Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity.

Island biogeography theory posits that species richness increases with island size and decreases with isolation. This logic underpins much conservation policy and regulation, with preference given to conserving large, highly connected areas, and relative ambivalence shown toward protecting small, isolated habitat patches. We undertook a global synthesis of the relationship between the conservation value of habitat patches and their size and isolation, based on 31 systematic conservation planning studies across four continents. We found that small, isolated patches are inordinately important for biodiversity conservation. Our results provide a powerful argument for redressing the neglect of small, isolated habitat patches, for urgently prioritizing their restoration, and for avoiding simplistic application of island biogeography theory in conservation decisions.

Three ways to deliver a net positive impact with biodiversity offsets.

Biodiversity offsetting is the practice of using conservation actions, such as habitat restoration, management, or protection, to compensate for ecological losses caused by development activity, including construction projects. The typical goal of offsetting is no net loss (NNL), which means that all ecological losses are compensated for by commensurate offset gains. We focused on a conceptual and methodological exploration of net positive impact (NPI), an ambitious goal that implies commitment beyond NNL and that has recently received increasing attention from big business and environmental nongovernmental organizations. We identified 3 main ways NPI could be delivered: use of an additional NPI multiplier; use of slowly developing permanent offsets to deliver additional gains after NNL has first been reached during a shorter offset evaluation time interval; and the combination of permanent offsets with partially temporary losses. An important and novel variant of the last mechanism is the use of an alternate mitigation hierarchy so that gains from the traditional third step of the mitigation hierarchy (i.e., onsite rehabilitation) are no longer be counted toward reduced offset requirements. The outcome from these 3 factors is that for the same ecological damage, larger offsets will be required than previously, thereby improving offset success. As a corollary, we show that offsets are NNL only at 1 ephemeral point in time, before which they are net negative and after which they become either NPI or net negative impact, depending on whether permanent offsets are combined with partially temporary losses or if temporary offset gains are combined with partially permanent losses. To achieve NPI, offsets must be made permanent, and they must achieve NNL during an agreed-upon offset evaluation period. An additional NPI-multiplier and use of the modified mitigation hierarchy will deliver additional NPI gains. Achieving NPI is fully conditional on prior achievement of NNL, and NNL offsets have been frequently observed to fail due to inadequate policy requirements, poor planning, or incomplete implementation. Nevertheless, achieving NPI becomes straightforward if NNL can be credibly reached first.

Tres Maneras de Proporcionar un Impacto Positivo Neto con Compensaciones por Biodiversidad Resumen La compensación por biodiversidad es una práctica que consiste en usar las acciones de conservación, como la restauración, manejo o protección del hábitat, para compensar las pérdidas ecológicas causadas por las actividades de desarrollo, incluidos los proyectos de construcción. La meta típica de la compensación es la nula pérdida neta (NNL), lo que implica que todas las pérdidas ecológicas están compensadas por las ganancias proporcionales. Nos enfocamos en una exploración conceptual y metodológica del impacto positivo neto (NPI), una meta ambiciosa que implica un compromiso más allá de la NNL y que recientemente ha recibido una mayor atención por parte de los grandes negocios y las organizaciones no gubernamentales ambientales. Identificamos tres maneras principales mediante las cuales se podría proporcionar el NPI: el uso de un multiplicador adicional de NPI; el uso de compensaciones permanentes de lento desarrollo para entregar ganancias adicionales después de que primero se haya logrado el NNL durante un intervalo de tiempo más corto para la evaluación de las compensaciones; y la combinación de las compensaciones permanentes con las pérdidas parcialmente temporales. Una variante importante y novedosa del último mecanismo es el uso de una jerarquía alterna de mitigación de tal manera que las ganancias provenientes del tradicional tercer paso de la jerarquía de mitigación (es decir, la rehabilitación in situ) ya no se contabilizan para los requerimientos reducidos de las compensaciones. El resultado de estos tres factores consiste en que para el mismo daño ecológico se requerirán compensaciones mayores a las necesarias previamente, aumentando así el éxito de las compensaciones. Como corolario, demostramos que las compensaciones sólo alcanzan el NNl durante un punto efímero en el tiempo, antes del cual tienen un saldo neto negativo y después del cual se transforman en un impacto neto positivo o un impacto neto negativo dependiendo de si las compensaciones permanentes se combinan con pérdidas parcialmente temporales o de si las ganancias temporales de las compensaciones se combinan con pérdidas parcialmente temporales. Para alcanzar el NPI, las compensaciones deben volverse permanentes y deben llegar al NNL durante un periodo acordado de evaluación de compensaciones. El uso de un multiplicador adicional de NPI y de una jerarquía alterada de mitigación proporcionará ganancias adicionales al NPI. La obtención del NPI es completamente dependiente de la obtención previa del NNL; se ha observado con frecuencia que las compensaciones por NNL fallan debido a los requerimientos inadecuados de las políticas, la pobre planeación o la implementación incompleta. Sin embargo, llegar al NPI se vuelve una tarea sencilla si primero se puede alcanzar el NNL de manera verosímil.

Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism.

Protected areas are one of the main tools for halting the continuing global biodiversity crisis caused by habitat loss, fragmentation and other anthropogenic pressures. According to the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the protected area network should be expanded to at least 17% of the terrestrial world by 2020 (http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets). To maximize conservation outcomes, it is crucial to identify the best expansion areas. Here we show that there is a very high potential to increase protection of ecoregions and vertebrate species by expanding the protected area network, but also identify considerable risk of ineffective outcomes due to land-use change and uncoordinated actions between countries. We use distribution data for 24,757 terrestrial vertebrates assessed under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 'red list of threatened species', and terrestrial ecoregions (827), modified by land-use models for the present and 2040, and introduce techniques for global and balanced spatial conservation prioritization. First, we show that with a coordinated global protected area network expansion to 17% of terrestrial land, average protection of species ranges and ecoregions could triple. Second, if projected land-use change by 2040 (ref. 11) takes place, it becomes infeasible to reach the currently possible protection levels, and over 1,000 threatened species would lose more than 50% of their present effective ranges worldwide. Third, we demonstrate a major efficiency gap between national and global conservation priorities. Strong evidence is shown that further biodiversity loss is unavoidable unless international action is quickly taken to balance land-use and biodiversity conservation. The approach used here can serve as a framework for repeatable and quantitative assessment of efficiency, gaps and expansion of the global protected area network globally, regionally and nationally, considering current and projected land-use pressures.

Priority areas for conservation of Old World vultures.

The prosperity and well-being of human societies relies on healthy ecosystems and the services they provide. However, the biodiversity crisis is undermining ecosystems services and functions. Vultures are among the most imperiled taxonomic groups on Earth, yet they have a fundamental ecosystem function. These obligate scavengers rapidly consume large amounts of carrion and human waste, a service that may aid in both disease prevention and control of mammalian scavengers, including feral dogs, which in turn threaten humans. We combined information about the distribution of all 15 vulture species found in Europe, Asia, and Africa with their threats and used detailed expert knowledge on threat intensity to prioritize critical areas for conserving vultures in Africa and Eurasia. Threats we identified included poisoning, mortality due to collision with wind energy infrastructures, and other anthropogenic activities related to human land use and influence. Areas important for vulture conservation were concentrated in southern and eastern Africa, South Asia, and the Iberian Peninsula, and over 80% of these areas were unprotected. Some vulture species required larger areas for protection than others. Finally, countries that had the largest share of all identified important priority areas for vulture conservation were those with the largest expenditures related to rabies burden (e.g., India, China, and Myanmar). Vulture populations have declined markedly in most of these countries. Restoring healthy vulture populations through targeted actions in the priority areas we identified may help restore the ecosystem services vultures provide, including sanitation and potentially prevention of diseases, such as rabies, a heavy burden afflicting fragile societies. Our findings may guide stakeholders to prioritize actions where they are needed most in order to achieve international goals for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.

