Network Of Conservation Areas Research Articles

Multi‐criteria systematic conservation planning for terrestrial vertebrates in a biodiversity hotspot in Mexico

AbstractAnthropogenic loss of biodiversity continues to increase worldwide, and existing conservation area networks (CANs) are inadequate for its adequate representation and persistence. To identify a set of new nominal conservation areas in Oaxaca, a Mesoamerican biodiversity hotspot in Mexico, for terrestrial vertebrate species, we used a multi‐criteria systematic conservation planning approach. Besides minimizing the area incorporated into the nominal CAN, we incorporated 25 socioeconomic variables using multi‐attribute value theory. We constructed a portfolio of nominal CAN solutions for four different scenarios all of which satisfied a 10% representation target for the modeled suitable habitat of each vertebrate species: (1) existing protected area‐based (PA) solution; (2) voluntary conservation area‐based (VCA) solution; (3) PA‐VCA solution; and (4) R‐C solution (rarity‐complementary algorithm). The PA‐VCA and PA solutions were the most expensive in terms of area that had to be included in the nominal CANs (13,352 km2 and 12,587 km2, respectively). In all our multi‐criteria analyses, highest costs were associated with maximizing the number of airports, amount of tourism, and length of available highways in a nominal CAN. We have thus established a portfolio of multi‐criteria solutions to the problem of creating an adequate CAN for the representation of terrestrial vertebrate species.

Prioritizing rare climate space enhances plant biodiversity in national conservation area networks

Protected areas (PAs) planning often encounters obstacles globally due to the scarcity of reliable and systematic biodiversity data covering wide areas. Understanding the interaction between climate and biodiversity patterns can offer a novel approach to spatial conservation prioritization, considering the impact of climate on species distributions and the global availability of climate data. Here we used climate-based planning to develop national networks of PAs by prioritizing “climate space”, which represents the multidimensional climatic conditions in a specific area. We assessed four climate-selecting strategies using Marxan to enhance average plant species richness and species composition’ s complementarity in candidate PAs: (1) random selection; (2) prioritizing rare climates; (3) prioritizing common climates; and (4) equal representation for each climate condition. We identified the spatial heterogeneity of national climate conditions in South Korea, with unique climates shaped by geographic and topographic diversity. Notably, prioritizing rare climates consistently resulted in higher average plant species richness and complementarity within candidate PAs. Rare climates exhibited high spatial similarity with high plant species richness and showed significant overlaps and strong connectivity to existing PAs. Rare climatic zones in South Korea have greater geodiversity and lower human population density, providing opportunities for distinct ecosystems and habitats for rare species. Our methodology, which can be easily replicated, offers spatial-explicit and quantitative prioritization of resource allocation in a nation or region with limited biological data.

Developing a framework to improve global estimates of conservation area coverage

AbstractArea-based conservation is a widely used approach for maintaining biodiversity, and there are ongoing discussions over what is an appropriate global conservation area coverage target. To inform such debates, it is necessary to know the extent and ecological representativeness of the current conservation area network, but this is hampered by gaps in existing global datasets. In particular, although data on privately and community-governed protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures are often available at the national level, it can take many years to incorporate these into official datasets. This suggests a complementary approach is needed based on selecting a sample of countries and using their national-scale datasets to produce more accurate metrics. However, every country added to the sample increases the costs of data collection, collation and analysis. To address this, here we present a data collection framework underpinned by a spatial prioritization algorithm, which identifies a minimum set of countries that are also representative of 10 factors that influence conservation area establishment and biodiversity patterns. We then illustrate this approach by identifying a representative set of sampling units that cover 10% of the terrestrial realm, which included areas in only 25 countries. In contrast, selecting 10% of the terrestrial realm at random included areas across a mean of 162 countries. These sampling units could be the focus of future data collation on different types of conservation area. Analysing these data could produce more rapid and accurate estimates of global conservation area coverage and ecological representativeness, complementing existing international reporting systems.

A guide to conserve amphibian species in Iran

ABSTRACT Globally, amphibians are one of the most threatened vertebrate groups and are hypersensitive to human-imposed habitat changes. Here we explore ways to conserve amphibians in two of the least-known biodiversity hotspots on earth, the Caucasus and Irano–Anatolian regions. We used two techniques: (ⅰ) combining species richness, endemism, and endangerness indices and (ⅱ) a species distribution model (SDM) to identify high-priority areas for Iran’s seven endemic and/or threatened amphibian species. The identified amphibian high-priority areas were then targeted to assess the levels of protection granted by the network of conservation areas (CAs) in Iran. We also computed the species-specific extent of occurrence (EOO) and the area of occupancy (AOO) to detect conservation gaps for the targeted species. Our results indicate that amphibian high-priority areas in Iran are mostly distributed across the Hyrcanian forest in the north and Zagros Mountains in the west. The gap analysis revealed that based on the most optimistic metric, 40% of amphibian hotspots are covered by CAs in Iran. However, the species-specific gap analysis showed that Iran’s CAs perform poorly at representing the EOO of all of the endemic and/or threatened amphibian species. These results suggest that expansion of CAs in Iran is essential for amphibian conservation.

Climate change, species thermal emergence, and conservation design: a case study in the Canadian Northwest Atlantic

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are conservation tools that promote biodiversity by regulating human impacts. However, because MPAs are fixed in space and, by design, difficult to change, climate change may challenge their long-term effectiveness. It is therefore imperative to consider anticipated ecological changes in their design. We predict the time of emergence (ToE: year when temperatures will exceed a species’ tolerance) of 30 fish and invertebrate species in the Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy draft network of conservation areas based on climate projections under two contrasting emission scenarios (RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5). We demonstrate a strong Southwest-to-Northeast gradient of change under both scenarios. Cold water-associated species had earlier ToEs, particularly in southwesterly areas. Under low emissions, 20.0% of habitat and 12.6% of species emerged from the network as a whole by 2100. Under high emissions, 51% of habitat and 42% of species emerged. These impacts are expected within the next 30–50 years in some southwestern areas. The magnitude and velocity of change will be tempered by reduced emissions. Our identification of high- and low-risk areas for species of direct and indirect conservation interest can support decisions regarding site and network design (and designation scheduling), promoting climate resilience.

