Pervasive cropland in protected areas highlight trade-offs between conservation and food security.

Global cropland expansion over the last century caused widespread habitat loss and degradation. Establishment of protected areas aims to counteract the loss of habitats and to slow species extinctions. However, many protected areas also include high levels of habitat disturbance and conversion for uses such as cropland. Understanding where and why this occurs may realign conservation priorities and inform protected area policy in light of competing priorities such as food security. Here, we use our global synthesis cropland dataset to quantify cropland in protected areas globally and assess their relationship to conservation aims and socio-environmental context. We estimate that cropland occupies 1.4 million km2 or 6% of global protected area. Cropland occurs across all protected area management types, with 22% occurring in strictly protected areas. Cropland inside protected areas is more prevalent in countries with higher population density, lower income inequality, and with higher agricultural suitability of protected lands. While this phenomenon is dominant in midnorthern latitudes, areas of cropland in protected areas of the tropics and subtropics may present greater trade-offs due to higher levels of both biodiversity and food insecurity. Although area-based targets are prominent in biodiversity goal-setting, our results show that they can mask persistent anthropogenic land uses detrimental to native ecosystem conservation. To ensure the long-term efficacy of protected areas, post-2020 goal setting must link aims for biodiversity and human health and improve monitoring of conservation outcomes in cropland-impacted protected areas.

Biodiversity conservation adaptation to climate change: Protecting the actors or the stage.

To be able to protect biodiversity in coming decades, conservation strategies need to consider what sites will be important for species not just today but also in the future. Different methods have been proposed to identify places that will be important for species in the future. Two of the most frequently used methods, ecological niche modeling and climate resilience, have distinct aims. The former focuses on identifying the suitable environmental conditions for species, thus protecting the "actor," namely, the species, whereas the latter seeks to safeguard the "stage," or the landscape in which species occur. We used the two methods to identify climate refugia for 258 forest vertebrates under short- and long-term climatic changes in a biodiversity hotspot, the Appalachian ecoregion of the United States. We also evaluated the spatial congruence of the two approaches for a possible conservation application, that of protecting 30% of the Appalachian region, in line with recent national and international policy recommendations. We detected weak positive correlations between resilience scores and baseline vertebrate richness, estimated with ecological niche models for historical (baseline) climatic conditions. The correlations were stronger for amphibians and mammals than for birds and reptiles. Under climate change scenarios, the correlations between estimated vertebrate richness and resilience were also weakly positive; a positive correlation was detected only for amphibians. Locations with estimated future gain of suitable climatic conditions for vertebrates showed low correlation with resilience. Overall, our results indicate that climate resilience and ecological niche modeling approaches capture different characteristics of projected distributional changes of Appalachian vertebrates. A climate resilience (the stage) approach could be more effective in safeguarding species with low dispersal abilities, whereas an ecological niche modeling (the actor) approach could be more suitable for species with long-distance dispersal capacity because they may be more broadly impacted by climate and less sensitive to geophysical features captured by a climate resilience approach.

Environmental Discourse Exhibits Consistency and Variation across Spatial Scales on Twitter.

Social media platforms, such as Twitter, are an increasingly important source of information and are forums for discourse within and between interest groups. Research highlights how social media communities have amplified movements such as the Arab Spring, #MeToo, and Black Lives Matter. But environmental digital discourse remains underexplored. In the present article, we apply automated text analysis to 200,000 Twitter users in several countries following leading environmental nongovernmental organizations. Some issues such as public action to decarbonize society or species conservation were discussed more intensely than agriculture or marine conservation. Our results illustrate where environmental discourse diverges and converges on Twitter across countries, states, and characteristics, such as political ideology. Using the coterminous United States as a case study, we observed that the prominence of issues varies across states and, in some cases, covaries with political ideology across counties. Our findings show paths forward to characterizing environmental priorities across many issues at unprecedented scale and extent.

Accounting for spatial heterogeneity in the added conservation value of land protection when prioritizing protected areas.