Áreas Prioritarias para la Conservación de Buitres del Viejo Mundo Resumen La prosperidad y el bienestar de la sociedad humana dependen de ecosistemas sanos y de los servicios ambientales que éstos proporcionan. Sin embargo, la crisis de biodiversidad está afectando a los servicios ambientales y sus funciones. Los buitres se encuentran entre los grupos taxonómicos con mayor amenaza sobre el planeta, a pesar de tener una función fundamental en los ecosistemas. Estos carroñeros obligados consumen rápidamente grandes cantidades de carroña y desechos humanos, un servicio que puede ayudar en la prevención de enfermedades y en el control de mamíferos carroñeros, incluyendo a los perros ferales, los cuales pueden ser un peligro para los humanos. Combinamos la información sobre la distribución de las 15 especies de buitres en Europa, Asia y África con las amenazas que presentan y usamos el conocimiento detallado de expertos sobre la intensidad de las amenazas para priorizar las áreas críticas para la conservación de buitres en África y en Eurasia. Las amenazas que identificamos incluyeron el envenenamiento, la mortalidad por colisiones con infraestructura eólica y otras actividades antropogénicas relacionadas con el uso de suelo y la influencia humana. Las áreas importantes para la conservación de buitres estuvieron concentradas en el sur y el este de África, el sur de Asia y la Península Ibérica, y más del 80% de estas áreas no contaban con protección. Algunas especies de buitres requirieron áreas más grandes para su protección que otras especies. Finalmente, los países que tuvieron la mayor porción de todas las áreas prioritarias importantes e identificadas para la conservación de buitres también fueron aquellos con los mayores gastos relacionados con la carga de la rabia (por ejemplo, India, China y Myanmar). Las poblaciones de buitres han declinado marcadamente en la mayoría de estos países. La restauración de poblaciones sanas de buitres por medio de acciones enfocadas en las áreas prioritarias que identificamos puede ayudar a restaurar los servicios ambientales que proporcionan los buitres, incluyendo el saneamiento y la prevención potencial de enfermedades, como la rabia, una carga pesada que aflige a las sociedades frágiles. Nuestros resultados pueden guiar a los interesados hacia la priorización de acciones en donde más se necesitan para poder alcanzar los objetivos internacionales para la conservación de la biodiversidad y el desarrollo sustentable.

Exposing ecological and economic costs of the research-implementation gap and compromises in decision making.

The frequently discussed gap between conservation science and practice is manifest in the gap between spatial conservation prioritization plans and their implementation. We analyzed the research-implementation gap of one zoning case by comparing results of a spatial prioritization analysis aimed at avoiding ecological impact of peat mining in a regional zoning process with the final zoning plan. We examined the relatively complex planning process to determine the gaps among research, zoning, and decision making. We quantified the ecological costs of the differing trade-offs between ecological and socioeconomic factors included in the different zoning suggestions by comparing the landscape-level loss of ecological features (species occurrences, habitat area, etc.) between the different solutions for spatial allocation of peat mining. We also discussed with the scientists and planners the reasons for differing zoning suggestions. The implemented plan differed from the scientists suggestion in that its focus was individual ecological features rather than all the ecological features for which there were data; planners and decision makers considered effects of peat mining on areas not included in the prioritization analysis; zoning was not truly seen as a resource-allocation process and not emphasized in general minimizing ecological losses while satisfying economic needs (peat-mining potential); and decision makers based their prioritization of sites on site-level information showing high ecological value and on single legislative factors instead of finding a cost-effective landscape-level solution. We believe that if the zoning and decision-making processes are very complex, then the usefulness of science-based prioritization tools is likely to be reduced. Nevertheless, we found that high-end tools were useful in clearly exposing trade-offs between conservation and resource utilization.

Use of demand for and spatial flow of ecosystem services to identify priority areas.

Policies and research increasingly focus on the protection of ecosystem services (ESs) through priority-area conservation. Priority areas for ESs should be identified based on ES capacity and ES demand and account for the connections between areas of ES capacity and demand (flow) resulting in areas of unique demand-supply connections (flow zones). We tested ways to account for ES demand and flow zones to identify priority areas in the European Union. We mapped the capacity and demand of a global (carbon sequestration), a regional (flood regulation), and 3 local ESs (air quality, pollination, and urban leisure). We used Zonation software to identify priority areas for ESs based on 6 tests: with and without accounting for ES demand and 4 tests that accounted for the effect of ES flow zone. There was only 37.1% overlap between the 25% of priority areas that encompassed the most ESs with and without accounting for ES demand. The level of ESs maintained in the priority areas increased from 23.2% to 57.9% after accounting for ES demand, especially for ESs with a small flow zone. Accounting for flow zone had a small effect on the location of priority areas and level of ESs maintained but resulted in fewer flow zones without ES maintained relative to ignoring flow zones. Accounting for demand and flow zones enhanced representation and distribution of ESs with local to regional flow zones without large trade-offs relative to the global ES. We found that ignoring ES demand led to the identification of priority areas in remote regions where benefits from ES capacity to society were small. Incorporating ESs in conservation planning should therefore always account for ES demand to identify an effective priority network for ESs.