RIVER-BASIN SYSTEMS OF SMALL RIVERS OF THE WESTERN PODILLYA IN THE CONDITIONS OF ANTHROPOGENIC LOADS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The results of complex studies of the basins of the small rivers Dzhuryn, Gnizna, Nichlava, from the point of view of the transformation of natural complexes, the introduction of optimal forms of nature use and effective systems of nature protection for the effective management of the process of ecological, social and economic development are highlighted. Land use optimization models of basin systems have been developed, and an integrated network of nature conservation areas and protected and recreational facilities has been substantiated. The conducted comparative analysis of hydro-ecological, nature protection and land use parameters made it possible to establish.
 The problems of nature management and nature protection in the river basin are closely related. Analysis of the structure of nature use, the ratio of ecologically safe and ecologically dangerous forms within the upper, middle and lower reaches of river valleys demonstrates the degree of balanced nature use and the effectiveness of nature protection regimes.
 The development of the materials of the monograph took place in the process of field research by the authors as part of data collection for writing candidate and master theses. In addition, the authors rely on their own publications in scientific periodicals and approbation of materials in reports at scientific forums on the problems of nature management and nature protection in the basins of the small rivers Dzhuryn, Nichlava, and Gnizna.
 Special attention is paid to small rivers, because they perform extremely important functions in the formation of the hydrological regime of surface waters, directly influencing the system of relations with the local population, being in natural resource relations with them. Small rivers are the only water arteries in settlements, performing economic, recreation and health, aesthetic, climate-regulatory functions. Their general condition is derived from the peculiarities of interaction of local communities with the natural environment, which is based on the principles of productive life of people in harmony with nature. Achieving harmonious relationships primarily depends on the level of ecological culture of citizens, their tolerant and responsible attitude towards nature.
 The small rivers of Western Podillia: Dzhuryn, Gnizna, Nichlava were considered in a comparative analysis with the aim of highlighting general and individual deviations of basic parameters from their normative values, substantiating measures for their optimization. The object of the research is the basins of small rivers of Western Podillia: Dzhuryn, Gnizna, Nichlava. The subject is a comparative analysis of hydrogeoecological and nature protection parameters of anthropogenic influence on their basins.
 The general similarity of the natural and climatic conditions of the territory, the proximity of the location does not guarantee the similarity of anthropogenic loads on river basins.
 The conducted comparative analysis of hydroecological and nature protection parameters of river basins demonstrated. low forest coverage of the territories, which will contribute to increased soil erosion, a specific water and wind regime, less intensive assimilation of greenhouse gases, etc. The indicators of the protection of river basins differ significantly, but all of them are significantly inferior to the optimal value within 10.5%. The indicators of plowing of river basins differ significantly. They are significantly higher than the normative ones by approximately 2 times. The negative consequences of excessive plowing are manifested in increased erosion processes, activation of surface runoff into the river washed humus horizon with mineral, organic fertilizers, toxic chemicals, which definitely manifests itself in the deterioration of water quality. The high built-up area of the Nichlava river basin has a negative impact on the growth of pollution by domestic sewage, solid household waste, the absence of water protection zones within the boundaries of settlements, etc. In general, we have reason to claim that the river landscapes are highly economically developed due to the dominance of anthropogenic lands, on almost 2/3 of the area. Accordingly, the indices of anthropogenic transformation of natural lands by economic activity are high.
 Key words: small river, Western Podillia, Gnizna, Dzhuryn, Nichlava.

Building up a network of genetic conservation areas – A comprehensive approach to select target sites for the preservation of genetic variation in wild plant species

Genetic conservation areas (GCAs) have been proposed as a useful tool to preserve genetic variation of plant populations and communities in situ. Most current strategies to establish GCAs have focused on crop wild relative species and proposals have been made mainly for single species or habitats. Moreover, the analysis of current genetic variation was rarely included as a crucial part in the process of selecting target sites for GCAs.To close this gap, we collected data on the genetic variation in three grassland habitats of three species per grassland type to develop a new approach for the selection of target sites for a network of GCAs. First, we used AFLPs to calculate genetic diversity and genetic differentiation at the target sites. Then we determined how many and which populations represent the highest genetic variation within the study region and should be included in a GCA network.The species differed in the number of populations required and the most suitable target sites were not uniform across species. The species showed different patterns of genetic differentiation among populations. This underlines that the inclusion of further sites is necessary, when aiming at the establishment of GCA networks for multiple species.However, in practical nature conservation genetic variation is not the only relevant parameter for the establishment of a GCA network, we suggest a detailed decision-making process for the establishment of the GCA network, including further important factors such as property situation, funding availability, target species or habitat, land use history or landscape structure.

National scale habitat suitability analysis to evaluate and improve conservation areas for a mature forest specialist species

Species distribution modelling is an important tool to inform conservation, particularly if combined with site prioritisation approaches. Results can then be used in both suggestion of new protected areas as well as evaluation of the existing ones. We applied MaxEnt analysis to a species of mature forests, the Eurasian Pygmy Owl ( Glaucidium passerinum ), which is recognised as a biodiversity indicator species. Furthermore, we used habitat suitability and uncertainty maps in site prioritisation for conservation and evaluation of the existing nature conservation area (NCA) network. We found species to be strongly positively associated with time since forestry activities at a local scale (25ha) and abundance of mature forests from local through home range (450ha) to landscape (1960ha) scales. The sum of habitat suitability as a proxy for apparent population allowed us to estimate that the existing NCAs hold only 23% of the population. We found 68% of priority sites (PS) for species conservation to be outside NCAs. Strict forestry restrictions form the most suitable conservation regimes, with more than 51% of PS in NCA network having insufficient regimes. Inclusion of PS in NCAs would increase the network to 26% of the national territory with 41% of the species apparent population. Currently, the most suitable conservation regimes cover less than 2% of the country area. • Eurasian pygmy owl reveals unprotected mature forest concentrations. • Site prioritisation highlight gaps within and between currently protected areas. • 68% of priority sites (PS) for a species are outside any conservation area. • 51% of PS in protected areas have insufficient conservation regime for species. • PS inclusion in protected areas would increase the network to only 26% of land.

