Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment

Background

Conventional wisdom identifies biodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation ‘efficiency’. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priority setting approaches and a random allocation of funding. After twenty years of acquiring habitat, the return on investment approach protects between 32% and 69% more species compared to the other priority setting approaches. To correct for potential inefficiencies of protecting the same species multiple times we account for the complementarity of species, protecting up to three times more distinct vertebrate species than alternate approaches.

Conclusions/Significance

Incorporating costs in a return on investment framework expands priorities to include areas not traditionally highlighted as priorities based on conventional irreplaceability and vulnerability approaches.     

Governance factors in the identification of global conservation priorities for mammals

Global conservation priorities have often been identified based on the combination of species richness and threat information. With the development of the field of systematic conservation planning, more attention has been given to conservation costs. This leads to prioritizing developing countries, where costs are generally low and biodiversity is high. But many of these countries have poor governance, which may result in ineffective conservation or in larger costs than initially expected. We explore how the consideration of governance affects the selection of global conservation priorities for the world's mammals in a complementarity-based conservation prioritization. We use data on Control of Corruption (Worldwide Governance Indicators project) as an indicator of governance effectiveness, and gross domestic product per capita as an indicator of cost. We show that, while core areas with high levels of endemism are always selected as important regardless of governance and cost values, there are clear regional differences in selected sites when biodiversity, cost or governance are taken into account separately. Overall, the analysis supports the concentration of conservation efforts in most of the regions generally considered of high priority, but stresses the need for different conservation approaches in different continents owing to spatial patterns of governance and economic development.     

Determination of conservation priorities in regions with multiple political jurisdictions

Red lists serve as the most prominent tool for priority setting in applied conservation, even though they were not originally designed for this task. Hence, threat status does not always reflect actual conservation needs and can be very different from actual conservation priorities. Therefore, red lists may at best be a suboptimal tool for setting conservation priorities in a country or region. As a response, a range of alternative or complementary tools have been developed, with approaches, methods, and parameters such as population decline, population center etc. used, differing widely among countries. One recent development is the combination of conservation status with a measure of the international importance of a population in a focal region for the global survival of a species. Here, we provide a new method that integrates the two concepts while keeping them conceptually separate. The main benefit of this method is that it can be applied across variable geographical scales such as regions, countries, and even continents. Furthermore, it allows for better recommendations for applied conservation and conservation policy development than the two concepts in isolation. Our method, if applied internationally, would allow for a standardized priority setting in species conservation, would be highly comparable between countries, and would lead to a more efficient use of the limited financial and human resources for monitoring and conservation of biodiversity.     

Integrating Economic Costs and Biological Traits into Global Conservation Priorities for Carnivores

Background

Prioritization schemes usually highlight species-rich areas, where many species are at imminent risk of extinction. To be ecologically relevant these schemes should also include species biological traits into area-setting methods. Furthermore, in a world of limited funds for conservation, conservation action is constrained by land acquisition costs. Hence, including economic costs into conservation priorities can substantially improve their conservation cost-effectiveness.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We examined four global conservation scenarios for carnivores based on the joint mapping of economic costs and species biological traits. These scenarios identify the most cost-effective priority sets of ecoregions, indicating best investment opportunities for safeguarding every carnivore species, and also establish priority sets that can maximize species representation in areas harboring highly vulnerable species. We compared these results with a scenario that minimizes the total number of ecoregions required for conserving all species, irrespective of other factors. We found that cost-effective conservation investments should focus on 41 ecoregions highlighted in the scenario that consider simultaneously both ecoregion vulnerability and economic costs of land acquisition. Ecoregions included in priority sets under these criteria should yield best returns of investments since they harbor species with high extinction risk and have lower mean land cost.

Conclusions/Significance

Our study highlights ecoregions of particular importance for the conservation of the world''s carnivores defining global conservation priorities in analyses that encompass socioeconomic and life-history factors. We consider the identification of a comprehensive priority-set of areas as a first step towards an in-situ biodiversity maintenance strategy.     

