The value of using feasibility models in systematic conservation planning to predict landholder management uptake.

Understanding the social dimensions of conservation opportunity is crucial for conservation planning in multiple-use landscapes. However, factors that influence the feasibility of implementing conservation actions, such as the history of landscape management, and landholders' willingness to engage are often difficult or time consuming to quantify and rarely incorporated into planning. We examined how conservation agencies could reduce costs of acquiring such data by developing predictive models of management feasibility parameterized with social and biophysical factors likely to influence landholders' decisions to engage in management. To test the utility of our best-supported model, we developed 4 alternative investment scenarios based on different input data for conservation planning: social data only; biological data only; potential conservation opportunity derived from modeled feasibility that incurs no social data collection costs; and existing conservation opportunity derived from feasibility data that incurred collection costs. Using spatially explicit information on biodiversity values, feasibility, and management costs, we prioritized locations in southwest Australia to control an invasive predator that is detrimental to both agriculture and natural ecosystems: the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). When social data collection costs were moderate to high, the most cost-effective investment scenario resulted from a predictive model of feasibility. Combining empirical feasibility data with biological data was more cost-effective for prioritizing management when social data collection costs were low (<4% of the total budget). Calls for more data to inform conservation planning should take into account the costs and benefits of collecting and using social data to ensure that limited funding for conservation is spent in the most cost-efficient and effective manner.

The capacity of Australia's protected-area system to represent threatened species.

The acquisition or designation of new protected areas is usually based on criteria for representation of different ecosystems or land-cover classes, and it is unclear how well-threatened species are conserved within protected-area networks. Here, we assessed how Australia's terrestrial protected-area system (89 million ha, 11.6% of the continent) overlaps with the geographic distributions of threatened species and compared this overlap against a model that randomly placed protected areas across the continent and a spatially efficient model that placed protected areas across the continent to maximize threatened species' representation within the protected-area estate. We defined the minimum area needed to conserve each species on the basis of the species' range size. We found that although the current configuration of protected areas met targets for representation of a given percentage of species' ranges better than a random selection of areas, 166 (12.6%) threatened species occurred entirely outside protected areas and target levels of protection were met for only 259 (19.6%) species. Critically endangered species were among those with the least protection; 12 (21.1%) species occurred entirely outside protected areas. Reptiles and plants were the most poorly represented taxonomic groups, and amphibians the best represented. Spatial prioritization analyses revealed that an efficient protected-area system of the same size as the current protected-area system (11.6% of the area of Australia) could meet representation targets for 1272 (93.3%) threatened species. Moreover, the results of these prioritization analyses showed that by protecting 17.8% of Australia, all threatened species could reach target levels of representation, assuming all current protected areas are retained. Although this amount of area theoretically could be protected, existing land uses and the finite resources available for conservation mean land acquisition may not be possible or even effective for the recovery of threatened species. The optimal use of resources must balance acquisition of new protected areas, where processes that threaten native species are mitigated by the change in ownership or on-ground management jurisdiction, and management of threatened species inside and outside the existing protected-area system.

Prioritizing conservation investments for mammal species globally.

We need to set priorities for conservation because we cannot do everything, everywhere, at the same time. We determined priority areas for investment in threat abatement actions, in both a cost-effective and spatially and temporally explicit way, for the threatened mammals of the world. Our analysis presents the first fine-resolution prioritization analysis for mammals at a global scale that accounts for the risk of habitat loss, the actions required to abate this risk, the costs of these actions and the likelihood of investment success. We evaluated the likelihood of success of investments using information on the past frequency and duration of legislative effectiveness at a country scale. The establishment of new protected areas was the action receiving the greatest investment, while restoration was never chosen. The resolution of the analysis and the incorporation of likelihood of success made little difference to this result, but affected the spatial location of these investments.