Historical and current distribution and movement patterns of large herbivores in the Limpopo National Park, Mozambique

This study provides a first attempt to describe the historical distribution and movement patterns of selected large herbivore (LH) species in Limpopo National Park (LNP), an area in Mozambique today connected to a network of transboundary conservation areas. Between 1976 and the early 2000s, most LH species were absent in this area following the civil war in Mozambique followed by intense poaching due to weak law enforcement capacity. Through the reconstruction of the historical and current distribution and movement patterns of seven LH species in five periods, we investigate possible changes in distribution and movement patterns over time. Data collection is based on a systematic literature search, censuses reports, online databases, dung count transects, and camera trap surveys. We mapped all LH observations and movements using ArcGIS 10.1. Our results reveal a dramatic collapse of LH populations between the peak of the colonial period and the post-colonial/civil war period (1800–2001), followed by a slight recovery from the post-proclamation of Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park to the current period (2002–2021). While LH population decline applied to all seven species, there are species-specific differences in the process of restoration: African elephant (Loxodonta africana), African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), and plains zebra (Equus quagga) appear to recover to a greater extent than giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), eland (Tragelaphus oryx), blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), and white rhino (Ceratotherium simum). We found evidence of the functioning of proposed wildlife corridors in the LNP. The results give reason to assume that restoration of populations of LH is still in a very early and vulnerable state and that further efforts are necessary to strengthen the slowly increasing populations of LH. Our results highlight the importance of combining past and current data as a guide for the restoration of threatened species in African savannas impacted by human activities.

Modeling climate change impacts on the distribution of an endangered brown bear population in its critical habitat in Iran

Climate change is one of the major challenges to the current conservation of biodiversity. Here, by using the brown bear, Ursus arctos, in the southernmost limit of its global distribution as a model species, we assessed the impact of climate change on the species distribution in western Iran. The mountainous forests of Iran are inhabited by small and isolated populations of brown bears that are prone to extinction in the near future. We modeled the potential impact of climate change on brown bear distribution and habitat connectivity by the years 2050 and 2070 under four representative concentration pathways (RCPs) of two general circulation models (GCMs): BCC-CSM1-1 and MRI-CGCM3. Our projections revealed that the current species' range, which encompasses 6749.8 km2 (40.8%) of the landscape, will decline by 10% (2050: RCP2.6, MRI-CGCM3) to 45% (2070: RCP8.5, BCC-CSM1-1). About 1850 km2 (27.4%) of the current range is covered by a network of conservation (CAs) and no-hunting (NHAs) areas which are predicted to decline by 0.64% (2050: RCP2.6, MRI-CGCM3) to 15.56% (2070: RCP8.5, BCC-CSM1-1) due to climate change. The loss of suitable habitats falling within the network of CAs and NHAs is a conservation challenge for brown bears because it may lead to bears moving outside the CAs and NHAs and result in subsequent increases in the levels of bear-human conflict. Thus, re-evaluation of the network of CAs and NHAs, establishing more protected areas in suitable landscapes, and conserving vital linkages between habitat patches under future climate change scenarios are crucial strategies to conserve and manage endangered populations of the brown bear.

Spatial decoupling of α and β diversity suggest different management needs for coral reef fish along an extensive mid-oceanic ridge

Understanding the underlying drivers of biodiversity is essential for conservation planning of large, connected seascapes. We tested how patterns in α and β components of species and functional diversity of coral reef fish (214, species, 23 families) varied along the extensive Chagos-Lakshadweep oceanic ridge (the largest chain of mid-oceanic atolls in the Indian Ocean) and evaluated geomorphological, environmental, and anthropogenic predictors of diversity patterns. α and β diversity (species and functional) showed contrasting patterns along the ridge; richness and α diversity decreased towards the north and were influenced by anthropogenic pressures, while β diversity increased towards the north, along environmental gradients and with geographic distance. Species β diversity was dominated by turnover (> 80%), while functional β diversity was dominated by nestedness (> 60%). Geographically distant reefs (> 2000 km apart) with high structural complexity were functionally similar, illustrating a ridge-wide capacity for reefs to maintain ecological structure and function despite significant differences in biodiversity. Low spatial congruence in different facets of biodiversity suggest differentiated management needs for reef fish communities along the Chagos-Lakshadweep ridge. Specifically, while a single large marine reserve may be effective for biodiversity conservation in the Chagos archipelago in the south, a network of several smaller conservation areas may be needed to confer resilience to densely populated and biologically differentiated reefs further north.

Identifying the potential geographic distribution for Castanopsis argentea and C. tungurrut (Fagaceae) in the Sumatra Conservation Area Network, Indonesia

Abstract. Harapan TS, Nurainas, Syamsuardi, Taufiq A. 2022. Identifying the potential geographic distribution for Castanopsis argentea and Castanopsis tungurrut (Family: Fagaceae) in the Sumatra Conservation Area Network, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 23: 1726-1733. Recently, Castanopsis argentea (Blume) A.DC. and Castanopsis tungurrut (Blume) A.DC. have been listed as endangered species by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). For conservation planning, it is important to know the full distribution of species. This study aimed to predict the potential distribution of C. argentea and C. tungurrut using MaxEnt, and understand key factors responsible for the distribution of these species. A total of 53 occurrences and six environmental variables were used to model their distribution. The AUC values of C. argentea and C. tungurrut were 0.86 and 0.91, respectively, and the models suggest the distribution of both species is mainly influenced by elevation, and temperature seasonality for C. tungurrut. The predicted distributions of the species are in the mountains of the western part of Sumatra, and their range includes 12 conservation areas that have highly suitable habitats for both species. After generating the MaxEnt prediction map, we conducted field validation to validate the model predictions. Field surveys in two predicted areas showed that the predicted distribution maps accurately estimated the distribution of C. argentea and C. tungurrut at those localities.

Over 80% of Africa's savannah conservation land is failing or deteriorating according to lions as an indicator species

AbstractCalls to increase the global area under protection for conservation assume existing conservation areas are effective but, without adequate investment, they may not be. We collected survey data from expert respondents on perceived budgets, management, and threats for 516 protected areas and community conservation areas in savannah Africa to create a Conservation Area Performance Index. Combining this index with an indicative biodiversity outcome—population status of African lion, Panthera leo—we found that 82% of the sampled area was in a state of failure or deterioration, with only 10% in a state of success or recovery. A large proportion of succeeding or recovering conservation areas received external support through collaborative management partnerships. That Africa's current conservation area network—the foundation of conservation efforts—is crumbling complicates proposed strategies to protect additional land. We contend that investing in the effective management of existing conservation areas—potentially through well‐structured collaborative management partnerships—should be prioritized urgently.

