Search

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., (© 2020 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.)

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., (© 2019 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.)

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., (© 2017 Society for Conservation Biology.)

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., (© 2016 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.)

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., (© 2014 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of the Society for Conservation Biology.)

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., (© 2013 Society for Conservation Biology.)

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., (© 2013 Society for Conservation Biology.)

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., (©2012 Society for Conservation Biology.)

Optimization of resource use is necessary for efficient conservation planning. Many reserve-selection algorithms aim to identify representative but inexpensive networks, which may lead to selecting small sites due to their lower costs and collectively higher species richness. Nevertheless, larger sites would be preferable regarding species' long-term persistence. An area-based refinement can be used to overcome this problem. We used a reserve-planning framework in which continuous benefit functions valued representation (numbers of populations), and differential species weights were based on a species' local rarity and threatened status. We introduced a refinement based on the species-area relationship that provides relatively higher values for larger sites. We applied the proposed method to rich fen vegetation in southern Finland. The species-area refinement resulted in a network of significantly larger sites with minor trade-offs with representation (numbers of populations). Giving endangered species higher weights ensured that the trade-off occurred mostly between site size and representation of low-priority species. We recommend using a species-area refinement for practical, maximum-coverage conservation planning.

Aggregation of reserve networks is generally considered desirable for biological and economic reasons: aggregation reduces negative edge effects and facilitates metapopulation dynamics, which plausibly leads to improved persistence of species. Economically, aggregated networks are less expensive to manage than fragmented ones. Therefore, many reserve-design methods use qualitative heuristics, such as distance-based criteria or boundary-length penalties to induce reserve aggregation. We devised a quantitative method that introduces aggregation into reserve networks. We call the method the boundary-quality penalty (BQP) because the biological value of a land unit (grid cell) is penalized when the unit occurs close enough to the edge of a reserve such that a fragmentation or edge effect would reduce population densities in the reserved cell. The BQP can be estimated for any habitat model that includes neighborhood (connectivity) effects, and it can be introduced into reserve selection software in a standardized manner. We used the BQP in a reserve-design case study of the Hunter Valley of southeastern Australia. The BQP resulted in a more highly aggregated reserve network structure. The degree of aggregation required was specified by observed (albeit modeled) biological responses to fragmentation. Estimating the effects of fragmentation on individual species and incorporating estimated effects in the objective function of reserve-selection algorithms is a coherent and defensible way to select aggregated reserves. We implemented the BQP in the context of the Zonation method, but it could as well be implemented into any other spatially explicit reserve-planning framework.

Methods for reserve selection and conservation planning often ignore uncertainty. For example, presence-absence observations and predictions of habitat models are used as inputs but commonly assumed to be without error. We applied information-gap decision theory to develop uncertainty analysis methods for reserve selection. Our proposed method seeks a solution that is robust in achieving a given conservation target, despite uncertainty in the data. We maximized robustness in reserve selection through a novel method, "distribution discounting," in which the site- and species-specific measure of conservation value (related to species-specific occupancy probabilities) was penalized by an error measure (in our study, related to accuracy of statistical prediction). Because distribution discounting can be implemented as a modification of input files, it is a computationally efficient solution for implementing uncertainty analysis into reserve selection. Thus, the method is particularly useful for high-dimensional decision problems characteristic of regional conservation assessment. We implemented distribution discounting in the zonation reserve-selection algorithm that produces a hierarchy of conservation priorities throughout the landscape. We applied it to reserve selection for seven priority fauna in a landscape in New South Wales, Australia. The distribution discounting method can be easily adapted for use with different kinds of data (e.g., probability of occurrence or abundance) and different landscape descriptions (grid or patch based) and incorporated into other reserve-selection algorithms and software.