To combat biodiversity loss, there is increasing interest in safeguarding habitat by expanding protected areas. Given limited resources in conservation, organizations must invest in places that will add the greatest amount of value in species protection. To determine the added conservation value of protection, one needs to consider the level of human disturbance in areas that would result if they were left unprotected. In recent years, data resources have become available that reveal the spatial heterogeneity in human disturbance over large spatial extents worldwide. We investigated how accounting for heterogeneity in future disturbance in unprotected areas affects prioritization of protected areas by determining the added value offered by protection of different areas. We applied a complementarity-based framework for protected area prioritization to select protected areas in the coterminous United States under different assumptions about the heterogeneity of future disturbance in unprotected areas. Prioritizing protected areas while incorrectly assuming spatially homogeneous disturbance in unprotected areas, a common assumption, led to a loss of 76% of possible conservation gain for a given budget. The conservation return on investment from protecting candidate areas was positively correlated (0.44) to future human disturbance in that area if it was left unprotected. Our results show that the ability to identify cost-effective protected area networks depends on how one accounts for the ecological contribution of private lands that remain unprotected.

Existe un creciente interés por salvaguardar los hábitats mediante la expansión de áreas protegidas para combatir la pérdida de la biodiversidad. Debido a los recursos limitados para la conservación, las organizaciones deben invertir en localidades que adicionarán la mayor cantidad de valor a la protección de las especies. Para determinar el valor de conservación adicionado por la protección se necesita considerar el nivel de perturbación humana en las áreas que ocurriría si se les dejara desprotegidas. En años recientes, han quedado disponibles recursos informativos que revelan la heterogeneidad espacial en la perturbación humana a lo largo de grandes extensiones espaciales a nivel mundial. Investigamos cómo considerar esta heterogeneidad en las futuras perturbaciones de las áreas desprotegidas afecta la priorización de las áreas protegidas mediante la determinación del valor adicionado que ofrece la protección de diferentes áreas. Aplicamos un marco de trabajo basado en la complementariedad para la priorización de áreas protegidas para seleccionar estas áreas en los estados colindantes de los Estados Unidos bajo diferentes suposiciones sobre la heterogeneidad de las perturbaciones futuras en las áreas desprotegidas. La priorización de las áreas protegidas mientras se asumía incorrectamente la perturbación espacial homogénea en las áreas desprotegidas, una suposición común, resultó en una pérdida del 76% de la posible ganancia de conservación para un presupuesto dado. El rendimiento de la conservación en la inversión a partir de la protección de las áreas candidatas estuvo correlacionado positivamente (0.44) con las perturbaciones humanas en el futuro si el área permanece desprotegida. Nuestros resultados muestran que la capacidad de identificar las redes rentables de áreas protegidas depende de cómo se consideran las contribuciones ecológicas de las tierras privadas que permanecen desprotegidas.

Ecological and economic implications of alternative metrics in biodiversity offset markets.

Policy tools are needed that allow reconciliation of human development pressures with conservation priorities. Biodiversity offsetting can be used to compensate for ecological losses caused by development activities. Landowners can choose to undertake conservation actions, including habitat restoration, to generate biodiversity offsets. Consideration of the incentives facing landowners as potential biodiversity offset providers and developers as potential buyers of credits is critical when considering the ecological and economic landscape-scale outcomes of alternative offset metrics. There is an expectation that landowners will always seek to conserve the least profitable land parcels, and, in turn, this determines the spatial location of biodiversity offset credits. We developed an ecological-economic model to compare the ecological and economic outcomes of offsetting for a habitat-based metric and a species-based metric. We were interested in whether these metrics would adequately capture the indirect benefits of offsetting on species not considered under a no-net-loss policy. We simulated a biodiversity offset market for a case study landscape, linking species distribution modeling and an economic model of landowner choice based on economic returns of the alternative land management options (restore, develop, or maintain existing land use). Neither the habitat nor species metric adequately captured the indirect benefits of offsetting on related habitats or species. The underlying species distributions, layered with the agricultural and development rental values of parcels, resulted in very different landscape outcomes depending on the metric chosen. If policy makers are aiming for the metric to act as an indicator to mitigate impacts on a range of closely related habitats and species, then a simple no-net-loss target is not adequate. Furthermore, to achieve the most ecologically beneficial design of offsets policy, an understanding of the economic decision-making processes of the landowners is needed.

