Search

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Impacts of climate change on natural and human systems will become increasingly severe as the magnitude of climate change increases. Climate change adaptation interventions to address current and projected impacts are thus paramount. Yet, evidence on their effectiveness remains limited, highlighting the need for appropriate ecological indicators to measure progress of climate change adaptation for the natural environment. We outline conceptual, analytical, and practical challenges in developing such indicators, before proposing a framework with three process-based and two results-based indicator types to track progress in adapting to climate change. We emphasize the importance of dynamic assessment and modification over time, as new adaptation targets are set and/or as intervention actions are monitored and evaluated. Our framework and proposed indicators are flexible and widely applicable across species, habitats, and monitoring programmes, and could be accommodated within existing national or international frameworks to enable the evaluation of both large-scale policy instruments and local management interventions. We conclude by suggesting further work required to develop these indicators fully, and hope this will stimulate the use of ecological indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of policy interventions for the adaptation of the natural environment across the globe.

Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard.Reconociendo que era imperativo evaluar la recuperación de especies y el impacto de la conservación, la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) convocó en 2012 al desarrollo de una “Lista Verde de Especies” (ahora el Estatus Verde de las Especies de la UICN). Un marco de referencia preliminar de una Lista Verde de Especies para evaluar el progreso de las especies hacia la recuperación, publicado en 2018, proponía 2 componentes separados pero interconectados: un método estandarizado (i.e., medición en relación con puntos de referencia de la viabilidad de especies, funcionalidad y distribución antes del impacto) para determinar el estatus de recuperación actual (puntuación de recuperación de la especie) y la aplicación de ese método para estimar impactos en el pasado y potenciales de conservación basados en 4 medidas (legado de conservación, dependencia de conservación, ganancia de conservación y potencial de recuperación). Probamos el marco de referencia con 181 especies representantes de diversos taxa, historias de vida, biomas, y categorías (riesgo de extinción) en la Lista Roja de la IUCN. Con base en la distribución observada de la puntuación de recuperación de las especies, proponemos las siguientes categorías de recuperación de la especie: totalmente recuperada, ligeramente mermada, moderadamente mermada, mayormente mermada, gravemente mermada, extinta en estado silvestre, e inderterminada. Cincuenta y nueve por ciento de las especies se consideraron mayormente o gravemente mermada. Aunque hubo una relación negativa entre el riesgo de extinción y la puntuación de recuperación de la especie, la variación fue considerable. Algunas especies en las categorías de riesgo bajas fueron evaluadas como más lejos de recuperarse que aquellas con alto riesgo. Esto enfatiza que la recuperación de especies es diferente conceptualmente al riesgo de extinción y refuerza la utilidad del Estado Verde de las Especies de la UICN para comprender integralmente el estatus de conservación de especies. Aunque el riesgo de extinción no predijo el legado de conservación, la dependencia de conservación o la ganancia de conservación, se correlacionó positivamente con la potencial de recuperación. Solo 1.7% de las especies probadas fue categorizado como cero en los 4 indicadores de impacto de la conservación, lo que indica que la conservación ha jugado, o jugará, un papel en la mejoría o mantenimiento del estatus de la especie la gran mayoría de ellas. Con base en nuestros resultados, diseñamos una versión actualizada del marco de referencia para la evaluación que introduce la opción de utilizar una línea de base dinámica para evaluar los impactos futuros de la conservación en el corto plazo y redefine corto plazo como 10 años.