Synergies and trade‐offs between renewable energy expansion and biodiversity conservation – a cross‐national multifactor analysis

Increased deployment of renewable energy can contribute towards mitigating climate change and improving air quality, wealth and development. However, renewable energy technologies are not free of environmental impacts; thus, it is important to identify opportunities and potential threats from the expansion of renewable energy deployment. Currently, there is no cross‐national comprehensive analysis linking renewable energy potential simultaneously to socio‐economic and political factors and biodiversity priority locations. Here, we quantify the relationship between the fraction of land‐based renewable energy (including solar photovoltaic, wind and bioenergy) potential available outside the top biodiversity areas (i.e. outside the highest ranked 30% priority areas for biodiversity conservation) within each country, with selected socio‐economic and geopolitical factors as well as biodiversity assets. We do so for two scenarios that identify priority areas for biodiversity conservation alternatively in a globally coordinated manner vs. separately for individual countries. We show that very different opportunities and challenges emerge if the priority areas for biodiversity protection are identified globally or designated nationally. In the former scenario, potential for solar, wind and bioenergy outside the top biodiversity areas is highest in developing countries, in sparsely populated countries and in countries of low biodiversity potential but with high air pollution mortality. Conversely, when priority areas for biodiversity protection are designated nationally, renewable energy potential outside the top biodiversity areas is highest in countries with good governance but also in countries with high biodiversity potential and population density. Overall, these results identify both clear opportunities but also risks that should be considered carefully when making decisions about renewable energy policies.     

Plant communities as a tool for setting priorities in biodiversity conservation: a novel approach to Iberian aquatic vegetation

Although conservation efforts are traditionally based on species red lists or similar documents, recent initiatives are starting to shift this scope to include other biodiversity structures and biological classifications. Plant communities have been indicated as being among the most promising categories for setting conservation priorities but their importance and potential is still underestimated. In this study we develop a conservation priority list based on aquatic plant communities of the Iberian Peninsula. Four criteria were used to perform a cumulative point-scoring ranking: regional responsibility, local rarity, wealth of its endangered flora, and habitat vulnerability. Our ranking constitutes the first comprehensive classification of aquatic vegetation in relation to its conservation priorities in Southern Europe. It reveals that amphibious communities are the most important vegetation target for conservation in Iberia related to oligotrophic environments with a bioclimatic Atlantic distribution. Plant communities characteristic of eutrophic waters or widely distributed were found to be cause for less concern when setting conservation priorities. Our results bring to light various discrepancies and gaps in current conservation laws affecting the Iberian Peninsula. Our study highlights the potential of plant communities in biodiversity conservation as they provide valuable information of habitat singularity, and supports that neither the sole use of species nor large scale approaches unaware of regional singularities are appropriate in setting conservation priorities.     

A global assessment of the vulnerability of shellfish aquaculture to climate change and ocean acidification

Human‐induced climate change and ocean acidification (CC‐OA) is changing the physical and biological processes occurring within the marine environment, with poorly understood implications for marine life. Within the aquaculture sector, molluskan culture is a relatively benign method of producing a high‐quality, healthy, and sustainable protein source for the expanding human population. We modeled the vulnerability of global bivalve mariculture to impacts of CC‐OA over the period 2020–2100, under RCP8.5. Vulnerability, assessed at the national level, was dependent on CC‐OA‐related exposure, taxon‐specific sensitivity and adaptive capacity in the sector. Exposure risk increased over time from 2020 to 2100, with ten nations predicted to experience very high exposure to CC‐OA in at least one decade during the period 2020–2100. Predicted high sensitivity in developing countries resulted, primarily, from the cultivation of species that have a narrow habitat tolerance, while in some European nations (France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) high sensitivity was attributable to the relatively high economic value of the shellfish production sector. Predicted adaptive capacity was low in developing countries primarily due to governance issues, while in some developed countries (Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) it was linked to limited species diversity in the sector. Developing and least developed nations (n = 15) were predicted to have the highest overall vulnerability. Across all nations, 2060 was identified as a tipping point where predicted CC‐OA will be associated with the greatest challenge to shellfish production. However, rapid declines in mollusk production are predicted to occur in the next decade for some nations, notably North Korea. Shellfish culture offers human society a low‐impact source of sustainable protein. This research highlights, on a global scale, the likely extent and nature of the CC‐OA‐related threat to shellfish culture and this sector enabling early‐stage adaption and mitigation.     

