Search

Although the aim of conservation planning is the persistence of biodiversity, current methods trade-off ecological realism at a species level in favour of including multiple species and landscape features. For conservation planning to be relevant, the impact of landscape configuration on population processes and the viability of species needs to be considered. We present a novel method for selecting reserve systems that maximize persistence across multiple species, subject to a conservation budget. We use a spatially explicit metapopulation model to estimate extinction risk, a function of the ecology of the species and the amount, quality and configuration of habitat. We compare our new method with more traditional, area-based reserve selection methods, using a ten-species case study, and find that the expected loss of species is reduced 20-fold. Unlike previous methods, we avoid designating arbitrary weightings between reserve size and configuration; rather, our method is based on population processes and is grounded in ecological theory.

Conservation planning is the process of locating and designing conservation areas to promote the persistence of biodiversity in situ. To do this, conservation areas must be able to mitigate at least some of the proximate threats to biodiversity. Information on threatening processes and the relative vulnerability of areas and natural features to these processes is therefore crucial for effective conservation planning. However, measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning have been problematic. We develop a conceptual framework of the role of vulnerability assessments in conservation planning and propose a definition of vulnerability that incorporates three dimensions: exposure, intensity, and impact. We review and categorize methods for assessing the vulnerability of areas and the features they contain and identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of each broad approach. Our review highlights the need for further development and evaluation of approaches to assess vulnerability and for comparisons of their relative effectiveness.

The Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, announced in September 2003 that the global network of protected areas now covers 11.5% of the planet's land surface. This surpasses the 10% target proposed a decade earlier, at the Caracas Congress, for 9 out of 14 major terrestrial biomes. Such uniform targets based on percentage of area have become deeply embedded into national and international conservation planning. Although politically expedient, the scientific basis and conservation value of these targets have been questioned. In practice, however, little is known of how to set appropriate targets, or of the extent to which the current global protected area network fulfils its goal of protecting biodiversity. Here, we combine five global data sets on the distribution of species and protected areas to provide the first global gap analysis assessing the effectiveness of protected areas in representing species diversity. We show that the global network is far from complete, and demonstrate the inadequacy of uniform--that is, 'one size fits all'--conservation targets.

Protected areas are the single most important conservation tool. The global protected-area network has grown substantially in recent decades, now occupying 11.5% of Earth's land surface, but such growth has not been strategically aimed at maximizing the coverage of global biodiversity. In a previous study, we demonstrated that the global network is far from complete, even for the representation of terrestrial vertebrate species. Here we present a first attempt to provide a global framework for the next step of strategically expanding the network to cover mammals, amphibians, freshwater turtles and tortoises, and globally threatened birds. We identify unprotected areas of the world that have remarkably high conservation value (irreplaceability) and are under serious threat. These areas concentrate overwhelmingly in tropical and subtropical moist forests, particularly on tropical mountains and islands. The expansion of the global protected-area network in these regions is urgently needed to prevent the loss of unique biodiversity.

Threats to island biotas from non-indigenous species have been extensively documented and remain among the most powerful drivers of biotic extinction. Despite this, Australia does not have a national, comprehensive plan of action for island biosecurity. Recent initiatives by Australian governments could provide the basis for the first systematic and comprehensive approach to securing the future of Australia’s continental and oceanic islands. A National Island Biosecurity Initiative would lay the foundations for effective island biosecurity. It would protect globally significant populations of migratory species and play a major role in preventing the extinction of hundreds of threatened species and ecosystems. Australian islands need a more comprehensive and strategic biosecurity regime. This is evidenced by ongoing expensive efforts to control non-indigenous species on islands in Australia and the progressive loss of native species on those islands. Most islands have not suffered the same range of disturbances as has mainland Australia. However, for some islands, the arrival of nonindigenous species because of the lack of quarantine has led to extinctions (e.g. Burbidge & Manly 2002), the most recent example of which is the loss of the Christmas Island Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus murrayi) in 2009. However, these islands are a minority; many Australian islands are largely in a natural condition, and effective biosecurity will be critical if they are to remain so. Biosecurity is defined by the ‘Beale report’ (Commonwealth of Australia 2008) as ‘the protection of the economy, environment and human health from the negative impacts associated with entry, establishment or spread of exotic pests (including weeds) and diseases’. We propose that implementation of this report’s recommendations should include a new and comprehensive strategic framework specifically for island biosecurity. This would be based on an assessment of island biodiversity values and a risk assessment approach. Furthermore, the use of systematic conservation planning (e.g. Pressey & Bottrill 2009) would provide a more rigorous and transparent basis for allocating resources efficiently to different strategies. The importance of maintaining the natural condition of Australian islands is underlined by their unique biodiversity values. Oceanic islands are home to many endemic species. Both oceanic and continental islands provide the sole or major breeding and roosting habitats for many species of seabirds, marine mammals and reptiles. Continental islands are also refugia for species that have disappeared or declined on the mainland. Most of Australia’s breeding seabirds nest only on islands. Of those nesting on both islands and mainland beaches, island populations fare best (e.g. Fairy Tern (Sterna nereis), BirdLife International 2010). The situation is similar for sea turtles: mainland rookeries are subjected to human disturbance and nest predation by pigs, dogs and foxes. ‘Marooning’, or translocating mainland species at high risk to

