and effective strategies considered the future spread of development and its impact on the likelihood of completing planned habitat linkage projects. Our analyses highlight the critical need to consider future threats when building connected reserve networks over time.     

Time discounting and the decision to protect areas that are near and threatened or remote and cheap to acquire

Should conservation organizations focus on protecting habitats that are at imminent risk of being converted but are expensive or more remote areas that are less immediately threatened but where a large amount of land can be set aside? Variants of this trade‐off commonly arise in spatial planning. I used models of land‐use change near a deforestation frontier to examine this trade‐off. The optimal choice of where to protect was determined by how decisions taken today accounted for ecological benefits and economic costs of conservation actions that would occur sometime in the future. I used an ecological and economic discount rate to weight these benefits and costs. A large economic discount rate favored protecting more remote areas, whereas a large, positive ecological discount rate favored protecting habitat near the current deforestation frontier. The decision over where to protect was also affected by the influence economic factors had on landowners' decisions, the rate of technological change, and ecological heterogeneity of the landscape. How benefits and costs through time are accounted for warrants careful consideration when specifying conservation objectives. It may provide a niche axis along which conservation organizations differentiate themselves when competing for donor funding or other support.     

Accounting for enforcement costs in the spatial allocation of marine zones

Marine fish stocks are in many cases extracted above sustainable levels, but they may be protected through restricted‐use zoning systems. The effectiveness of these systems typically depends on support from coastal fishing communities. High management costs including those of enforcement may, however, deter fishers from supporting marine management. We incorporated enforcement costs into a spatial optimization model that identified how conservation targets can be met while maximizing fishers’ revenue. Our model identified the optimal allocation of the study area among different zones: no‐take, territorial user rights for fisheries (TURFs), or open access. The analysis demonstrated that enforcing no‐take and TURF zones incurs a cost, but results in higher species abundance by preventing poaching and overfishing. We analyzed how different enforcement scenarios affected fishers’ revenue. Fisher revenue was approximately 50% higher when territorial user rights were enforced than when they were not. The model preferentially allocated area to the enforced‐TURF zone over other zones, demonstrating that the financial benefits of enforcement (derived from higher species abundance) exceeded the costs. These findings were robust to increases in enforcement costs but sensitive to changes in species’ market price. We also found that revenue under the existing zoning regime in the study area was 13–30% lower than under an optimal solution. Our results highlight the importance of accounting for both the benefits and costs of enforcement in marine conservation, particularly when incurred by fishers. Justificación de los Costos de Aplicación en la Asignación Espacial de Zonas Marinas     

Efficient and equitable design of marine protected areas in Fiji through inclusion of stakeholder‐specific objectives in conservation planning

The efficacy of protected areas varies, partly because socioeconomic factors are not sufficiently considered in planning and management. Although integrating socioeconomic factors into systematic conservation planning is increasingly advocated, research is needed to progress from recognition of these factors to incorporating them effectively in spatial prioritization of protected areas. We evaluated 2 key aspects of incorporating socioeconomic factors into spatial prioritization: treatment of socioeconomic factors as costs or objectives and treatment of stakeholders as a single group or multiple groups. Using as a case study the design of a system of no‐take marine protected areas (MPAs) in Kubulau, Fiji, we assessed how these aspects affected the configuration of no‐take MPAs in terms of trade‐offs between biodiversity objectives, fisheries objectives, and equity in catch losses among fisher stakeholder groups. The achievement of fisheries objectives and equity tended to trade‐off concavely with increasing biodiversity objectives, indicating that it is possible to achieve low to mid‐range biodiversity objectives with relatively small losses to fisheries and equity. Importantly, the extent of trade‐offs depended on the method used to incorporate socioeconomic data and was least severe when objectives were set for each fisher stakeholder group explicitly. We found that using different methods to incorporate socioeconomic factors that require similar data and expertise can result in plans with very different impacts on local stakeholders.     