Se necesitan herramientas políticas que permitan la reconciliación entre las presiones del desarrollo humano y las prioridades de conservación. La compensación de biodiversidad puede usarse para reponer las pérdidas ecológicas causadas por las actividades de desarrollo. Los terratenientes pueden elegir realizar acciones de conservación, incluyendo la restauración del hábitat, para generar dichas compensaciones. Es importante considerar los incentivos para los terratenientes como proveedores potenciales de compensaciones de biodiversidad y para los desarrolladores como compradores potenciales de créditos cuando se contemplan los resultados ecológicos y económicos a escala de paisaje de estas medidas alternativas de compensación. Existe la expectativa de que los terratenientes siempre buscarán conservar los lotes menos rentables y, por lo tanto, esto determina la ubicación espacial de los créditos por compensación de biodiversidad. Desarrollamos un modelo para comparar los resultados ecológicos y económicos de la compensación en una medida basada en el hábitat y una basada en la especie. Nos interesaba saber si estas medidas indicarían adecuadamente los beneficios indirectos de la compensación para las especies no consideradas bajo una política de pérdida neta cero. Simulamos un mercado voluntario de biodiversidad para un estudio de casode un paisaje, el cual vinculó el modelado de la distribución de especies con el modelo económico de las elecciones de los terratenientes basadas en las ganancias económicas de las opciones alternativas de manejo de suelo (restaurar, desarrollar o mantener el uso de suelo existente). Ninguna de las dos medidas indicó adecuadamente los beneficios indirectos de la compensación para las especies o hábitats relacionados. La distribución subyacente de especies, en conjunto con los valores de renta agrícolas y de desarrollo de los lotes, derivó en resultados muy diferentes de paisaje según la medida seleccionada. Cuando los formuladores de políticas buscan que la medida actúe como un indicador para mitigar impactos en una gama de especies y hábitats relacionados cercanamente, no es adecuado un objetivo simple de pérdida neta cero. Además, para lograr el diseño con el mayor beneficio ecológico, se requiere comprender los procesos de decisión de los terratenientes.

Protected area, easement, and rental contract data reveal five communities of land protection in the United States.

Land protection efforts represent large societal investments and are critical to biodiversity conservation. Land protection involves a complex mosaic of areas managed by multiple organizations, using a variety of mechanisms to achieve different levels of protection. We develop an approach to synthesize, describe, and map this land protection diversity over large spatial scales. We use cluster analysis to find distinct "communities" of land protection based on the organizations involved, the strictness of land protection, and the protection mechanisms used. We also associate identified land protection communities with socioenvironmental variables. Applying these methods to describe land protection communities in counties across the coterminous United States, we recognize five different land protection communities. Two land protection communities occur in areas with low human population size at higher elevations and include a large amount of protected land primarily under federal management. These two community types are differentiated from one another by the particular federal agencies involved, the relative contributions of smaller actors, and the amount of protection by designations vs. conservation easements or covenants. Three remaining land protection communities have less overall protection. Land in one community is primarily protected by federally managed rental contracts and government managed easements; another is managed by a diversity of non-federal actors through fee-ownership and easements; and the third stands out for having the lowest amount of formally recorded protection overall. High elevation and poor quality soils are over-represented in U.S. protected lands. Rental contracts help fill in gaps in counties with high productivity soil while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fills in gaps in low-elevation counties. Counties with large numbers of threatened species have more and stricter protection, particularly by regional entities like water management districts. The ability to synthesize and map land protection communities can help conservation planners tailor interventions to local contexts, position local agencies to approach collaborations more strategically, and suggest new hypotheses for researchers regarding interactions among different protection mechanisms.

Where and When Carbon Storage can be Bought Cost Effectively from Private Forest Owners.

The role of time in estimating the cost of forest carbon is often ignored in the literature, nor does the literature address the issues of where and when the purchase of forest carbon storage becomes socially beneficial. In our study, we identify the spatial and temporal allocations of forest carbon investments that are socially beneficial based on empirical analysis. We use the Central and Southern Appalachian region in the Eastern United States as a case study over three periods (i.e., 1992-2001, 2001-2006, and 2006-2011) that are roughly in line with moderate, upturn, and downturn market conditions. The areas from which it is socially beneficial to buy carbon storage are mainly in flat terrain and further away from urban boundaries, hence facing lower development pressure and lower urban net returns. These areas also have less urban land and more forestland. The mapping of carbon cost over the three market conditions in our case study also indicates that the socially beneficial carbon area shrinks as the opportunity cost increases when the real-estate market evolves from a moderately growing to a booming market. The socially beneficial carbon area shrinks further as the demand from urban development on forestland collapses when the real-estate market enters a downturn stage.

