Search

Your search keyword '"Rinnan, D."' showing total 9 results
Start Over Author "Rinnan, D." Search Limiters Full Text
9 results on '"Rinnan, D."'

4. Terrestrial conservation opportunities and inequities revealed by global multi-scale prioritization

Author

Rinnan, D. Scott and Jetz, Walter

Abstract

Area-based conservation through reserves or other measures is vital for preserving biodiversity and its functions for future generations 1–5 , but its effective implementation suffers from a lack of both management-level detail 6 and transparency around national responsibilities that might underpin cross-national support mechanisms 7 . Here we implement a conservation prioritization 2,8 framework that accounts for spatial data limitations yet offers actionable guidance at a 1km resolution. Our multi-scale linear optimization approach delineates globally the areas required to meet conservation targets for all ∼32,000 described terrestrial vertebrate species, while offering flexibility in decision management to meet different local conservation objectives. Roughly 48.5% of land is sufficient to meet conservation targets for all species, of which 60.2% is either already protected 9 or has minimal human modification 10 . However, human-modified areas need to be managed or restored in some form to ensure the long-term survival for over half of species. This burden of area-based conservation is distributed very unevenly among countries, and, without a process that explicitly addresses geopolitical inequity, requires disproportionately large commitments from poorer countries. Our analyses provide baseline information for a potential intergovernmental and stakeholder contribution mechanism in service of a globally shared goal of sustaining biodiversity. Future updates and extensions to this global priority map have the potential to guide local and national advocacy and actions with a data-driven approach to support global conservation outcomes.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water:[incl. correction]

Author

Jung, Martin, Arnell, Andy, de Lamo, Xavier, García-Rangel, Shaenandhoa, Lewis, Matthew, Mark, Jennifer, Merow, Cory, Miles, Lera, Ondo, Ian, Pironon, Samuel, Ravilious, Corinna, Rivers, Malin, Schepashenko, Dmitry, Tallowin, Oliver, van Soesbergen, Arnout, Govaerts, Rafaël, Boyle, Bradley L., Enquist, Brian J., Feng, Xiao, Gallagher, Rachael, Maitner, Brian, Meiri, Shai, Mulligan, Mark, Ofer, Gali, Roll, Uri, Hanson, Jeffrey O., Jetz, Walter, Di Marco, Moreno, McGowan, Jennifer, Rinnan, D. Scott, Sachs, Jeffrey D., Lesiv, Myroslava, Adams, Vanessa M., Andrew, Samuel C., Burger, Joseph R., Hannah, Lee, Marquet, Pablo A., McCarthy, James K., Morueta-Holme, Naia, Newman, Erica A., Park, Daniel S., Roehrdanz, Patrick R., Svenning, Jens-Christian, Violle, Cyrille, Wieringa, Jan J., Wynne, Graham, Fritz, Steffen, Strassburg, Bernardo B. N., Obersteiner, Michael, Kapos, Valerie, Burgess, Neil, Schmidt-Traub, Guido, Visconti, Piero, Jung, Martin, Arnell, Andy, de Lamo, Xavier, García-Rangel, Shaenandhoa, Lewis, Matthew, Mark, Jennifer, Merow, Cory, Miles, Lera, Ondo, Ian, Pironon, Samuel, Ravilious, Corinna, Rivers, Malin, Schepashenko, Dmitry, Tallowin, Oliver, van Soesbergen, Arnout, Govaerts, Rafaël, Boyle, Bradley L., Enquist, Brian J., Feng, Xiao, Gallagher, Rachael, Maitner, Brian, Meiri, Shai, Mulligan, Mark, Ofer, Gali, Roll, Uri, Hanson, Jeffrey O., Jetz, Walter, Di Marco, Moreno, McGowan, Jennifer, Rinnan, D. Scott, Sachs, Jeffrey D., Lesiv, Myroslava, Adams, Vanessa M., Andrew, Samuel C., Burger, Joseph R., Hannah, Lee, Marquet, Pablo A., McCarthy, James K., Morueta-Holme, Naia, Newman, Erica A., Park, Daniel S., Roehrdanz, Patrick R., Svenning, Jens-Christian, Violle, Cyrille, Wieringa, Jan J., Wynne, Graham, Fritz, Steffen, Strassburg, Bernardo B. N., Obersteiner, Michael, Kapos, Valerie, Burgess, Neil, Schmidt-Traub, Guido, and Visconti, Piero

