Data on transnational ecological compensation under a 'no net loss' biodiversity policy.

We conducted surveys in Denmark, Spain, and Ghana to solicit individual preferences for national and international ecological compensation for forest cover lost in the participant's home country due to the construction of a road. In the same survey, we also solicited individual socio-demographic characteristics and preferences, such as their gender, their risk preferences, whether they think individuals in Denmark, Spain, or Ghana can be trusted, etc. The data is useful for understanding individual preferences for national and international ecological compensation under a net outcomes type biodiversity policy (e.g., "no net loss"). It can also be used to understand how individual preferences and socio-demographic characteristics can be used to understand an individual's choice for ecological compensation.

Data on donation behavior towards the conservation of migratory species.

The data contains 716 individual decisions and responses from a lab-in-field experiment and an exit questionnaire that were conducted in Denmark, Spain, and Ghana. Individuals were initially asked to perform a small effort task (i.e., correctly counting the number of 1's and 0's in a page) to earn money and subsequently asked how much of their earnings they were willing to donate to BirdLife International to conserve Danish, Spanish, and Ghanaian habitats of the Montagu's Harrier, a migratory bird. The data is useful in understanding individual willingness-to-pay to conserve the habitats of the Montagu's Harrier along its flyway and could aid policymakers in having a clearer and more complete idea of support for international conservation. Among other things, the data can be used to look at the effect of individual socio-demographic characteristics and environmental and donation preferences on actual donation behavior.

Evaluating the impact of biodiversity offsetting on native vegetation.

Biodiversity offsetting is a globally influential policy mechanism for reconciling trade-offs between development and biodiversity loss. However, there is little robust evidence of its effectiveness. We evaluated the outcomes of a jurisdictional offsetting policy (Victoria, Australia). Offsets under Victoria's Native Vegetation Framework (2002-2013) aimed to prevent loss and degradation of remnant vegetation, and generate gains in vegetation extent and quality. We categorised offsets into those with near-complete baseline woody vegetation cover ("avoided loss", 2702 ha) and with incomplete cover ("regeneration", 501 ha), and evaluated impacts on woody vegetation extent from 2008 to 2018. We used two approaches to estimate the counterfactual. First, we used statistical matching on biophysical covariates: a common approach in conservation impact evaluation, but which risks ignoring potentially important psychosocial confounders. Second, we compared changes in offsets with changes in sites that were not offsets for the study duration but were later enrolled as offsets, to partially account for self-selection bias (where landholders enrolling land may have shared characteristics affecting how they manage land). Matching on biophysical covariates, we estimated that regeneration offsets increased woody vegetation extent by 1.9%-3.6%/year more than non-offset sites (138-180 ha from 2008 to 2018) but this effect weakened with the second approach (0.3%-1.9%/year more than non-offset sites; 19-97 ha from 2008 to 2018) and disappeared when a single outlier land parcel was removed. Neither approach detected any impact of avoided loss offsets. We cannot conclusively demonstrate whether the policy goal of 'net gain' (NG) was achieved because of data limitations. However, given our evidence that the majority of increases in woody vegetation extent were not additional (would have happened without the scheme), a NG outcome seems unlikely. The results highlight the importance of considering self-selection bias in the design and evaluation of regulatory biodiversity offsetting policy, and the challenges of conducting robust impact evaluations of jurisdictional biodiversity offsetting policies.

Reconciling multiple counterfactuals when evaluating biodiversity conservation impact in social-ecological systems.

When evaluating the impact of a biodiversity conservation intervention, a counterfactual is typically needed. Counterfactuals are possible alternative system trajectories in the absence of an intervention. Comparing observed outcomes against the chosen counterfactual allows the impact (change attributable to the intervention) to be determined. Because counterfactuals by definition never occur, they must be estimated. Sometimes, there may be many plausible counterfactuals, including various drivers of biodiversity change and defined on a range of spatial or temporal scales. Here, we posit that, by definition, conservation interventions always take place in social-ecological systems (SES) (i.e., ecological systems integrated with human actors). Evaluating the impact of an intervention in an SES, therefore, means taking into account the counterfactuals assumed by different human actors. Use of different counterfactuals by different actors will give rise to perceived differences in the impacts of interventions, which may lead to disagreement about its success or the effectiveness of the underlying approach. Despite that there are biophysical biodiversity trends, it is often true that no single counterfactual is definitively the right one for conservation assessment, so multiple evaluations of intervention efficacy could be considered justifiable. Therefore, we propose calculating the sum of perceived differences, which captures the range of impact estimates associated with different actors in a given SES. The sum of perceived differences gives some indication of how closely actors in an SES agree on the impacts of an intervention. We applied the concept of perceived differences to a set of global, national, and regional case studies (e.g., global realization of Aichi Target 11 for marine protected areas, effect of biodiversity offsetting on vegetation condition in Australia, and influence of conservation measures on an endangered ungulate in Central Asia). We explored approaches for minimizing the sum, including a combination of negotiation and structured decision making, careful alignment of expectations on scope and measurement, and explicit recognition of any intractable differences between stakeholders.