Assessment of the Conservation Area Network Development in Markazi Province Using Landscape Metrics

Assessment of the Conservation Area Network Development in Markazi Province Using Landscape Metrics

Integrated spatial planning for biodiversity conservation and food production

•Biodiversity conservation is compatible with global agricultural production•This, however, requires planning for both objectives into a single spatial planning process•60% of Earth should be managed for conservation to protect land mammals and birds•Between 8% and 11% of Earth's natural habitats need to be restored We evaluate to what extent three alternative global conservation strategies would benefit terrestrial mammal and bird species conservation and impact global food demand by 2030. We find that we must manage over 60% of the Earth's land surface for conservation to prevent the extinction of most mammals and birds. To reach this target, 8%–11% of the world's degraded natural habitats should be restored to a natural state. This can be achieved at virtually no cost for agricultural production if biodiversity and food production targets are planned and met concomitantly. Our analyses lend support for the necessity of adopting the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Action Target 1 of ensuring that “all land and sea areas globally are under integrated biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning addressing land- and sea-use change, retaining existing intact and wilderness areas.” Ambitious area-based conservation targets are at the forefront of the post-2020 biodiversity conservation agenda. However, implementing such targets cannot be done without accounting for the increasing demand for farmland products, the main driver of biodiversity loss worldwide. Here, we analyze the expected conservation gains and farming opportunity costs of three alternative global conservation strategies under business-as-usual demand in farmland products by 2030. We find that integrated spatial planning can reach the same species conservation objectives at 25%–40% of the opportunity cost for food production, or 400%–600% the biodiversity benefit for similar opportunity costs as opposed to planning for each objective separately. This requires managing over 60% of land in ways that are compatible with biodiversity conservation, which includes restoring 8%–11% of land surface. Achieving global conservation targets can be compatible with protecting biodiversity and ensuring food security but only with efforts to negotiate land governance strategies across multiple stakeholders and their objectives. Ambitious area-based conservation targets are at the forefront of the post-2020 biodiversity conservation agenda. However, implementing such targets cannot be done without accounting for the increasing demand for farmland products, the main driver of biodiversity loss worldwide. Here, we analyze the expected conservation gains and farming opportunity costs of three alternative global conservation strategies under business-as-usual demand in farmland products by 2030. We find that integrated spatial planning can reach the same species conservation objectives at 25%–40% of the opportunity cost for food production, or 400%–600% the biodiversity benefit for similar opportunity costs as opposed to planning for each objective separately. This requires managing over 60% of land in ways that are compatible with biodiversity conservation, which includes restoring 8%–11% of land surface. Achieving global conservation targets can be compatible with protecting biodiversity and ensuring food security but only with efforts to negotiate land governance strategies across multiple stakeholders and their objectives. IntroductionThe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) “Aichi” target 11 established a global commitment to protect an ecologically representative, well-connected, effectively, and equitably managed 17% of land and 10% of the oceans by 2020. While the areal component of target 11 has been almost achieved, very limited progress has been made on the qualitative elements of this target,1Secretariat of the Convention on Biological DiversityGlobal Biodiversity Outlook 5. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020Google Scholar, 2UNEP-WCMC, IUCNNGSProtected Planet Live Report 2020 (August Update).2020https://livereport.protectedplanet.net/Google Scholar, 3Coad L. Watson J.E.M. Geldmann J. Burgess N.D. Leverington F. Hockings M. Knights K. Di Marco M. Widespread Shortfalls in Protected Area Resourcing Undermine Efforts to Conserve Biodiversity.2020: 259-264Google Scholar, 4Maxwell S.L. Cazalis V. Dudley N. Hoffmann M. Rodrigues A.S.L. Stolton S. Visconti P. Woodley S. Kingston N. Lewis E. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century.Nature. 2020; 586: 217-227Google Scholar and this has contributed to limited progress to achieving other targets, chiefly the conservation of threatened species (Aichi target 12).1Secretariat of the Convention on Biological DiversityGlobal Biodiversity Outlook 5. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020Google Scholar,4Maxwell S.L. Cazalis V. Dudley N. Hoffmann M. Rodrigues A.S.L. Stolton S. Visconti P. Woodley S. Kingston N. Lewis E. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century.Nature. 2020; 586: 217-227Google Scholar To address the shortcomings of the 2020 protected area target, policy proposals have emerged that suggest adopting targets that are based on outcomes (e.g., species persistence) rather than percentage area coverage.5Visconti P. Butchart S.H.M. Brooks T.M. Langhammer Penny F. Daniel M. Vergara S. Yanosky A. Watson J.E.M. Protected area targets post-2020.Science. 2019; 364: 239-242Google Scholar Proposals advocating for larger percentage area targets have also emerged,6Mace G.M. Barrett M. Burgess N.D. Cornell S.E. Freeman R. Grooten M. Purvis A. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 448-451Google Scholar, 7Hannah L. Roehrdanz P.R. Marquet P.A. Enquist B.J. Midgley G. Foden W. Lovett J.C. Corlett R.T. Corcoran D. Butchart S.H.M. et al.30% land conservation and climate action reduces tropical extinction risk by more than 50%.Ecography (Cop.). 2020; : 1-11https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05166Google Scholar, 8Chauvenet A.L.M. Watson J.E.M. Adams V.M. Di Marco M. Venter O. Davis K.J. Mappin B. Klein C.J. Kuempel C.D. Possingham H.P. To achieve big wins for terrestrial conservation, prioritize protection of ecoregions closest to meeting targets.One Earth. 2020; 2: 479-486Google Scholar with one in particular calling for the protection or restoration of 30% of land and oceans by 2030, focusing on areas considered to be of high importance for biodiversity9Dinerstein E. Vynne C. Sala E. Joshi A.R. Fernando S. Lovejoy T.E. Mayorga J. Olson D. Asner G.P. Baillie J.E.M. et al.A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, and targets.Sci. Adv. 2019; 5: eaaw2869Google Scholar and another 20% to be managed sustainably as climate stabilization areas for their potential and realized contribution to carbon storage, as interim targets toward protecting half of the Earth.10Wilson E.O. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life Liveright. WW Norton & Company, 2016Google Scholar,11Watson J.E.M. Venter O. A global plan for nature conservation.Nature. 2017; 550: 48-49Google ScholarThe acceptance of a bolder area-based conservation agenda at the 15th CBD Conference of the Parties 9Dinerstein E. Vynne C. Sala E. Joshi A.R. Fernando S. Lovejoy T.E. Mayorga J. Olson D. Asner G.P. Baillie J.E.M. et al.A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, and targets.Sci. Adv. 2019; 5: eaaw2869Google Scholar,12Mehrabi Z. Ellis E.C. Ramankutty N. The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 409-412Google Scholar, 13Pimm S.L. Jenkins C.N. Li B.V. How to protect half of Earth to ensure it protects sufficient biodiversity.Sci. Adv. 2018; 4: 1-9Google Scholar, 14Dinerstein E. Olson D. Joshi A. Vynne C. Burgess N.D. Wikramanayake E. Hahn N. Palminteri S. Hedao P. Noss R. et al.An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm.Bioscience. 2017; 67: 534-545Google Scholar, 15Bhola N. Klimmek H. Kingston N. Burgess N.D. van Soesbergen A. Corrigan C. Harrison J. Kok M.T.J. Perspectives on area-based conservation and its meaning for future biodiversity policy.Conserv. Biol. 2021; 35: 168-178Google Scholar is possible with the present post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) proposing two ambitious action targets: target 1 “Ensure that all land and sea areas globally are under integrated biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning addressing land- and sea-use change, retaining existing intact and wilderness areas”; and target 3 “Ensure that at least 30 per cent globally of land areas and of sea areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and its contributions to people, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.”However, the protection of a large proportion of the planet would likely result in conflicts with other land uses such as croplands and pastures and could potentially impact global food production and local livelihoods.12Mehrabi Z. Ellis E.C. Ramankutty N. The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 409-412Google Scholar,16Visconti P. Bakkenes M. Smith R.J. Joppa L. Sykes R.E. Socio-economic and ecological impacts of global protected area expansion plans.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015; 370https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0284Google Scholar,17Williams D.R. Clark M. Buchanan G.M. Ficetola G.F. Rondinini C. Tilman D. Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion.Nat. Sustain. 