Kaplan et al. support the need to consider Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as one tool in the management of pelagic threats. However, they suggest that two challenges, defining 'targeted' MPAs and enforcement, are more significant than we recognized. Using the example of skipjack tuna, the authors argue that defining 'targeted MPAs' (we assume for a particular species) can be problematic given the lack of site fidelity of some pelagic animals.

We welcome the interest generated by our recent article [1] on the use of triage principles for allocation of conservation resources in three letters featured in this issue of Trends in Ecology and Evolution [2–4] and appreciate the opportunity to respond to the issues raised. Jachowski and Kesler [3] and Parr and colleagues [4] from the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) argue against the use of conservation triage. We consider that these authors have confused two issues: the allocation of resources currently available for conservation and decisions on how much society should spend on conservation. The first issue involves wise allocation of funds assisted by approaches such as triage and cost-efficient optimization. The second is an issue of societal values and political willingness. Conservationists fight on both fronts, but the issues should not be confused.

Healthy governance systems are key to delivering sound environmental management outcomes from global to local scales. There are, however, surprisingly few risk assessment methods that can pinpoint those domains and sub-domains within governance systems that are most likely to influence good environmental outcomes at any particular scale, or those if absent or dysfunctional, most likely to prevent effective environmental management. This paper proposes a new risk assessment method for analysing governance systems. This method is then tested through its preliminary application to a significant real-world context: governance as it relates to the health of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR). The GBR exists at a supra-regional scale along most of the north eastern coast of Australia. Brodie et al (2012 Mar. Pollut. Bull. 65 81–100) have recently reviewed the state and trend of the health of the GBR, finding that overall trends remain of significant concern. At the same time, official international concern over the governance of the reef has recently been signalled globally by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). These environmental and political contexts make the GBR an ideal candidate for use in testing and reviewing the application of improved tools for governance risk assessment.

Studies of wetlands in Australia, as in other countries, have taken a wide variety of approaches to defining, surveying and classifying these environments. Past and current approaches in Australia are reviewed for each of the States and Territories which provide the context for much of the natural resource investigation in the country. While there are obvious advantages of national, and perhaps international, agreement on definition and types of wetlands, a variety of approaches to inventory and classification will always be necessary for particular purposes. More fundamental than general agreement on approaches is the need for wetland scientists and managers to maximise the accuracy of survey information, to test the assumptions involved in the use of classifications, and to ensure that the classifications they use are the most appropriate for their purposes. The issue of a global wetland classification scheme is discussed on the basis of a representative range of views by Australian wetland workers.

Australia’s aquatic ecosystems are unique, supporting a high diversity of species and high levels of endemism; however, they are also extremely vulnerable to climate change. The present review assesses climate-induced changes to structural habitats that have occurred in different aquatic ecosystems. Climatic impacts are often difficult to discern against the background of habitat degradation caused by more direct anthropogenic impacts. However, climate impacts will become more pronounced with ongoing changes in temperature, water chemistry, sea level, rainfall patterns and ocean currents. Each of these factors is likely to have specific effects on ecosystems, communities or species, and their relative importance varies across different marine and freshwater habitats. In the Murray–Darling Basin, the greatest concern relates to declines in surface water availability and riverine flow, owing to declining rainfall and increased evaporative loss. On the Great Barrier Reef, increasing temperatures and ocean acidification contribute to sustained and ongoing loss of habitat-forming corals. Despite the marked differences in major drivers and consequences of climate change, the solution is always the same. Greenhouse-gas emissions need to be reduced as a matter of urgency, while also minimising non-climatic disturbances. Together, these actions will maximise opportunities for adaptation by species and increase ecosystem resilience.