Optimal conservation resource allocation under variable economic and ecological time discounting rates in boreal forest.

Resource allocation to multiple alternative conservation actions is a complex task. A common trade-off occurs between protection of smaller, expensive, high-quality areas versus larger, cheaper, partially degraded areas. We investigate optimal allocation into three actions in boreal forest: current standard forest management rules, setting aside of mature stands, or setting aside of clear-cuts. We first estimated how habitat availability for focal indicator species and economic returns from timber harvesting develop through time as a function of forest type and action chosen. We then developed an optimal resource allocation by accounting for budget size and habitat availability of indicator species in different forest types. We also accounted for the perspective adopted towards sustainability, modeled via temporal preference and economic and ecological time discounting. Controversially, we found that in boreal forest set-aside followed by protection of clear-cuts can become a winning cost-effective strategy when accounting for habitat requirements of multiple species, long planning horizon, and limited budget. It is particularly effective when adopting a long-term sustainability perspective, and accounting for present revenues from timber harvesting. The present analysis assesses the cost-effective conditions to allocate resources into an inexpensive conservation strategy that nevertheless has potential to produce high ecological values in the future.

Green Infrastructure Design Based on Spatial Conservation Prioritization and Modeling of Biodiversity Features and Ecosystem Services.

There is high-level political support for the use of green infrastructure (GI) across Europe, to maintain viable populations and to provide ecosystem services (ES). Even though GI is inherently a spatial concept, the modern tools for spatial planning have not been recognized, such as in the recent European Environment Agency (EEA) report. We outline a toolbox of methods useful for GI design that explicitly accounts for biodiversity and ES. Data on species occurrence, habitats, and environmental variables are increasingly available via open-access internet platforms. Such data can be synthesized by statistical species distribution modeling, producing maps of biodiversity features. These, together with maps of ES, can form the basis for GI design. We argue that spatial conservation prioritization (SCP) methods are effective tools for GI design, as the overall SCP goal is cost-effective allocation of conservation efforts. Corridors are currently promoted by the EEA as the means for implementing GI design, but they typically target the needs of only a subset of the regional species pool. SCP methods would help to ensure that GI provides a balanced solution for the requirements of many biodiversity features (e.g., species, habitat types) and ES simultaneously in a cost-effective manner. Such tools are necessary to make GI into an operational concept for combating biodiversity loss and promoting ES.

Identification of policies for a sustainable legal trade in rhinoceros horn based on population projection and socioeconomic models.

Between 1990 and 2007, 15 southern white (Ceratotherium simum simum) and black (Diceros bicornis) rhinoceroses on average were killed illegally every year in South Africa. Since 2007 illegal killing of southern white rhinoceros for their horn has escalated to >950 individuals/year in 2013. We conducted an ecological-economic analysis to determine whether a legal trade in southern white rhinoceros horn could facilitate rhinoceros protection. Generalized linear models were used to examine the socioeconomic drivers of poaching, based on data collected from 1990 to 2013, and to project the total number of rhinoceroses likely to be illegally killed from 2014 to 2023. Rhinoceros population dynamics were then modeled under 8 different policy scenarios that could be implemented to control poaching. We also estimated the economic costs and benefits of each scenario under enhanced enforcement only and a legal trade in rhinoceros horn and used a decision support framework to rank the scenarios with the objective of maintaining the rhinoceros population above its current size while generating profit for local stakeholders. The southern white rhinoceros population was predicted to go extinct in the wild <20 years under present management. The optimal scenario to maintain the rhinoceros population above its current size was to provide a medium increase in antipoaching effort and to increase the monetary fine on conviction. Without legalizing the trade, implementing such a scenario would require covering costs equal to approximately $147,000,000/year. With a legal trade in rhinoceros horn, the conservation enterprise could potentially make a profit of $717,000,000/year. We believe the 35-year-old ban on rhinoceros horn products should not be lifted unless the money generated from trade is reinvested in improved protection of the rhinoceros population. Because current protection efforts seem to be failing, it is time to evaluate, discuss, and test alternatives to the present policy.