Fisheries bycatch conservation and management can be analyzed and implemented through the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy using one of four basic approaches: (1) private solutions, including voluntary, moral suasion, and intrinsic motivation; (2) direct or ?command-and-control? regulation starting from the fishery management authority down to the vessel; (3) incentive-or market-based to alter producer and consumer behavior and decision-making; and (4) hybrid of direct and incentive-based regulation through liability laws. Lessons can be learned from terrestrial and energy conservation, water management, forestry, and atmospheric pollution measures, such as the use of offsets, tradeable rights to externalities, and liability considerations. General bycatch conservation and management principles emerge based on a multidisciplinary approach and a wide array of private and public measures for incentivizing bycatch mitigation. ABSTRACT Bycatch refers most often to those species incidentally taken in fishing operations aimed at other (target) species. Bycatch in this paper refers to species accidentally caught other than the target species, brought on board, dead or alive, and that can therefore be either released alive, discarded dead, or landed. Bycatch can be other finfish (including undersized target species), protected species (fishes, sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds), live corals, or sponge reefs. We include habitat impact (Holland and Schnier, 2006; Driscoll et al., 2017) with bycatch (hereafter simply bycatch). Central to this paper is the fact that bycatch species and living habitats include vulnerable, threatened, endangered, protected or otherwise emblematic species for which the take should be minimized. Bycatch in this paper is extended to include habitat impact. ABSTRACT Fisheries bycatch conservation and management can be analyzed and implemented through the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy using one of four basic approaches: (1) private solutions, including voluntary, moral suasion, and intrinsic motivation; (2) direct or ?command-and-control? regulation starting from the fishery management authority down to the vessel; (3) incentive- or market-based to alter producer and consumer behavior and decision-making; and (4) hybrid of direct and incentive-based regulation through liability laws. Lessons can be learned from terrestrial and energy conservation, water management, forestry, and atmospheric pollution measures, such as the use of offsets, tradeable rights to externalities, and liability considerations. General bycatch conservation and management principles emerge based on a multidisciplinary approach and a wide array of private and public measures for incentivizing bycatch mitigation.

Anthropogenic pressures on the marine environment have escalated and shellfish habitats have declined around the world. Recently, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have rapidly increased in number and extent, but in Europe as elsewhere, management baselines rarely account for historical conditions.In the present study, the Dornoch Firth protected area (NE Scotland) was investigated as well as three adjacent inlets and 50 km of open coastline. The area has low levels of industrial development, is sparsely populated and conservation features were previously considered “Favourable”. The aim of the present study was to investigate the historical presence of native oyster (Ostrea edulis) beds, a habitat that is now rare and of conservation importance throughout Atlantic Europe.Centred on the protected area, but also gathering broader information from East Scotland, an interdisciplinary review was made of archaeological records, navigational charts, historical maps, museum collections, land-use records, fisheries records, public online databases and naturalists’ records. Intertidal and subtidal surveys were also conducted and sample oyster shells were radiocarbon dated.The present study shows that O. edulis occurred in the inlets and open coast areas of NE Scotland, and specifically in the protected area: Probably since the end of the last glaciation to the late 1800s when they were likely fished to extinction. Habitat restoration in protected areas is an emerging global theme. However, marine habitat restoration is highly unusual and European oyster restoration is presently confined to remnant populations with a clear history of exploitation or dwindling associated fisheries. An interdisciplinary review of baselines will probably show scope for O. edulis restoration in many other European MPAs.

Article is also published in: Geography Education Promoting Sustainability. ISBN 978-3-03928-500-6 (Pbk); ISBN 978-3-03928-501-3 (PDF) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-03928-501-3 https://www.mdpi.com/books/pdfview/book/2184 The field of geography is important for any sustainability education. The aim of geography education is to enable students to understand the environment, its influence on human activity, and how humans influence the environment. In this article we present a study on how the interplay between the three pillars of sustainability thinking (environment, society and economy) play out on smaller and larger scales of time, space and multitude in geography education. In this paper, we argue that central issues in high quality sustainability education in geography relates to students’ deeper grasp of how to shift between magnitudes of time, space and multitude patterns. We show how an appreciation of many core issues in sustainability education require students to understand and traverse different magnitudes of the scalable concepts of time, space and multitude. Furthermore, we argue and exemplify how common sustainability misconceptions arise due to an inability to make the cognitive shift between relevant magnitudes on these scalable concepts. Finally, we briefly discuss useful educational approaches to mediating this problem, including the use of digital tools in order to allow geography teachers to facilitate the students’ better understanding of different magnitudes of slow, fast, small and large scale entities and processes.