Abstract

To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, the international community requires clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially and how multiple targets can be pursued concurrently. To support goal setting and the implementation of international strategies and action plans, spatial guidance is needed to identify which land areas have the potential to generate the greatest synergies between conserving biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Here we present results from a joint optimization that minimizes the number of threatened species, maximizes carbon retention and water quality regulation, and ranks terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that selecting the top-ranked 30% and 50% of terrestrial land area would conserve respectively 60.7% and 85.3% of the estimated total carbon stock and 66% and 89.8% of all clean water, in addition to meeting conservation targets for 57.9% and 79% of all species considered. Our data and prioritization further suggest that adequately conserving all species considered (vertebrates and plants) would require giving conservation attention to ~70% of the terrestrial land surface. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to meet conservation targets for 81.3% of the terrestrial plant and vertebrate species considered. Our results provide a global assessment of where land could be optimally managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

Published
2021

6. NatureMap Priority maps to Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon, and water

Author

Jung, M., Arnell, A., de Lamo, X., Garcia-Rangel, S., Lewis, M., Mark, J., Merow, C., Miles, L., Ondo, I., Pironon, S., Ravilious, C., Rivers, M., Shchepashchenko, D., Tallowin, O., van Soesbergen, A., Govaerts, R., Boyle, B., Enquist, B., Feng, X., Gallagher, R., Maitner, B., Meiri, S., Mulligan, M., Ofer, G., Roll, U., Hanson, J., Jetz, W., Marco, M., McGowan, J., Rinnan, D., Sachs, J., Lesiv, M., Adams, V., Andrew, S., Burger, J., Hannah, L., Marquet, P., McCarthy, J., Morueta-Holme, N., Newman, E., Park, D., Roehrdanz, P., Svenning, J.-C., Violle, C., Wieringa, I., Wynne, G., Fritz, S., Strassburg, B., Obersteiner, M., Kapos, V., Burgess, N., Schmidt-Traub, G., Visconti, P., Jung, M., Arnell, A., de Lamo, X., Garcia-Rangel, S., Lewis, M., Mark, J., Merow, C., Miles, L., Ondo, I., Pironon, S., Ravilious, C., Rivers, M., Shchepashchenko, D., Tallowin, O., van Soesbergen, A., Govaerts, R., Boyle, B., Enquist, B., Feng, X., Gallagher, R., Maitner, B., Meiri, S., Mulligan, M., Ofer, G., Roll, U., Hanson, J., Jetz, W., Marco, M., McGowan, J., Rinnan, D., Sachs, J., Lesiv, M., Adams, V., Andrew, S., Burger, J., Hannah, L., Marquet, P., McCarthy, J., Morueta-Holme, N., Newman, E., Park, D., Roehrdanz, P., Svenning, J.-C., Violle, C., Wieringa, I., Wynne, G., Fritz, S., Strassburg, B., Obersteiner, M., Kapos, V., Burgess, N., Schmidt-Traub, G., and Visconti, P.

Abstract

This data repository contains the results of the NatureMap ( naturemap.earth/) conservation prioritization effort. The maps were created by jointly optimizing biodiversity and NCPs such as carbon and/or water. Maps are supplied at both 10km and 50km resolution and all maps that aim to find priority areas for all species considered in the analysis, utilize a series of representative sets. The ranks for each layer are area-specific and can be used to extract summary statistics by simple subsetting. For example, to obtain the top 30% of land area for biodiversity and carbon, one needs to create a mask of all areas lower than a value of 30 from the respective ranked layers. For convenience two files are supplied that contain the fraction of land area per grid cell times 1000. Multiplying those with the cell area (100km2, respectively 2500km2) gives the exact amount of land area in a given grid cell. These are labelled "globalgrid_mollweide_**km.tif " can be used to create masks for the priority maps. The geographic projection is World Mollweide Equal Area projection.