Reconciling biodiversity and carbon conservation.

Climate change is leading to the development of land-based mitigation and adaptation strategies that are likely to have substantial impacts on global biodiversity. Of these, approaches to maintain carbon within existing natural ecosystems could have particularly large benefits for biodiversity. However, the geographical distributions of terrestrial carbon stocks and biodiversity differ. Using conservation planning analyses for the New World and Britain, we conclude that a carbon-only strategy would not be effective at conserving biodiversity, as have previous studies. Nonetheless, we find that a combined carbon-biodiversity strategy could simultaneously protect 90% of carbon stocks (relative to a carbon-only conservation strategy) and > 90% of the biodiversity (relative to a biodiversity-only strategy) in both regions. This combined approach encapsulates the principle of complementarity, whereby locations that contain different sets of species are prioritised, and hence disproportionately safeguard localised species that are not protected effectively by carbon-only strategies. It is efficient because localised species are concentrated into small parts of the terrestrial land surface, whereas carbon is somewhat more evenly distributed; and carbon stocks protected in one location are equivalent to those protected elsewhere. Efficient compromises can only be achieved when biodiversity and carbon are incorporated together within a spatial planning process.

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.

Conservation businesses and conservation planning in a biological diversity hotspot.

The allocation of land to biological diversity conservation competes with other land uses and the needs of society for development, food, and extraction of natural resources. Trade-offs between biological diversity conservation and alternative land uses are unavoidable, given the realities of limited conservation resources and the competing demands of society. We developed a conservation-planning assessment for the South African province of KwaZulu-Natal, which forms the central component of the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany biological diversity hotspot. Our objective was to enhance biological diversity protection while promoting sustainable development and providing spatial guidance in the resolution of potential policy conflicts over priority areas for conservation at risk of transformation. The conservation-planning assessment combined spatial-distribution models for 646 conservation features, spatial economic-return models for 28 alternative land uses, and spatial maps for 4 threats. Nature-based tourism businesses were competitive with other land uses and could provide revenues of >US$60 million/year to local stakeholders and simultaneously help meeting conservation goals for almost half the conservation features in the planning region. Accounting for opportunity costs substantially decreased conflicts between biological diversity, agricultural use, commercial forestry, and mining. Accounting for economic benefits arising from conservation and reducing potential policy conflicts with alternative plans for development can provide opportunities for successful strategies that combine conservation and sustainable development and facilitate conservation action.

Genetic diversity in widespread species is not congruent with species richness in alpine plant communities.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) aims at the conservation of all three levels of biodiversity, that is, ecosystems, species and genes. Genetic diversity represents evolutionary potential and is important for ecosystem functioning. Unfortunately, genetic diversity in natural populations is hardly considered in conservation strategies because it is difficult to measure and has been hypothesised to co-vary with species richness. This means that species richness is taken as a surrogate of genetic diversity in conservation planning, though their relationship has not been properly evaluated. We tested whether the genetic and species levels of biodiversity co-vary, using a large-scale and multi-species approach. We chose the high-mountain flora of the Alps and the Carpathians as study systems and demonstrate that species richness and genetic diversity are not correlated. Species richness thus cannot act as a surrogate for genetic diversity. Our results have important consequences for implementing the CBD when designing conservation strategies.

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.

Integrating environmental gap analysis with spatial conservation prioritization: a case study from Victoria, Australia.

Gap analysis is used to analyse reserve networks and their coverage of biodiversity, thus identifying gaps in biodiversity representation that may be filled by additional conservation measures. Gap analysis has been used to identify priorities for species and habitat types. When it is applied to identify gaps in the coverage of environmental variables, it embodies the assumption that combinations of environmental variables are effective surrogates for biodiversity attributes. The question remains of how to fill gaps in conservation systems efficiently. Conservation prioritization software can identify those areas outside existing conservation areas that contribute to the efficient covering of gaps in biodiversity features. We show how environmental gap analysis can be implemented using high-resolution information about environmental variables and ecosystem condition with the publicly available conservation prioritization software, Zonation. Our method is based on the conversion of combinations of environmental variables into biodiversity features. We also replicated the analysis by using Species Distribution Models (SDMs) as biodiversity features to evaluate the robustness and utility of our environment-based analysis. We apply the technique to a planning case study of the state of Victoria, Australia.