Protected Areas Established by Local Communities through Direct Democracy Encompass Habitat for Species as Effectively as Protected Areas Planned over Large Spatial Scales.

Local communities contribute to broader biodiversity protection goals when managing their immediate environment when they establish protected areas. However, their efforts are geographically constrained and often uncoordinated. We compare protected areas established by local communities through the direct democracy process in California, US, to protected areas created and managed by two conservation actors working over larger spatial scales, one private and one public. Despite being geographically constrained to smaller spatial scales, protected areas established by local communities were as effective as those established by larger scale conservation actors at representing different habitat types. However, local ballot protected areas tended to protect more common species. All three protected area networks often performed no better than random in terms of siting protected areas to support narrow range species and rare habitats. Improved accounting of local communities' protection efforts would allow organizations with greater funding flexibility to focus their efforts to increase representation of rarer species and habitats in protected area systems.

Allocating resources for land protection using continuous optimization: biodiversity conservation in the United States.

Spatial optimization approaches that were originally developed to help conservation organizations determine protection decisions over small spatial scales are now used to inform global or continental scale priority setting. However, the different decision contexts involved in large-scale resource allocation need to be considered. We present a continuous optimization approach in which a decision-maker allocates funding to regional offices. Local decision-makers then use these funds to implement habitat protection efforts with varying effectiveness when evaluated in terms of the funder's goals. We illustrate this continuous formulation by examining the relative priority that should be given to different counties in the coterminous United States when acquiring land to establish new protected areas. If weighting all species equally, counties in the southwest United States, where large areas can be bought cheaply, are priorities for protection. If focusing only on species of conservation concern, priorities shift to locations rich in such species, particularly near expanding exurban areas facing high rates of future habitat conversion (e.g., south-central Texas). Priorities for protection are sensitive to what is assumed about local ecological and decision-making processes. For example, decision-makers who doubt the efficacy of local land protection efforts should focus on a few key areas, while optimistic decision-makers should disperse funding more widely. Efforts to inform large-scale conservation priorities should reflect better the types of choice that decision-makers actually face when working over these scales. They also need to report the sensitivity of recommended priorities to what are often unstated assumptions about local processes affecting conservation outcomes.

A landscape of conservation philanthropy for U.S. land trusts.

Finding ways to increase financial support is critical to conservation efforts. We used conservation fundraising data, unprecedented in their resolution, to reveal spatial patterns in philanthropic giving to a major land protection organization in the United States. We also quantified the relationship between the amount of effort devoted to fundraising and donations received. Around 40% of the variation in the propensity to give and overall value of gifts was explained by sociodemographic and other predictors. For example, education level had greater predictive capacity than income, political views, and other factors often considered important. Fundraising effort was strongly predictive of the amount donated in an area. Our model estimated a doubling of funds raised with a 5-fold increase of effort. Conservation organizations could use our statistical framework to inform efforts aimed at increasing philanthropic giving by identifying locations with large model residuals. An example application of our framework showed an almost 40% increase (US$200 million) in fundraising revenue for the case-study conservation organization.

Potential efficiency gains in payment programs from resolving spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the cost of supplying forest carbon.

The environmental benefits and costs of conservation policies often vary over space and through time. Accounting for this spatial and temporal heterogeneity has important implications for the potential cost effectiveness of different payment program designs. In this study, we examine the cost efficiency gain from spatial and temporal targeting in payment designs for forest carbon storage in the Central and Southern Appalachian Mountains in the Eastern United States. We run a forest land change model and a carbon simulation model utilizing a panel data on forest land and its competing uses, economic returns, and spatial characteristics for each 1 km2 grid cells in 1992, 2001, 2006 and 2011. A time- and space-specific carbon cost for each individual 1 km2 grid cell is calculated that captures the spatial and temporal heterogeneity in carbon cost efficiency. From there, we compare carbon cost efficiency levels of various payment designs that allow for different degrees of spatial and temporal flexibility. We find that 1) spatial targeting improves carbon cost efficiency, and this efficiency gain is larger as payments become more narrowly targeted, 2) this carbon efficiency gain is present in all market conditions, but is largest in a moderately growing market and smallest in a downturn market, 3) accounting for temporal heterogeneity results in even larger carbon efficiency gains, almost double those from spatial targeting. Just as policies that enable spatial targeting (e.g., auctions) increase cost efficiency savings, so too will policy mechanisms that emphasize budget flexibility through time. These could include utilizing loans or flexible conservation financing, or allowing movement across budgeting categories within a given time period.