2020; Google Scholar Therefore, it is crucial that assessments of area-based proposals are undertaken in terms of their socio-economic implications, especially for farmland production,12Mehrabi Z. Ellis E.C. Ramankutty N. The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 409-412Google Scholar,18Büscher B. Fletcher R. Brockington D. Sandbrook C. Adams W.M. Campbell L. Corson C. Dressler W. Duffy R. Gray N. et al.Half-Earth or whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications.Oryx. 2016; 51: 407-410Google Scholar and their potential to conserve biodiversity.5Visconti P. Butchart S.H.M. Brooks T.M. Langhammer Penny F. Daniel M. Vergara S. Yanosky A. Watson J.E.M. Protected area targets post-2020.Science. 2019; 364: 239-242Google Scholar,13Pimm S.L. Jenkins C.N. Li B.V. How to protect half of Earth to ensure it protects sufficient biodiversity.Sci. Adv. 2018; 4: 1-9Google ScholarRecent studies have assessed the implications of taking extreme assumptions with regard to setting aside half the terrestrial planet for conservation in terms of food production shortfalls12Mehrabi Z. Ellis E.C. Ramankutty N. The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 409-412Google Scholar and number of people affected,19Schleicher J. Zaehringer J.G. Fastré C. Vira B. Visconti P. Sandbrook C. Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people.Nature Sustainability. 2019; 2: 1094-1096Google Scholar finding that, depending on how conservation areas are prioritized, up to one billion people could be affected, in ways that depend on the local context and the specific governance and management of these areas,19Schleicher J. Zaehringer J.G. Fastré C. Vira B. Visconti P. Sandbrook C. Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people.Nature Sustainability. 2019; 2: 1094-1096Google Scholar and 15%–31% of cropland and 10%–45% of pasture could also be compromised.12Mehrabi Z. Ellis E.C. Ramankutty N. The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 409-412Google Scholar Other studies identified ways to meet global demand for food and fiber through transformational socio-economic and technological changes and trade optimization.17Williams D.R. Clark M. Buchanan G.M. Ficetola G.F. Rondinini C. Tilman D. Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion.Nat. Sustain. 2020; Google Scholar,20Leclère D. Obersteiner M. Barrett M. Butchart S.H.M. Chaudhary A. De Palma A. DeClerck F.A.J. Di Marco M. Doelman J.C. Dürauer M. et al.Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy.Nature. 2020; 585: 551-556Google Scholar,21Folberth C. Khabarov N. Balkovič J. Skalský R. Visconti P. Ciais P. Janssens I.A. Peñuelas J. Obersteiner M. The global cropland-sparing potential of high-yield farming.Nat. Sustain. 2020; 3: 281-289Google ScholarHowever, to date, no attempt has been made to resolve trade-offs between food production and implementing alternative proposals for protecting 30% of land by 2030 or to promote integrated spatial planning across all land areas, nor have these proposals been tested in terms of their contribution to improving species conservation status, one of the key targets of the CBD and of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).6Mace G.M. Barrett M. Burgess N.D. Cornell S.E. Freeman R. Grooten M. Purvis A. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 448-451Google Scholar,18Büscher B. Fletcher R. Brockington D. Sandbrook C. Adams W.M. Campbell L. Corson C. Dressler W. Duffy R. Gray N. et al.Half-Earth or whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications.Oryx. 2016; 51: 407-410Google Scholar,22United Nations, (U.N.) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations, 2015Google Scholar The benefits and feasibility of setting aside 30% of land for conservation therefore remains untested, with few months remaining before parties to the CBD agree on the post-2020 GBF.23CBDFirst Draft of Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020Google ScholarHere, we simulate three alternative conservation strategies to estimate how much of Earth's land surface should be managed to minimize the extinction risk of 4,323 terrestrial mammal and 8,541 bird species for which distribution ranges and habitat preferences were available (79% and 85% of known mammal and bird species, respectively) while achieving global farmland production demand.Unlike previous studies that designed or tested area-based conservation measures using representation targets,24Venter O. Fuller R.A. Segan D.B. Carwardine J. Brooks T. Butchart S.H.M. Di Marco M. Iwamura T. Joseph L. O’Grady D. et al.Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity.PLOS Biol. 2014; 12https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001891Google Scholar,25Butchart S.H.M. Clarke M. Smith R.J. Sykes R.E. Scharlemann J.P.W. Harfoot M. Buchanan G.M. Angulo A. Balmford A. Bertzky B. et al.Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets.Conserv. Lett. 2015; 8: 329-337Google Scholar we define sufficiency of a network of conserved areas utilizing methodologies from extinction risk analyses,26Mogg S. Fastré C. Jung M. Visconti P. Targeted expansion of protected areas to maximise the persistence of terrestrial mammals.bioRxiv. 2019; 3056: 1-22Google Scholar,27Brooks T.M. Mittermeier R.A. Da Fonseca G.A.B. Gerlach J. Hoffmann M. Lamoreux J.F. Mittermeier C.G. Pilgrim J.D. Rodrigues A.S.L. Global biodiversity conservation priorities.Science. 2006; 313: 58-61Google Scholar thereby effectively designing a network of conservation areas that contribute to species persistence. In addition, rather than assigning areas to a simplistic binary status of “protected or not,” we zone the planet into land-use and land-cover classes, which allows us to mimic the implementation of the GBF target 1, through integrated spatial planning for food production and species conservation at the same time. In addition, this approach goes beyond the ubiquitous assumption that species conservation can be achieved only within protected areas, embracing the notion that conservation targets can be achieved through “other effective area-based conserved measures.”28Jonas H.D. Ahmadia G.N. Bingham H.C. Briggs J. Butchart S.H.M. Cariño J. Chassot O. Chaudhary S. Darling E. DeGemmis A. et al.Equitable and effective area-based conservation: towards the conserved areas paradigm.Parks. 2021; 27https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.PARKS-27-1HJ.enGoogle ScholarWe found that integrated land-use planning for food production and biodiversity has the potential to minimize trade-offs between these competing uses of land. If applied across all countries and ecosystems it means only 2.7% of mammal and 1.2% of bird species could be left at risk of extinction (currently there are over 26% of terrestrial mammals and 13% of terrestrial birds at risk of extinction)29IUCNIUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2021.2021: 2http://www.iucnredlist.orgGoogle Scholar while resulting in minimal food production shortfalls under business-as-usual (BAU) demand and supply of agricultural products: 3.6% of global pasturelands and 1.2% of global food crop production. These shortfalls could be closed with moderate changes in global food consumption and production.We must note that land-use change is only one of the threatening processes affecting species globally; for species conservation targets to be achieved in natural and restored areas, managing other threatening processes, such as climate change, direct harvesting, and invasive species, is clearly necessary.20Leclère D. Obersteiner M. Barrett M. Butchart S.H.M. Chaudhary A. De Palma A. DeClerck F.A.J. Di Marco M. Doelman J.C. Dürauer M. et al.Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy.Nature. 2020; 585: 551-556Google Scholar,30Maxwell S.L. Fuller R.A. Brooks T.M. Watson J.E.M. The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers.Nature. 2016; 536: 145-146Google Scholar As such, when we refer to conservation management throughout this paper we mean management that specifically addresses all local threats to biodiversity, including those we do not specifically model spatially.ResultsApproach summaryWe test action targets 1 and 3 of the proposed GBF in isolation and combination to derive three area-based conservation strategies (the Integrated Land Use Planning [ILUP] strategy, the 30% strategy and the 30% + ILUP strategy, Box 1). These strategies are not intended to be actionable conservation plans, but rather an assessment of the potential ecological performance and socio-economic feasibility of proposed approaches to guide area-based conservation under the new GBF. We distinguish these strategies from scenarios that are defined by global socio-economic, technological, and behavioral changes that are indirect drivers of environmental change. All strategies are applied under one global scenario, described below. Given the intrinsic uncertainties in future land-use change, we performed 50 replicate simulations of each strategy, each satisfying regional demand for agricultural products, but with different spatial configurations (see experimental procedures for details).Box 1Strategies simulated in the analysis aimed at assessing two proposals for global area-based conservation targets proposed in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity FrameworkILUP strategy: this strategy is designed to simulate how including most of the terrestrial land surface under comprehensive land-use planning (target 1 of the Global Biodiversity Framework) can achieve both species conservation and global farmland production by 2030.To simulate this strategy, we spatially allocate natural land-cover types and farmlands outside of the present protected area (PA) network to meet both species conservation and farmland production targets. Within the PA network, the present fractional land