Effects of human footprint and biophysical factors on the body-size structure of fished marine species

Marine fisheries in coastal ecosystems in many areas of the world have historically removed large-bodied individuals, potentially impairing ecosystem functioning and the long-term sustainability of fish populations. Reporting on size-based indicators that link to food-web structure can contribute to ecosystem-based management, but the application of these indicators over large (cross-ecosystem) geographical scales has been limited to either fisheries-dependent catch data or diver-based methods restricted to shallow waters (<20 m) that can misrepresent the abundance of large-bodied fished species. We obtained data on the body-size structure of 82 recreationally or commercially targeted marine demersal teleosts from 2904 deployments of baited remote underwater stereo-video (stereo-BRUV). Sampling was at up to 50 m depth and covered approximately 10,000 km of the continental shelf of Australia. Seascape relief, water depth, and human gravity (i.e., a proxy of human impacts) were the strongest predictors of the probability of occurrence of large fishes and the abundance of fishes above the minimum legal size of capture. No-take marine reserves had a positive effect on the abundance of fishes above legal size, although the effect varied across species groups. In contrast, sublegal fishes were best predicted by gradients in sea surface temperature (mean and variance). In areas of low human impact, large fishes were about three times more likely to be encountered and fishes of legal size were approximately five times more abundant. For conspicuous species groups with contrasting habitat, environmental, and biogeographic affinities, abundance of legal-size fishes typically declined as human impact increased. Our large-scale quantitative analyses highlight the combined importance of seascape complexity, regions with low human footprint, and no-take marine reserves in protecting large-bodied fishes across a broad range of species and ecosystem configurations.     

Effects of connectivity and spatial resolution of analyses on conservation prioritization across large extents

The outcome of analyses that prioritize locations for conservation on the basis of distributions of species, land cover, or other elements is influenced by the spatial resolution of data used in the analyses. We explored the influence of data resolution on prioritization of Finnish forests with Zonation, a software program that ranks the priority of cells in a landscape for conservation. We used data on the distribution of different forest types that were aggregated to nine different resolutions ranging from 0.1 × 0.1 km to 25.6 × 25.6 km. We analyzed data at each resolution with two variants of Zonation that had different criteria for prioritization, with and without accounting for connectivity and with and without adjustment for the effect on the analysis of edges between areas at the project boundary and adjacent areas for which data do not exist. Spatial overlap of the 10% of cells ranked most highly when data were analyzed at different resolutions varied approximately from 15% to 60% and was greatest among analyses with similar resolutions. Inclusion of connectivity or edge adjustment changed the location of areas that were prioritized for conservation. Even though different locations received high priority for conservation in analyses with and without accounting for connectivity, accounting for connectivity did not reduce the representation of different forest types. Inclusion of connectivity influenced most the outcome of fine-resolution analyses because the connectivity extents that we based on dispersal distances of typical forest species were small. When we kept the area set aside for conservation constant, representation of the forest types increased as resolution increased. We do not think it is necessary to avoid use of high-resolution data in spatial conservation prioritization. Our results show that large extent, fine-resolution analyses are computationally feasible, and we suggest they can give more flexibility to implementation of well-connected reserve networks.     

Assessing the Distribution and Protection Status of two Types of Cool Environment to Facilitate Their Conservation under Climate Change

Strategies to mitigate climate change can protect different types of cool environments. Two are receiving much attention: protection of ephemeral refuges (i.e., places with low maximum temperatures) and of stable refugia (i.e., places that are cool, have a stable environment, and are isolated). Problematically, they are often treated as equivalents. Careful delineation of their qualities is needed to prevent misdirected conservation initiatives; yet, no one has determined whether protecting one protects the other. We mapped both types of cool environments across a large (～3.4M ha) mixed‐use landscape with a geographic information system and conducted a patch analysis to compare their spatial distributions; examine relations between land use and their size and shape; and assess their current protection status. With a modest, but arbitrary, threshold for demarcating both types of cool environments (i.e., values below the 0.025 quantile) there were 146,523 ha of ephemeral refuge (62,208 ha) and stable refugia (62,319 ha). Ephemeral refuges were generally aggregated at high elevation, and more refuge area occurred in protected areas (55,184 ha) than in unprotected areas (7,024 ha). In contrast, stable refugia were scattered across the landscape, and more stable‐refugium area occurred on unprotected (40,135 ha) than on protected land (22,184 ha). Although sensitivity analysis showed that varying the thresholds that define cool environments affected outcomes, it also exposed the challenge of choosing a threshold for strategies to address climate change; there is no single value that is appropriate for all of biodiversity. The degree of overlap between ephemeral refuges and stable refugia revealed that targeting only the former for protection on currently unprotected land would capture ～17% of stable refugia. Targeting only stable refugia would capture ～54% of ephemeral refuges. Thus, targeting one type of cool environment did not fully protect the other. Evaluación de la Distribución y Estado de Protección de Dos Tipos de Ambientes Fríos para Facilitar su Conservación bajo el Cambio Climático     