Published
2021

7. Areas of global importance for terrestrial biodiversity, carbon, and water

Author

Jung, M., Arnell, A., de Lamo, X., García-Rangel, S., Lewis, M., Mark, J., Merow, C., Miles, L., Ondo, I., Pironon, S., Ravilious, C., Rivers, M., Shchepashchenko, D., Tallowin, O., van Soesbergen, A., Govaerts, R., Boyle, B.L., Enquist, B.J., Feng, X., Gallagher, R.V., Maitner, B., Meiri, S., Mulligan, M., Ofer, G., Hanson, J.O., Jetz, W., Di Marco, M., McGowan, J., Rinnan, D., Sachs, J.D., Lesiv, M., Adams, V., Andrew, S.C., Burger, J.R., Hannah, L., Marquet, P.A., McCarthy, J.K., Morueta-Holme, N., Newman, E.A., Park, D.S., Roehrdanz, P.R., Svenning, J.-C., Violle, C., Wieringa, J.J., Wynne, G., Fritz, S., Strassburg, B.B.N., Obersteiner, M., Kapos, V., Burgess, N., Schmidt-Traub, G., Visconti, P., Jung, M., Arnell, A., de Lamo, X., García-Rangel, S., Lewis, M., Mark, J., Merow, C., Miles, L., Ondo, I., Pironon, S., Ravilious, C., Rivers, M., Shchepashchenko, D., Tallowin, O., van Soesbergen, A., Govaerts, R., Boyle, B.L., Enquist, B.J., Feng, X., Gallagher, R.V., Maitner, B., Meiri, S., Mulligan, M., Ofer, G., Hanson, J.O., Jetz, W., Di Marco, M., McGowan, J., Rinnan, D., Sachs, J.D., Lesiv, M., Adams, V., Andrew, S.C., Burger, J.R., Hannah, L., Marquet, P.A., McCarthy, J.K., Morueta-Holme, N., Newman, E.A., Park, D.S., Roehrdanz, P.R., Svenning, J.-C., Violle, C., Wieringa, J.J., Wynne, G., Fritz, S., Strassburg, B.B.N., Obersteiner, M., Kapos, V., Burgess, N., Schmidt-Traub, G., and Visconti, P.

Abstract

To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, countries and the international community require clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially, and multiple targets be pursued concurrently1. To support governments and political conventions, spatial guidance is needed to identify which areas should be managed for conservation to generate the greatest synergies between biodiversity and nature’s contribution to people (NCP). Here we present results from a joint optimization that maximizes improvements in species conservation status, carbon retention and water provisioning and rank terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that, selecting the top-ranked 30% (respectively 50%) of areas would conserve 62.4% (86.8%) of the estimated total carbon stock and 67.8% (90.7%) of all clean water provisioning, in addition to improving the conservation status for 69.7% (83.8%) of all species considered. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to improve the conservation status of 86.3% of plant and vertebrate species on Earth. Our results provide a global baseline on where land could be managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritisation framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

Published
2020

9. Planning for climate change through additions to a national protected area network: implications for cost and configuration.

Author

Lawler JJ, Rinnan DS, Michalak JL, Withey JC, Randels CR, and Possingham HP

Subjects
Conservation of Natural Resources economics, United States, Animal Distribution, Biodiversity, Climate Change economics, Conservation of Natural Resources methods, Parks, Recreational economics, Plant Dispersal, Refugium
Abstract

Expanding the network of protected areas is a core strategy for conserving biodiversity in the face of climate change. Here, we explore the impacts on reserve network cost and configuration associated with planning for climate change in the USA using networks that prioritize areas projected to be climatically suitable for 1460 species both today and into the future, climatic refugia and areas likely to facilitate climate-driven species movements. For 14% of the species, networks of sites selected solely to protect areas currently climatically suitable failed to provide climatically suitable habitat in the future. Protecting sites climatically suitable for species today and in the future significantly changed the distribution of priority sites across the USA-increasing relative protection in the northeast, northwest and central USA. Protecting areas projected to retain their climatic suitability for species cost 59% more than solely protecting currently suitable areas. Including all climatic refugia and 20% of areas that facilitate climate-driven movements increased the cost by another 18%. Our results indicate that protecting some types of climatic refugia may be a relatively inexpensive adaptation strategy. Moreover, although addressing climate change in conservation plans will have significant implications for the configuration of networks, the increased cost of doing so may be relatively modest. This article is part of the theme issue 'Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions'.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results