Spatial Prioritization Analysis Research Articles

Socioeconomic and political trade‐offs in biodiversity conservation: a case study of theCerradoBiodiversityHotspot,Brazil

AbstractAimTo analyse spatial trade‐offs in conservation of mammals, considering benefits of biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic costs.LocationCerradoBiodiversityHotspot,Brazil.MethodsWe built ecological niche models (ENMs) for 154 mammals inhabiting the cerrado. We combined model projections to produce consensus maps of species' distributions for three types of models (envelope, statistical and machine‐learning models). We used these range summaries as input data in spatial prioritization analyses. We compared six conservation scenarios, considering human population density, land cost, anthropogenic land use, political willingness to act and the distribution of species using trade‐off analyses. We complemented the current network of protected areas, aiming to achieve a target of 17% of land protection in the cerrado.ResultsSpecies‐rich sites coincide with regions with high human population, high land cost, high anthropogenic land use and diverse levels of political willingness to act. We found a significant change in spatial priorities when we included socioeconomic and political dimensions in analyses: top‐priority sites moved north, reduced by 68% potential conservation conflicts with human population, reduced by 72% the total monetary cost of actions and reduced by 68% conflict with other anthropogenic land uses. It also increased by 80% the beneficial effect of political willingness to act.Main conclusionsOur results reinforce the idea that using only biological criteria for proposing spatial conservation priorities can undermine conservation plans given increases in socioeconomic and political conflicts.

Identification and Implementation of Native Fish Conservation Areas in the Upper Colorado River Basin

AbstractFreshwater fishes continue to decline at a rapid rate despite substantial conservation efforts. Native fish conservation areas (NFCAs) are a management approach emphasizing persistent native fish communities and healthy watersheds while simultaneously allowing for compatible human uses. We identified potential NFCAs in the Upper Colorado River Basin in Wyoming—focusing on Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus), flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), and roundtail chub (Gila robusta)—through a process that combined known and modeled species distributions, spatial prioritization analysis, and stakeholder discussions. The network of potential NFCAs is intended to serve as a funding framework for a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Keystone Initiative focused on Colorado River Basin native fishes. We discuss current opportunities for and impediments to implementing the potential NFCAs we identified for the NFWF Initiative over the long term. NFCAs represent a promising approach to fisheries management that complements existing approaches by focusing on persistent native fish communities.

The Capacity of Australia's Protected-Area System to Represent Threatened Species

The acquisition or designation of new protected areas is usually based on criteria for representation of different ecosystems or land-cover classes, and it is unclear how well-threatened species are conserved within protected-area networks. Here, we assessed how Australia's terrestrial protected-area system (89 million ha, 11.6% of the continent) overlaps with the geographic distributions of threatened species and compared this overlap against a model that randomly placed protected areas across the continent and a spatially efficient model that placed protected areas across the continent to maximize threatened species' representation within the protected-area estate. We defined the minimum area needed to conserve each species on the basis of the species' range size. We found that although the current configuration of protected areas met targets for representation of a given percentage of species' ranges better than a random selection of areas, 166 (12.6%) threatened species occurred entirely outside protected areas and target levels of protection were met for only 259 (19.6%) species. Critically endangered species were among those with the least protection; 12 (21.1%) species occurred entirely outside protected areas. Reptiles and plants were the most poorly represented taxonomic groups, and amphibians the best represented. Spatial prioritization analyses revealed that an efficient protected-area system of the same size as the current protected-area system (11.6% of the area of Australia) could meet representation targets for 1272 (93.3%) threatened species. Moreover, the results of these prioritization analyses showed that by protecting 17.8% of Australia, all threatened species could reach target levels of representation, assuming all current protected areas are retained. Although this amount of area theoretically could be protected, existing land uses and the finite resources available for conservation mean land acquisition may not be possible or even effective for the recovery of threatened species. The optimal use of resources must balance acquisition of new protected areas, where processes that threaten native species are mitigated by the change in ownership or on-ground management jurisdiction, and management of threatened species inside and outside the existing protected-area system.

Predicting willingness‐to‐sell and its utility for assessing conservation opportunity for expanding protected area networks

AbstractTranslating maps of priority areas for conservation into activities which actually secure these places is a complex process, overwhelmingly influenced by human and social factors. Spatial conservation prioritizations often assume that land is available for acquisition. Using data gathered through interviews, we predicted land managers willingness‐to‐sell their land. We included this information in spatial prioritization analyses that aimed to identify areas that achieve conservation objectives while maximizing the probability that land will be available for acquisition. As anticipated, our solutions were more likely of being available for acquisition compared to solutions that did not include the willingness‐to‐sell data. Our results illustrate the trade‐off between designing so‐called “optimal” networks of protected areas, and the realities of translating these maps into on‐ground action. We demonstrate how an important aspect of the social context in which conservation is embedded and defines conservation opportunities can be explicitly accounted for in the development of conservation plans.