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.     

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.     

Influence of Representation Targets on the Total Area of Conservation-Area Networks

Abstract:  Systematic conservation planning typically requires specification of quantitative representation targets for biodiversity surrogates such as species, vegetation types, and environmental parameters. Targets are usually specified either as the minimum total area in a conservation-area network in which a surrogate must be present or as the proportion of a surrogate's existing spatial distribution required to be in the network. Because the biological basis for setting targets is often unclear, a better understanding of how targets affect selection of conservation areas is needed. We studied how the total area of conservation-area networks depends on percentage targets ranging from 5% to 95%. We analyzed 12 data sets of different surrogate distributions from 5 regions: Korea, Mexico, Québec, Queensland, and West Virginia. To assess the effect of spatial resolution on the target-area relationship, we also analyzed each data set at 7 spatial resolutions ranging from 0.01°× 0.01° to 0.10°× 0.10°. Most of the data sets showed a linear relationship between representation targets and total area of conservation-area networks that was invariant across changes in spatial resolution. The slope of this relationship indicated how total area increased with target level, and our results suggest that greater surrogate representation requires significantly more area. One data set exhibited a highly nonlinear relationship. The results for this data set suggest a new method for setting targets on the basis of the functional form of target-area relationships. In particular, the method shows how the target-area relationship can provide a rationale for setting targets solely on the basis of distributional information about surrogates.     

BENEFITS OF ITERATIVE WATER SUPPLY FORECASTING IN THE WASHINGTON,D.C., METROPOLITAN AREA1

The three largest water utilities in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area (WMA) rely on the Potomac River and its reservoirs for water supply. These utilities have committed to a periodic review of the system's adequacy to meet future demands. In 1990, 1995, 2000, and again in 2004 (for publication in 2005) the utilities requested that the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) conduct a 20‐year water demand and resource adequacy study to fulfill this need. The selection of the five‐year interval provides multiple benefits. It allows regular updates and incorporation of recent demographic forecasts, and it increases visibility and understanding of the adequacy of the region's water resources. It also provides adequate time to conduct research on the physical system and to incorporate modifications based on this research into subsequent studies. The studies and lessons learned are presented in this case study of the WMA. The work has been a natural outgrowth of a long history of cooperative water supply planning and management among the main WMA water utilities and ICPRB.     

Evaluating and expanding the European Union's protected-area network toward potential post-2020 coverage targets

The Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) strategic plan will expire in 2020, but biodiversity loss is ongoing. Scientists call for more ambitious targets in the next agreement. The nature-needs-half movement, for example, has advocated conserving half of Earth to solve the biodiversity crisis, which has been translated to protecting 50% of each ecoregion. We evaluated current protection levels of ecoregions in the territory of one of the CBD's signatories, the European Union (EU). We also explored the possible enlargement of the Natura 2000 network to implement 30% or 50% ecoregion coverage in the EU member states’ protected area (PA) network. Based on the most recent land-use data, we examined whether ecoregions have enough natural area left to reach such high coverage targets. We used a spatially explicit mixed integer programing model to estimate the least-cost expansion of the PA network based on 3 scenarios that put different emphasis on total conservation cost, ecological representation of ecosystems, or emphasize an equal share of the burden among member states. To realize 30% and 50% ecoregion coverage, the EU would need to add 6.6% and 24.2%, respectively, of its terrestrial area to its PA network. For all 3 scenarios, the EU would need to designate most recommended new PAs in seminatural forests and other semi- or natural ecosystems. Because 15 ecoregions did not have enough natural area left to implement the ecoregion-coverage targets, some member states would also need to establish new PAs on productive land, allocating the largest share to arable land. Thirty percent ecoregion coverage was met by protecting remaining natural areas in all ecoregions except 3, where productive land would also need to be included. Our results support discussions of higher ecoregions protection targets for post-2020 biodiversity frameworks.     

Bird‐community responses to habitat creation in a long‐term,large‐scale natural experiment

Ecosystem function and resilience are compromised when habitats become fragmented due to land‐use change. This has led to national and international conservation strategies aimed at restoring habitat extent and improving functional connectivity (i.e., maintaining dispersal processes). However, biodiversity responses to landscape‐scale habitat creation and the relative importance of spatial and temporal scales are poorly understood, and there is disagreement over which conservation strategies should be prioritized. We used 160 years of historic post‐agricultural woodland creation as a natural experiment to evaluate biodiversity responses to habitat creation in a landscape context. Birds were surveyed in 101 secondary, broadleaf woodlands aged 10–160 years with ≥80% canopy cover and in landscapes with 0‐17% broadleaf woodland cover within 3000 m. We used piecewise structural equation modeling to examine the direct and indirect relationships between bird abundance and diversity, ecological continuity, patch characteristics, and landscape structure and quantified the relative conservation value of local and landscape scales for bird communities. Ecological continuity indirectly affected overall bird abundance and species richness through its effects on stand structure, but had a weaker influence (effect size near 0) on the abundance and diversity of species most closely associated with woodland habitats. This was probably because woodlands were rapidly colonized by woodland generalists in ≤10 years (minimum patch age) but were on average too young (median 50 years) to be colonized by woodland specialists. Local patch characteristics were relatively more important than landscape characteristics for bird communities. Based on our results, biodiversity responses to habitat creation depended on local‐ and landscape‐scale factors that interacted across time and space. We suggest that there is a need for further studies that focus on habitat creation in a landscape context and that knowledge gained from studies of habitat fragmentation and loss should be used to inform habitat creation with caution because the outcomes are not necessarily reciprocal.     

Adapting to new realities: an analysis of institutional work in three cases of Dutch infrastructure planning

The social and institutional context of infrastructure planning has shifted tremendously over recent decades. From top–down implementation, infrastructure planners are now forced to incorporate the demands and wishes of citizens and other external stakeholders. This paper adopts the analytical perspective of institutional work to analyse how a number of Dutch infrastructure planning organisations try to remain in control over these changes in their institutional context. Building on social systems thinking, this paper distinguishes three environments in which this control can play out: the internal environment over which an organisation has complete control, an external environment over which an organisation has little control and a transactional environment where the organisation, through its interactions with other actors, can influence institutional development. The paper concludes that while most forms of institutional work applied by the infrastructure planning organisations under study aim to change the organisations’ interactions with stakeholders, the forms of institutional work are predominantly located within the internal environment of planning organisations.