Effects of Protected Area Size on Conservation Return on Investment.

The objective of this research is to examine how protected area size influences the conservation benefit and acquisition cost of creating a protected area, how the resulting effects influence the predicted rate of return on investment (ROI), and how those relationships change prioritization decision-making for selecting protected areas compared with decisions based only on conservation benefit and decisions based only on acquisition cost. The objective is accomplished in an econometric framework by analyzing the parcel-level acquisition cost and conservation benefit measured by the change in potential fragmentation patterns on the landscape resulting from protection. We focus on areas acquired by The Nature Conservancy in central and southern Appalachia, United States. As an indicator of the change in landscape fragmentation, we use a fragmentation statistic known as effective mesh size. Although the effect of protected parcel size on predicted ROI is inelastic, greater conservation effectiveness is obtained with larger protected parcels than with smaller ones on average. Protected parcel size influences parcels' rankings for protection more (less) when only the predicted change in effective mesh size of protected area (only the predicted acquisition cost per area) is used for prioritizing parcels than when the ranking of parcels is determined by the predicted ROI. These findings imply that, although protected parcel size is important, failure to prioritize using ROI could result in an inappropriate level of emphasis being given to protected parcel size than is warranted.

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.

Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation.

Effective conservation management interventions must combat threats and deliver benefits at costs that can be achieved within limited budgets. Considerable effort has focused on measuring the potential benefits of conservation interventions, but explicit quantification of the financial costs of implementation is rare. Even when costs have been quantified, haphazard and inconsistent reporting means published values are difficult to interpret. This reporting deficiency hinders progress toward a collective understanding of the financial costs of management interventions across projects and thus limits the ability to identify efficient solutions to conservation problems or attract adequate funding. We devised a standardized approach to describing financial costs reported for conservation interventions. The standards call for researchers and practitioners to describe the objective and outcome, context and methods, and scale of costed interventions, and to state which categories of costs are included and the currency and date for reported costs. These standards aim to provide enough contextual information that readers and future users can interpret the cost data appropriately. We suggest these standards be adopted by major conservation organizations, conservation science institutions, and journals so that cost reporting is comparable among studies. This would support shared learning and enhance the ability to identify and perform cost-effective conservation.

The value of flexibility in conservation financing.

Land-acquisition strategies employed by conservation organizations vary in their flexibility. Conservation-planning theory largely fails to reflect this by presenting models that are either extremely inflexible-parcel acquisitions are irreversible and budgets are fixed-or extremely flexible-previously acquired parcels can readily be sold. This latter approach, the selling of protected areas, is infeasible or problematic in many situations. We considered the value to conservation organizations of increasing the flexibility of their land-acquisition strategies through their approach to financing deals. Specifically, we modeled 2 acquisition-financing methods commonly used by conservation organizations: borrowing and budget carry-over. Using simulated data, we compared results from these models with those from an inflexible fixed-budget model and an extremely flexible selling model in which previous acquisitions could be sold to fund new acquisitions. We then examined 3 case studies of how conservation organizations use borrowing and budget carry-over in practice. Model comparisons showed that borrowing and budget carry-over always returned considerably higher rewards than the fixed-budget model. How they performed relative to the selling model depended on the relative conservation value of past acquisitions. Both the models and case studies showed that incorporating flexibility through borrowing or budget carry-over gives conservation organizations the ability to purchase parcels of higher conservation value than when budgets are fixed without the problems associated with the selling of protected areas.

Returns from matching management resolution to ecological variation in a coral reef fishery.

When managing heterogeneous socioecological systems, decision-makers must choose a spatial resolution at which to define management policies. Complex spatial policies allow managers to better reflect underlying ecological and economic heterogeneity, but incur higher compliance and enforcement costs. To choose the most appropriate management resolution, we need to characterize the relationship between management resolution and performance. We parameterize a model of the commercial coral trout fishery in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, which is currently managed by a single, spatially homogeneous management policy. We use this model to estimate how the spatial resolution of management policies affect the amount of revenue generated, and assess whether a more spatially complex policy can be justified. Our results suggest that economic variation is likely to be a more important source of heterogeneity than ecological differences, and that the majority of this variation can be captured by a relatively simple spatial management policy. Moreover, while an increase in policy resolution can improve performance, the location of policy changes also needs to align with ecological and socioeconomic variation. Interestingly, the highly complex process of larval dispersal, which plays a critical ecological role in coral reef ecosystem dynamics, may not demand equally complex management policies.