Reconciliación de Múltiples Hipótesis de Contraste al Evaluar el Impacto de la Conservación de la Biodiversidad en los Sistemas Socio-Ecológicos Resumen Cuando se evalúa el impacto de una intervención de conservación de la biodiversidad, generalmente se requiere una hipótesis de contraste. Las hipótesis de contraste son las posibles trayectorias alternativas del sistema en ausencia de una intervención. La comparación de los resultados observados con la hipótesis de contraste elegida permite que se determine el impacto (cambio atribuible a la intervención). Ya que las hipótesis de contraste por definición nunca ocurren, éstas deben ser estimadas. En algunos casos es posible que existan muchas hipótesis de contraste, incluyendo a muchos conductores del cambio en la biodiversidad, y que estén definidas bajo una gama de escalas espaciales o temporales. En este artículo planteamos que, por definición, las intervenciones de conservación siempre ocurren en sistemas socioecológicos (SES) (es decir, sistemas ecológicos integrados con actores humanos). Por lo tanto, la evaluación del impacto de una intervención en un SES implica la consideración de las hipótesis de contraste asumidas por los diferentes actores humanos. El uso de diferentes hipótesis de contraste por los diferentes actores hará que surjan diferencias percibidas en los impactos de las intervenciones, lo que puede llegar a discrepancias sobre su éxito o sobre la efectividad de la estrategia subyacente. A pesar de que existen tendencias biofísicas de la biodiversidad, con frecuencia es cierto que no hay una sola hipótesis de contraste que sea correcta de manera definitiva para la evaluación de la conservación, por lo que múltiples evaluaciones de la eficiencia de la intervención podrían considerarse como justificables. Así, proponemos que se calcule la suma de las diferencias percibidas, la cual captura la gama de las estimaciones de impacto asociadas con diferentes actores en un SES dado. La suma de las diferencias percibidas nos da algún tipo de indicación sobre cuán de acuerdo están los actores de un SES sobre los impactos de una intervención. Aplicamos el concepto de diferencias percibidas a un conjunto de estudios de caso mundiales, nacionales y regionales (p. ej.: la realización mundial del Objetivo Aichi 11 para las áreas marinas protegidas, el efecto de la compensación de la biodiversidad sobre las condiciones botánicas en Australia y la influencia de las medidas de conservación sobre un ungulado en peligro en Asia central). Exploramos las estrategias para minimizar la suma, incluyendo una combinación de negociación y toma estructurada de decisiones, la alineación cuidadosa de las expectativas sobre el enfoque y la medida y el reconocimiento explícito de cualquier diferencia intratable entre los actores sociales.

Effects of preference heterogeneity among landowners on spatial conservation prioritization.

The participation of private landowners in conservation is crucial to efficient biodiversity conservation. This is especially the case in settings where the share of private ownership is large and the economic costs associated with land acquisition are high. We used probit regression analysis and historical participation data to examine the likelihood of participation of Danish forest owners in a voluntary conservation program. We used the results to spatially predict the likelihood of participation of all forest owners in Denmark. We merged spatial data on the presence of forest, cadastral information on participation contracts, and individual-level socioeconomic information about the forest owners and their households. We included predicted participation in a probability model for species survival. Uninformed and informed (included land owner characteristics) models were then incorporated into a spatial prioritization for conservation of unmanaged forests. The choice models are based on sociodemographic data on the entire population of Danish forest owners and historical data on their participation in conservation schemes. Inclusion in the model of information on private landowners' willingness to supply land for conservation yielded at intermediate budget levels up to 30% more expected species coverage than the uninformed prioritization scheme. Our landowner-choice model provides an example of moving toward more implementable conservation planning.

Why socio-political borders and boundaries matter in conservation.

Acting to demarcate the spatial limits of decision-making processes, socio-political boundaries are an inevitable part of a human-dominated world. Rarely coincident with ecological boundaries, and thus having no ecological functional role by themselves, they nevertheless impose substantial costs on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation by fragmenting ownership, governance, and management. Where boundaries are in place, a lack of coordination on either side of a boundary affects the efficiency and efficacy of ecosystem management. We suggest four research pathways which will enhance our ability to address the adverse effects of socio-political borders on conservation: (i) scale-matching, (ii) quantification of the mutual economic benefits of conservation across boundaries, (iii) determining transboundary societal values, and (iv) acknowledging the importance of stakeholder behaviour and incentives.