cover (according to IMAGE for the year 2015) remains unaltered until 2030.30% strategy: this strategy is designed to simulate how limiting species conservation actions to a pre-defined 30% of the world would impact both species conservation and global farmland production (target 2 of the Global Biodiversity Framework).To simulate this strategy, we spatially allocate natural land-cover types and farmlands to meet farmland production targets, under the constraint that farmland cannot be allocated within Protected areas. In this strategy, Protected areas are fully conserved or restored into their current most abundant natural land-cover type or to any of the shared land uses if they are entirely converted to farmlands already.30% + ILUP strategy: this strategy is designed to simulate the impacts of setting aside a pre-defined 30% of the world to ensure species conservation (a strict implementation of target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework), while including the remaining of the terrestrial land surface under comprehensive land-use planning (partial adoption of target 1 of the Global Biodiversity Framework) to achieve both species conservation and global farmland production.To simulate this strategy, we spatially allocate natural land-cover types and farmlands to meet species conservation and farmland production targets, under the constraint that farmlands cannot be allocated within Protected areas. Protected areas are fully conserved, or restored into their current most abundant natural land-cover type or to any of the shared land uses if they are entirely converted to farming activities already.In the ILUP strategy, we spatially allocate habitat conservation and restoration of natural land-cover types and farmland (croplands and pastures) outside of the current protected area (PA) network to achieve species conservation targets and farmland production targets in 2030. Within the PA network, the present amount of different land-cover and land-use types is maintained constant in 2030. We call this strategy ILUP because it integrates both targets for species conservation and food production within a single multi-objective land-use planning exercise. This strategy therefore simulates the implementation of the action target 1 of the GBF (retaining and restoring terrestrial ecosystems by having at least all land and sea areas globally are under biodiversity inclusive spatial planning).In the 30% strategy, we spatially allocate natural land-cover types and farmland to achieve farmland production targets in 2030 under the constraint that ∼30% of land, considered to be of global significance for biodiversity conservation (hereafter referred to as “protected areas,” see experimental procedures), is protected (i.e., locked out of farmland production). This strategy simulates a specific, stringent, possible implementation of the action target 3 of the draft GBF (protect and conserve at least 30% of the planet with a focus on areas particularly important for biodiversity) in the absence of action target 1. Farmland production targets are therefore met in areas residual to a pre-defined 30% of the world that is dedicated to biodiversity conservation.In the 30% + ILUP strategy, we spatially allocate natural land-cover types and farmland to achieve both species conservation and farmland production targets in 2030 under the constraint that protected areas are locked out of farmland production. This strategy therefore integrates the 30% strict protection with integrated land-use planning for biodiversity and food security outside them, thereby simulating the partial implementation of action target 1 and a stringent version of target 3 of the GBF.For all strategies, land use-land cover (LULC) allocation is subject to spatial constraints. First, farmland (croplands and pastures) are preferentially spatially allocated or relocated to areas suitable for farming activities and no further than 100 km from existing farmland. This satisfies at the same time realistic logistical constraints, as well as the aim of the post-2020 framework to retain “existing intact areas and wilderness.”23CBDFirst Draft of Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020Google Scholar Second, the allocation of natural land-cover types is constrained to intact habitats (habitats to be managed for species conservation) or areas within 10 km of where intact habitats remain (habitats to be restored), thereby accounting for both ecological suitability and likelihood of natural recolonization of animal and plant species in sites to be restored.For each of the three conservation strategies, we explore the feasibility to achieve farmland production targets for pastureland and for food and biofuel crops, assuming the same projected BAU farmland production and consumption patterns to 2030.Sufficiency of conservation strategiesDue to the modest variance in all performance metrics (<1%) across the 50 replicate simulations of each strategy, we report the results of the best performing replicate for each strategy. We find that, under the BAU scenario of global food production and consumption, it is necessary to manage 61%–64% of the Earth's surface to conserve species to bring the extinction risk to the lowest category for 96% and 97% of the mammal and bird species included in the analysis, while minimizing crop and pasture production shortfalls (i.e., the deficit of production amounts necessary to meet farmland production targets, Figures 1, S1, and S2). For the remaining species, the current range is too small to ensure that sufficient area of habitat (AOH) is maintained or restored for the species to be classified in the lowest extinction risk category. These species would need to colonize, naturally or via assisted colonization, areas outside their current distribution. Across strategies, the proportion of land that should be managed for conservation is highest in North America (60%–62% of the total surface), followed by Asia (55%–56%, Figure S1D).The ILUP strategy, unconstrained by the strict protection of 30% of land, thus allowing for most flexibility in spatially allocating natural land-cover types and farmland, performed best, leaving 2.7% of mammal and 1.2% of bird species at risk of extinction and achieving the lowest food production shortfalls (3.6% of global pasturelands and 1.2% of global food crop production, Figures 1A and 2). In the ILUP strategy, 12% (5.2 million km2) and 17% (7.5 million km2) of land within protected areas are allocated to cropland and pastureland, respectively.Figure 2Species extinction risk versus agricultural shortfallsShow full captionTrade-off between percentage pasture area shortfall and mammal species at risk of extinction (A) and between the percentage of crop production shortfalls and the percentage of bird species at risk of extinction (B) for the 30%, 30% + ILUP, and ILUP strategies. The circles indicate the mean shortfalls across 50 runs. Lines within the circles indicate maximum and minimum shortfall values obtained among runs.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)The 30% strategy, which focuses conservation efforts only in protected areas and optimizes food production outside these areas, generates small food production shortfalls (5.8% of global pasturelands and 1.1% global food crop production) but results in 19.8% of mammals and 32.1% of birds being at high risk of extinction by 2030 (Figures 1B and 2). These figures represent the opportunity cost of relying exclusively on PAs rather than accounting conservation objectives within integrated spatial planning everywhere, as proposed by GBF Action target 1.The 30% + ILUP strategy, which as well as setting aside protected areas for conservation only, attempts to minimize trade-off between species conservation and food production outside them, gives the best biodiversity outcomes (3.9% of mammals and 3.8% of birds at risk of extinction) but is associated with the highest food production shortfalls (9.9% global needed pastureland and 4.3% global food crop production, Figures 1C and 2). These food production shortfalls represent the opportunity cost of strict protection of a biodiversity-rich ∼30% of the planet and equates to 5% of the global food availability (including meat and milk production from pastures), more than three times the impact of both ILUP and 30% strategies (<2% decrease in global food availability).To reach conservation targets across all the strategies, between 12 and 17 million km2 of land must be restored, that is, re-zoned from anthropogenic land-use classes to natural ones; this is equivalent, respectively, to 7.6% and 11.0% of the land globally, excluding Antarctica (Figure S1). This amount is almost four times the global target of restoring 3.5 million km2 by 2030 under the Bonn Challenge, but comparable to the GBF Target 2 of restoring 20% of degraded land globally.20Leclère D. Obersteiner M. Barrett M. Butchart S.H.M. Chaudhary A. De Palma A. DeClerck F.A.J. Di Marco M. Doelman J.C. Dürauer M. et al.Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy.Nature. 2020; 585: 551-556Google Scholar,21Folberth C. Khabarov N. Balkovič J. Skalský R. Visconti P. Ciais P. Janssens I.A. Peñuelas J. Obersteiner M. The global cropland-sparing potential of high-yield farming.Nat. Sustain. 2020; 3: 281-289Google Scholar Habitat restoration is mostly needed in South America (14%–16% of the total land), Europe (11%–22%), and Africa (6%–10%). Although this would require an unprecedented, global habitat restoration effort, recent studies suggest it is both technically and socio-economically feasible to start ecosystem restoration at this scale, although biodiversity benefits will take decades to realize.21Folberth C. Khabarov N. Balkovič J. Skalský R. Visconti P. Ciais P. Janssens I.A. Peñuelas J. Ob