Optimal management of a stochastically varying population when policy adjustment is costly.

Ecological systems are dynamic and policies to manage them need to respond to that variation. However, policy adjustments will sometimes be costly, which means that fine-tuning a policy to track variability in the environment very tightly will only sometimes be worthwhile. We use a classic fisheries management problem, how to manage a stochastically varying population using annually varying quotas in order to maximize profit, to examine how costs of policy adjustment change optimal management recommendations. Costs of policy adjustment (changes in fishing quotas through time) could take different forms. For example, these costs may respond to the size of the change being implemented, or there could be a fixed cost any time a quota change is made. We show how different forms of policy costs have contrasting implications for optimal policies. Though it is frequently assumed that costs to adjusting policies will dampen variation in the policy, we show that certain cost structures can actually increase variation through time. We further show that failing to account for adjustment costs has a consistently worse economic impact than would assuming these costs are present when they are not.

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 (r(2) = 0.64) than either of the 2 systematic conservation planning approaches (r(2) = 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.

Limitations of outsourcing on-the-ground biodiversity conservation.

To counteract global species decline, modern biodiversity conservation engages in large projects, spends billions of dollars, and includes many organizations working simultaneously within regions. To add to this complexity, the conservation sector has hierarchical structure, where conservation actions are often outsourced by funders (foundations, government, etc.) to local organizations that work on-the-ground. In contrast, conservation science usually assumes that a single organization makes resource allocation decisions. This discrepancy calls for theory to understand how the expected biodiversity outcomes change when interactions between organizations are accounted for. Here, we used a game theoretic model to explore how biodiversity outcomes are affected by vertical and horizontal interactions between 3 conservation organizations: a funder that outsourced its actions and 2 local conservation organizations that work on-the-ground. Interactions between the organizations changed the spending decisions made by individual organizations, and thereby the magnitude and direction of the conservation benefits. We showed that funders would struggle to incentivize recipient organizations with set priorities to perform desired actions, even when they control substantial amounts of the funding and employ common contracting approaches to enhance outcomes. Instead, biodiversity outcomes depended on priority alignment across the organizations. Conservation outcomes for the funder were improved by strategic interactions when organizational priorities were well aligned, but decreased when priorities were misaligned. Meanwhile, local organizations had improved outcomes regardless of alignment due to additional funding in the system. Given that conservation often involves the aggregate actions of multiple organizations with different objectives, strategic interactions between organizations need to be considered if we are to predict possible outcomes of conservation programs or costs of achieving conservation targets.

The costs of avoiding environmental impacts from shale-gas surface infrastructure.

Growing energy demand has increased the need to manage conflicts between energy production and the environment. As an example, shale-gas extraction requires substantial surface infrastructure, which fragments habitats, erodes soils, degrades freshwater systems, and displaces rare species. Strategic planning of shale-gas infrastructure can reduce trade-offs between economic and environmental objectives, but the specific nature of these trade-offs is not known. We estimated the cost of avoiding impacts from land-use change on forests, wetlands, rare species, and streams from shale-energy development within leaseholds. We created software for optimally siting shale-gas surface infrastructure to minimize its environmental impacts at reasonable construction cost. We visually assessed sites before infrastructure optimization to test whether such inspection could be used to predict whether impacts could be avoided at the site. On average, up to 38% of aggregate environmental impacts of infrastructure could be avoided for 20% greater development costs by spatially optimizing infrastructure. However, we found trade-offs between environmental impacts and costs among sites. In visual inspections, we often distinguished between sites that could be developed to avoid impacts at relatively low cost (29%) and those that could not (20%). Reductions in a metric of aggregate environmental impact could be largely attributed to potential displacement of rare species, sedimentation, and forest fragmentation. Planners and regulators can estimate and use heterogeneous trade-offs among development sites to create industry-wide improvements in environmental performance and do so at reasonable costs by, for example, leveraging low-cost avoidance of impacts at some sites to offset others. This could require substantial effort, but the results and software we provide can facilitate the process.