Non-government organizations (NGOs), agencies and research groups around the world have developed diverse approaches to conservation planning at the scale of landscapes and seascapes. This diversity partly reflects healthy differences in objectives, backgrounds of planners, and assumptions about data and conservation priorities. Diversity also has disadvantages, including confusion among donors and prospective conservation planners about what to fund and how to plan. To help reduce this confusion, we compared approaches described in separate articles by four major conservation NGOs. We structured our comparison with an 11-stage framework for conservation planning. We found considerable agreement between approaches in their recognition and ways of addressing many planning stages. The approaches diverged most obviously in ways of collecting socio-economic and biodiversity data and identifying explicit conservation objectives. Even here, however, the approaches tend to be complementary and there is potential to combine them in many landscapes and seascapes. Our review emphasizes that systematic methods are having real benefits in guiding effective conservation investments. We finish by outlining two challenges for conservation planning generally: (1) managing the transition from planning to applying conservation actions, and (2) assessing the costs and benefits of conservation planning.

Protected-area targets of 10% of a biome, of a country, or of the planet have often been used in conservation planning. The new World Database on Protected Areas shows that terrestrial protected-area coverage now approaches 12% worldwide. Does this mean that the establishment of new protected areas can cease? This was the core question of the “Building Comprehensive Protected Area Systems” stream of the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, in 2003. To answer it requires global gap analysis, the subject of the special section of BioScience for which this article serves as an introduction. We also provide an overview of the extraordinary data sets now available to allow global gap analysis and, based on these, an assessment of the degree to which existing protected-area systems represent biodiversity. Coverage varies geographically, but is less than 2% for some bioregions, and more than 12% of 11,633 bird, mammal, amphibian, and turtle species are wholly unrepresented. The global protected-area systems are far from complete.

Information on the features to be protected in a system of conservation reserves is an obvious requirement. The quality of the data base will primarily determine the effectiveness of conservation planning in protecting the full range of natural features in a region. However, the way in which data are used to make decisions on the locations of protected areas is also critical. Rigorous procedures for reserve selection can make the difference between achieving reservation goals or not. Research on reserve selection in New South Wales over recent years has concerned both data bases and procedures for guiding decisions. Reserve planning in many regions is based largely on some form of land classification like vegetation types or land systems. There are good reasons for using such land classes to guide the selection of reserves and to judge their representativeness. Nevertheless, they can have considerable limitations as a basis for protecting all the species in a region. These limitations are reviewed with references to more detailed discussions of particular issues. The paper also reviews a variety of procedures for selecting reserves which have been tested and applied in New South Wales. Some of the recent procedures are conceptually simple but very useful in identifying the requirements of reservation goals and demonstrating the options available to planners for representing particular features. Three principles are proposed which should underpin any attempt at systematic conservation planning.

Scoring and iterative approaches to wildlife conservation evaluation were compared in terms of their contribution to the conservation of all natural environments or species. This contribution was termed efficiency and was calculated from the number or area of highest scoring sites or the number or area of all sites selected by iterative analyses required to represent all natural environments or species a specified number of times. Efficiency of sampling in reserves is an important consideration in conservation planning if reserve systems are to become fully representative before the options for protection are exhausted. Scoring criteria varied greatly in their efficiencies but were consistently less efficient than the iterative analyses.

An iterative analysis was used to identify the number and area of pastoral properties needed to contain the full range of natural environments (land systems) in part of western New South Wales. A minimum of 32 properties (3·1% of total number) and 7980 km 2 (5·7% of total area) was required to represent every land system at least once. Full representation required a greater overall number and area when the analysis began with properties already acquired for conservation. Excluding land systems atypical of the study area did not greatly reduce the number and area of properties required. Complete representation of land systems in each geographical subdivision in which they occur required a much greater overall number and area of properties than when the analysis was run for the study area as a whole. The algorithm used in this study produced very similar results to other iterative analyses applied to reserve selection in Australia.