Reserve design to optimize functional connectivity and animal density

Ecological distance-based spatial capture–recapture models (SCR) are a promising approach for simultaneously estimating animal density and connectivity, both of which affect spatial population processes and ultimately species persistence. We explored how SCR models can be integrated into reserve-design frameworks that explicitly acknowledge both the spatial distribution of individuals and their space use resulting from landscape structure. We formulated the design of wildlife reserves as a budget-constrained optimization problem and conducted a simulation to explore 3 different SCR-informed optimization objectives that prioritized different conservation goals by maximizing the number of protected individuals, reserve connectivity, and density-weighted connectivity. We also studied the effect on our 3 objectives of enforcing that the space-use requirements of individuals be met by the reserve for individuals to be considered conserved (referred to as home-range constraints). Maximizing local population density resulted in fragmented reserves that would likely not aid long-term population persistence, and maximizing the connectivity objective yielded reserves that protected the fewest individuals. However, maximizing density-weighted connectivity or preemptively imposing home-range constraints on reserve design yielded reserves of largely spatially compact sets of parcels covering high-density areas in the landscape with high functional connectivity between them. Our results quantify the extent to which reserve design is constrained by individual home-range requirements and highlight that accounting for individual space use in the objective and constraints can help in the design of reserves that balance abundance and connectivity in a biologically relevant manner.     

Should We Protect the Strong or the Weak? Risk,Resilience, and the Selection of Marine Protected Areas

Abstract: It is thought that recovery of marine habitats from uncontrollable disturbance may be faster in marine reserves than in unprotected habitats. But which marine habitats should be protected, those areas at greatest risk or those at least risk? We first defined this problem mathematically for 2 alternate conservation objectives. We then analytically solved this problem for both objectives and determined under which conditions each of the different protection strategies was optimal. If the conservation objective was to maximize the chance of having at least 1 healthy site, then the best strategy was protection of the site at lowest risk. On the other hand, if the goal was to maximize the expected number of healthy sites, the optimal strategy was more complex. If protected sites were likely to spend a significant amount of time in a degraded state, then it was best to protect low‐risk sites. Alternatively, if most areas were generally healthy then, counterintuitively, it was best to protect sites at higher risk. We applied these strategies to a situation of cyclone disturbance of coral reefs on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. With regard to the risk of cyclone disturbance, the optimal reef to protect differed dramatically, depending on the expected speed of reef recovery of both protected and unprotected reefs. An adequate consideration of risk is fundamental to all conservation actions and can indicate surprising routes to conservation success.     

Obstruction of biodiversity conservation by minimum patch size criteria

Minimum patch size criteria for habitat protection reflect the conservation principle that a single large (SL) patch of habitat has higher biodiversity than several small (SS) patches of the same total area (SL > SS). Nonetheless, this principle is often incorrect, and biodiversity conservation requires placing more emphasis on protection of large numbers of small patches (SS > SL). We used a global database reporting the abundances of species across hundreds of patches to assess the SL > SS principle in systems where small patches are much smaller than the typical minimum patch size criteria applied for biodiversity conservation (i.e., ∼85% of patches <100 ha). The 76 metacommunities we examined included 4401 species in 1190 patches. From each metacommunity, we resampled species–area accumulation curves to evaluate how biodiversity responded to habitat existing as a few large patches or as many small patches. Counter to the SL > SS principle and consistent with previous syntheses, species richness accumulated more rapidly when adding several small patches (45.2% SS > SL vs. 19.9% SL > SS) to reach the same cumulative area, even for the very small patches in our data set. Responses of taxa to habitat fragmentation differed, which suggests that when a given total area of habitat is to be protected, overall biodiversity conservation will be most effective if that habitat is composed of as many small patches as possible, plus a few large ones. Because minimum patch size criteria often require larger patches than the small patches we examined, our results suggest that such criteria hinder efforts to protect biodiversity.