How threats inform conservation planning-A systematic review protocol.

Conservation planning addresses the development and expansion of protected areas and requires data on for instance species, habitats, and biodiversity. Data on threats is often minimal, although necessary in conservation planning. In principle, threats should guide which conservation actions to take and where, and how to allocate resources. The lack of threat information may also limit the validity of areas to be conserved, if the condition of areas is degraded by threats unknown. The protocol described here outlines the methodology for a systematic review to explore how threats are theoretically and methodologically understood and used in conservation plans across freshwater, marine and terrestrial environments. Our primary research question is: how have threats informed conservation planning? Studies will be categorized according to the types of threats and conservation features used, theoretical and methodological approaches applied, geographical context, and biome. The results are expected to increase our understanding about how threats can and should be addressed in conservation planning.

Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization.

Pressure on ecosystems to provide various different and often conflicting services is immense and likely to increase. The impacts and success of conservation prioritization will be enhanced if the needs of competing land uses are recognized at the planning stage. We develop such methods and illustrate them with data about competing land uses in Great Britain, with the aim of developing a conservation priority ranking that balances between needs of biodiversity conservation, carbon storage, agricultural value, and urban development potential. While both carbon stocks and biodiversity are desirable features from the point of view of conservation, they compete with the needs of agriculture and urban development. In Britain the greatest conflicts exist between biodiversity and urban areas, while the largest carbon stocks occur mostly in Scotland in areas with low agricultural or urban pressure. In our application, we were able successfully to balance the spatial allocation of alternative land uses so that conflicts between them were much smaller than had they been developed separately. The proposed methods and software, Zonation, are applicable to structurally similar prioritization problems globally.

Quantifying biodiversity trade-offs in the face of widespread renewable and unconventional energy development.

The challenge of balancing biodiversity protection with economic growth is epitomized by the development of renewable and unconventional energy, whose adoption is aimed at stemming the impacts of global climate change, yet has outpaced our understanding of biodiversity impacts. We evaluated the potential conflict between biodiversity protection and future electricity generation from renewable (wind farms, run-of-river hydro) and non-renewable (shale gas) sources in British Columbia (BC), Canada using three metrics: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, electricity cost, and overlap between future development and conservation priorities for several fish and wildlife groups - small-bodied vertebrates, large mammals, freshwater fish - and undisturbed landscapes. Sharp trade-offs in global versus regional biodiversity conservation exist for all energy technologies, and in BC they are currently smallest for wind energy: low GHG emissions, low-moderate overlap with top conservation priorities, and competitive energy cost. GHG emissions from shale gas are 1000 times higher than those from renewable sources, and run-of-river hydro has high overlap with conservation priorities for small-bodied vertebrates. When all species groups were considered simultaneously, run-of-river hydro had moderate overlap (0.56), while shale gas and onshore wind had low overlap with top conservation priorities (0.23 and 0.24, respectively). The unintended cost of distributed energy sources for regional biodiversity suggest that trade-offs based on more diverse metrics must be incorporated into energy planning.

Delaying conservation actions for improved knowledge: how long should we wait?

Decisions about where conservation actions are implemented are based on incomplete knowledge about biodiversity. The Protea Atlas is a comprehensive database, containing information collated over a decade. Using this data set in a series of retrospective simulations, we compared the outcome from different scenarios of information gain, and habitat protection and loss, over a 20-year period. We assumed that there was no information on proteas at the beginning of the simulation but knowledge improved each year. Our aim was to find out how much time we should spend collecting data before protecting habitat when there is ongoing loss of habitat. We found that, in this case, surveying for more than 2 years rarely increased the effectiveness of conservation decisions in terms of representation of proteas in protected areas and retention within the landscape. If the delay is too long, it can sometimes be more effective just using a readily available habitat map. These results reveal the opportunity costs of delaying conservation action to improve knowledge.