Identifying mismatches between conservation area networks and vulnerable populations using spatial randomization.

Grassland birds are among the most globally threatened bird groups due to substantial degradation of native grassland habitats. However, the current network of grassland conservation areas may not be adequate for halting population declines and biodiversity loss. Here, we evaluate a network of grassland conservation areas within Wisconsin, U.S.A., that includes both large Focal Landscapes and smaller targeted conservation areas (e.g., Grassland Bird Conservation Areas, GBCAs) established within them. To date, this conservation network has lacked baseline information to assess whether the current placement of these conservation areas aligns with population hot spots of grassland‐dependent taxa. To do so, we fitted data from thousands of avian point‐count surveys collected by citizen scientists as part of Wisconsin's Breeding Bird Atlas II with multinomial N‐mixture models to estimate habitat–abundance relationships, develop spatially explicit predictions of abundance, and establish ecological baselines within priority conservation areas for a suite of obligate grassland songbirds. Next, we developed spatial randomization tests to evaluate the placement of this conservation network relative to randomly placed conservation networks. Overall, less than 20% of species statewide populations were found within the current grassland conservation network. Spatial tests demonstrated a high representation of this bird assemblage within the entire conservation network, but with a bias toward birds associated with moderately tallgrasses relative to those associated with shortgrasses or tallgrasses. We also found that GBCAs had higher representation at Focal Landscape rather than statewide scales. Here, we demonstrated how combining citizen science data with hierarchical modeling is a powerful tool for estimating ecological baselines and conducting large‐scale evaluations of an existing conservation network for multiple grassland birds. Our flexible spatial randomization approach offers the potential to be applied to other protected area networks and serves as a complementary tool for conservation planning efforts globally.