Public support for conserving bird species runs counter to climate change impacts on their distributions.

There is increasing evidence that global climate change will alter the spatiotemporal occurrences and abundances of many species at continental scales. This will have implications for efficient conservation of biodiversity. We investigate if the general public in Denmark are willing to pay for the preservation of birds potentially immigrating and establishing breeding populations due to climate change to the same extent that they are for native species populations currently breeding in Denmark, but potentially emigrating due to climate change. We find that Danish citizens are willing to pay much more for the conservation of birds currently native to Denmark, than for bird species moving into the country--even when they are informed about the potential range shifts associated with climate change. The only exception is when immigrating species populations are under pressure at European level. Furthermore, people believing climate change to be man-made and people more knowledgeable about birds tended to have higher WTP for conservation of native species, relative to other people, whereas their preferences for conserving immigrant species generally resembled those of other people. Conservation investments rely heavily on public funding and hence on public support. Our results suggest that cross-country coordination of conservation efforts under climate change will be challenging in terms of achieving an appropriate balance between cost-effectiveness in adaptation and the concerns of a general public who seem mostly worried about protecting currently-native species.

A quantitative analysis of biodiversity and the recreational value of potential national parks in Denmark.

Denmark has committed itself to the European 2010 target to halt the loss of biodiversity. Currently, Denmark is in the process of designating larger areas as national parks, and 7 areas (of a possible 32 larger nature areas) have been selected for pilot projects to test the feasibility of establishing national parks. In this article, we first evaluate the effectiveness of the a priori network of national parks proposed through expert and political consensus versus a network chosen specifically for biodiversity through quantitative analysis. Second, we analyze the potential synergy between preserving biodiversity in terms of species representation and recreational values in selecting a network of national parks. We use the actual distribution of 973 species within these 32 areas and 4 quantitative measures of recreational value. Our results show that the 7 pilot project areas are not significantly more effective in representing species than expected by chance and that considerably more efficient networks can be selected. Moreover, it is possible to select more-effective networks of areas that combine high representation of species with high ranking in terms of recreational values. Therefore, our findings suggest possible synergies between outdoor recreation and biodiversity conservation when selecting networks of national parks. Overall, this Danish case illustrates that data-driven analysis can not only provide valuable information to guide the decision-making process of designating national parks, but it can also be a means to identify solutions that simultaneously fulfill several goals (biodiversity preservation and recreational values).

Transaction costs economics of irreplaceability: ex ante and ex post evaluation of conservation networks' vulnerability to environmental shocks.

The theoretical concept, "asset specificity," is applied to real data in the context of Danish nature conservation network planning in order to produce illustrative examples of an economic measure of the network's vulnerability to exogenous shocks to the species composition. Three different measures of asset specificity are quantified from the shadow value of eliminating a key species from the individual grid cells. This represents a novel approach and a different interpretation of the term, as it is conventionally used as a qualitative indicator in the transaction cost economics literature. Apart from supplementing existing cost measures with an indicator of risk associated with investments in protected areas, this study demonstrates how the estimation and interpretation of various asset specificity measures for geographical areas may qualify policy makers' choice of policy instrument in conservation planning. This differs from the more intuitive approach of basing policy instrument choice solely on the rarity of the species in a given area.

Value for money: protecting endangered species on Danish heathland.

Biodiversity policies in the European Union (EU) are mainly implemented through the Birds and Habitats Directives as well as the establishment of Natura 2000, a network of protected areas throughout the EU. Considerable resources must be allocated for fulfilling the Directives and the question of optimal allocation is as important as it is difficult. In general, economic evaluations of conservation targets at most consider the costs and seldom the welfare economic benefits. In the present study, we use welfare economic benefit estimates concerning the willingness-to-pay for preserving endangered species and for the aggregate area of heathland preserved in Denmark. Similarly, we obtain estimates of the welfare economic cost of habitat restoration and maintenance. Combining these welfare economic measures with expected species coverage, we are able to estimate the potential welfare economic contribution of a conservation network. We compare three simple nonprobabilistic strategies likely to be used in day-to-day policy implementation: i) a maximum selected area strategy, ii) a hotspot selection strategy, and iii) a minimizing cost strategy, and two more advanced and informed probabilistic strategies: i) a maximum expected coverage strategy and ii) a strategy for maximum expected welfare economic gain. We show that the welfare economic performance of the strategies differ considerably. The comparison between the expected coverage and expected welfare shows that for the case considered, one may identify an optimal protection level above which additional coverage only comes at increasing welfare economic loss.