Resources for conserving biodiversity are invariably insufficient. This situation creates the need for transparent, systematic frameworks to help stakeholders prioritize the allocation of resources across multiple management actions. We developed a novel framework that explicitly prioritizes actions to minimize the impacts of several threats across a species' range. The framework uses a budget constraint and maximizes conservation outcomes from a set of management actions, accounting for the likelihood of the action being successfully applied and accepted by local and Indigenous communities. This approach is novel in that it integrates local knowledge and expert opinion with optimization software, thereby minimizing assumptions about likelihood of success of actions and their effectiveness. To test the framework, we used the eastern Gulf of Carpentaria and Torres Strait population of the flatback turtle, Natator depressus, as a case study. This approach allowed the framework to be applied in a data-poor context, a situation common in conservation planning. The framework identified the best set of actions to maximize the conservation of flatback eggs for scenarios with different budgets and management parameters and allowed comparisons between optimized and preselected scenarios. Optimized scenarios considered all implementable actions to explore how to best allocate resources with a specified budget and focus. Preselected scenarios were used to evaluate current allocations of funds and/or potential budget allocations suggested by different stakeholders. Scenarios that used a combination of aerial and ground strategies to reduce predation of eggs performed better than scenarios that focused only on reducing harvest of eggs. The performances of optimized and preselected scenarios were generally similar among scenarios that targeted similar threats. However, the cost-effectiveness of optimized scenarios was usually higher than that of preselected scenarios, demonstrating the value of conducting a systematic optimization approach. Our method provides a foundation for more effective conservation investments and guidance to prioritize actions within recovery plans while considering the sociopolitical and cultural context of decisions. The framework can be adapted easily to a wide range of species, geographical scales, and life stages.

Background Systematic conservation planning involves the prioritisation of conservation actions to optimise biodiversity conservation outcomes whilst considering implementation challenges such as minimising costs. Thousands of systematic conservation plans have been developed around the globe (a popular software package, ‘Marxan’, has over 4200 active users from more than 180 countries). However, the effects of systematic approaches on conservation actions and outcomes are not generally known, nor are the factors which distinguish effective from ineffective plans. Previous reviews of conservation planning outcomes have been limited in scope and to narrow time intervals, and have revealed very few formal evaluations of plans. Given systematic approaches are widely perceived to offer the best chance to rapidly and efficiently achieve biodiversity protection targets, a thorough, up-to-date synthesis of the evidence is required. Methods This protocol outlines the methodology for a systematic mapping exercise to identify retrospective studies measuring the effects of systematic conservation planning on biodiversity conservation at regional, national and subnational scales. Our primary research question is: what is the extent and distribution of evidence on the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning? Outcomes will be categorised according to types of capital: natural, financial, social, human and institutional, given the range of potential direct and indirect effects of systematic conservation planning on conservation outcomes. A comprehensive and repeatable search strategy will be undertaken, utilising a wide range of sources including grey literature sources and targeted searches of organisational websites and databases. Sources will be restricted to English language publications between 1983 and 2016. The resultant studies will be screened using standardised inclusion and exclusion criteria and data from included studies will be categorised according to a standardised data extraction form. Information about the study design of relevant articles will be recorded to determine study robustness. A searchable database of studies will be made publicly accessible and available for updating in future. The results will be published in this journal and also presented as an interactive online resource to aid conservation planners in identifying impacts and outcomes of conservation plans.

Protected areas are effective at stopping biodiversity loss, but their placement is constrained by the needs of people. Consequently protected areas are often biased toward areas that are unattractive for other human uses. Current reporting metrics that emphasise the total area protected do not account for this bias. To address this problem we propose that the distribution of protected areas be evaluated with an economic metric used to quantify inequality in income--the Gini coefficient. Using a modified version of this measure we discover that 73% of countries have inequitably protected their biodiversity and that common measures of protected area coverage do not adequately reveal this bias. Used in combination with total percentage protection, the Gini coefficient will improve the effectiveness of reporting on the growth of protected area coverage, paving the way for better representation of the world's biodiversity.