Climate change forecasts suggest that the conservation area network in the Cerrado-Amazon transition zone needs to be expanded

Climate change impacts are important in shaping large ecotones, such as the transition zone between the Cerrado and Amazon rainforest (CAT) biogeographical domains. The accelerating rate of conversion of native vegetation, the most important factor for biodiversity loss in the Anthropocene, compounded by projected climate change impacts, requires a review of the effectiveness of existing designated protected areas (PA) and indigenous land (IL), where low-intensity and low-impact land use prevails. We identified priority tree species for conservation and quantified changes in their projected spatial distribution in future climate scenarios to estimate the conservation effectiveness of the current network of PA and IL in the CAT. Applying niche-based models to compare the geographical range of species in current and future climates, we estimated the displacement of species from their current distribution owing to projected climate change. We used four different IPCC emission scenarios for 2050 and quantified the losses or gains in species richness in PA and IL. All species were projected to suffer a reduction of climatically suitable area and a consequent range reduction. Inside both PA and IL there was a projected decrease in richness of the target species under climate change. The current PA network and designated IL in the CAT do not appear to safeguard future conservation of the species they currently contain. The future ‘climate refugia’ that our work identified could form the basis of plans to expand the protected area network in a region that remains under ever increasing pressure of deforestation in Brazil.

Ecological niche modelling for the conservation of endemic threatened squamates (lizards and snakes) in the Western Ghats

Squamates are especially sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation caused due to changing climatic conditions, and as such make excellent focal species for modelling conservation areas and diversity under climate change scenarios. The Western Ghats are a biodiversity hotspot with the highest prevalence of endemic lizards and snakes in India, and are of significant conservation concern. Our niche modelling analysis of 22 endemic threatened squamates of conservation concern in the Western Ghats shows that the study species are majorly affected by future climate change scenarios. A decrease in climatic suitability in both RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 future climatic scenarios for the majority of the study species is seen. Hotspots of species diversity in changing climatic scenarios were also modelled based on the ecological niche models, and were seen to be concentrated in the North Central and Southern Western Ghats. The existing protected area network on the site was used as the framework for the generation of a novel conservation area network for the representation of 10% and 30% of the study species on the site, and it was seen that 10.43–52.28% novel areas outside the existing network has to be designated. These novel conservation areas provide necessary contiguity between the existing protected areas for the progression of natural processes and free dispersal of various elements. The results of this paper motivate a thorough appraisal of the protected areas and species diversity in the study region, and the establishment of novel protected areas with a multi-taxon approach to conservation.

Conservation Costs Drive Enrolment in Agglomeration Bonus Scheme

Agglomeration bonus schemes have become important policy tools when the environmental benefit hinges on spatial coordination of conservation sites. We here analyse how spatial factors affect the uptake of an agglomeration payment scheme in a Swiss mountain region, which seeks to establish a network of conservation areas to conserve favourable conditions for biodiversity. We use a combination of spatially explicit farm census (44,279 parcels) and survey data in a spatially lagged explanatory variable model. In addition, we also consider the collaborative process in establishing the eligibility of parcels for receiving the bonus payment. We find that parcels that are more distant from the farm as well as those at steeper slopes are more likely to enter the scheme. This implies that conservation costs are an important driver of the farmers' decisions. The results remain robust when controlling for a wide range of parcel, farm and farmers' characteristics. The analysis also showed that the collaborative process increased the enrolment of parcels cultivated by larger farmers managing their land more intensively. We conclude that the collaborative process increased the weight given to biodiversity from connecting conservation sites in the planning process of the agglomeration bonus scheme.

Urban sprawl into Natura 2000 network over Europe.

Urban growth is a major threat to biodiversity conservation at the global scale. Its impacts are expected to be especially detrimental when it sprawls into the landscape and reaches sites of high conservation value due to the species and ecosystems they host, such as protected areas. I analyzed the degree of urbanization (i.e., urban cover and growth rate) from 2006 to 2015 in protected sites in the Natura 2000 network, which, according to the Habitats and Birds Directives, harbor species and habitats of high conservation concern in Europe. I used data on the degree of land imperviousness from COPERNICUS to calculate and compare urban covers and growth rates inside and outside Natura 2000. I also analyzed the relationships of urban cover and growth rates with a set of characteristics of Natura sites. Urban cover inside Natura 2000 was 10 times lower than outside (0.4% vs. 4%) throughout the European Union. However, the rates of urban growth were slightly higher inside than outside Natura 2000 (4.8% vs. 3.9%), which indicates an incipient urban sprawl inside the network. In general, Natura sites affected most by urbanization were those surrounded by densely populated areas (i.e., urban clusters) that had a low number of species or habitats of conservation concern, albeit some member states had high urban cover or growth rate or both in protected sites with a large number of species or habitats of high conservation value. Small Natura sites had more urban cover than large sites, but urban growth rates were highest in large Natura sites. Natura 2000 is protected against urbanization to some extent, but there is room for improvement. Member states must enact stricter legal protection and control law enforcement to halt urban sprawl into protected areas under the greatest pressure from urban sprawl (i.e., close to urban clusters). Such actions are particularly needed in Natura sites with high urban cover and growth rates and areas where urbanization is affecting small Natura sites of high conservation value, which are especially vulnerable and concentrated in the Mediterranean region.