Separating risks from values in setting priorities for plant community conservation

Berg and colleagues, in this issue, describe a framework for assessing risks to biodiversity and setting conservation priorities in northeast Germany. Their method explicitly separates community endangerment from conservation value, and derives its plant communities from a sound regional classification. It could be improved by incorporating ecological processes into risk assessment, and socio‐political constraints, economic costs and the likelihood of success into priority setting.     

What to do in the face of multiple threats? Incorporating dependencies within a return on investment framework for conservation

Aim Our study aimed to determine priority areas for conservation investment with explicit consideration of the impacts of multiple threatening processes, and the dependencies that exist between actions required to abate these threats. Location Australia. Methods We analysed the return on investment for two different management actions aimed at reducing the impact of invasive species on the native fauna and flora of Australia. We focussed on the management of the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) at two spatial scales: across 72 biogeographic regions of Australia and within one high‐priority biogeographic region. We considered each action independently and also explicitly accounted for the option of an integrated fox and rabbit management action. We accounted for the spatial distributions of the threatened species within our analysis and determined how this refined spatial information influenced both the priority areas and the timing of this investment. Results Integrated fox and rabbit management was identified as a higher priority than singular threat abatement in most bioregions, whereas rabbit control alone was the most frequent priority if dependencies between actions were ignored. At the regional scale, funding was entirely directed to integrated action when seven or more species within the priority region were impacted by more than one threat. The total allocation of funding and timing of initial investment remained relatively insensitive to differences in the spatial overlap of species distributions. Main conclusions Our findings indicate that prioritizing conservation actions without explicit consideration of the impacts of multiple threats can reduce the cost‐effectiveness of investments. The benefits expected from investment in abating one threat alone may be overestimated where other processes continue to threaten species persistence. We conclude that future attention should be directed to refining our understanding of the cost‐efficiencies delivered through integrated actions and institutional mechanisms to achieve their delivery.     

Influence of scale on conservation priority setting – a test on African mammals

Broad-scale priority regions for conservation can be identified usingdatabases on species distribution through the application of site-selectionalgorithms. However, the influence of scale on large-scale priority setting isstill unclear. Using a data set of all 939 sub-Saharan mammal species,we wanted to know if continental conservation priorities derived at the scales of 1°, 2°,4° and 8° latitude–longitude grid cells are consistent. We testedwhether (1) geographical location of minimum sets were nested across scale, (2)the selection sequence (priority) of areas within a minimum set were scaledependent, and (3) these coarse-scale priorities can act as a cost-effectiveshortcut for the identification of fine-scale priorities. We found that minimumsets at smaller scales were largely represented within minimum sets at largerscales, especially when flexibility was considered. However, the geographicallocation of the grid cells with highest priority in the minimum sets was onlyscale independent if ranked by number of endangered species, total speciesrichness or rare quartile species richness, but surprisingly not bycomplementary species richness. Minimum sets at a 1° scale were generallyidentified within the areas of the 2°, 4° and 8° minimum sets.Therefore, coarse-scale priorities may provide a pragmatic basis for immediateassessment of priorities for conservation.     

Reproductive isolation,evolutionary distinctiveness and setting conservation priorities: The case of European lake whitefish and the endangered North Sea houting (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Coregonus</Emphasis>spp.)

Background  

Adaptive radiation within fishes of the Coregonus lavaretus complex has created numerous morphs, posing significant challenges for taxonomy and conservation priorities. The highly endangered North Sea houting (C. oxyrhynchus; abbreviated NSH) has been considered a separate species from European lake whitefish (C. lavaretus; abbreviated ELW) due to morphological divergence and adaptation to oceanic salinities. However, its evolutionary and taxonomic status is controversial. We analysed microsatellite DNA polymorphism in nine populations from the Jutland Peninsula and the Baltic Sea, representing NSH (three populations, two of which are reintroduced) and ELW (six populations). The objectives were to: 1) analyse postglacial recolonization of whitefish in the region; 2) assess the evolutionary distinctiveness of NSH, and 3) apply several approaches for defining conservation units towards setting conservation priorities for NSH.     

Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa

Aim To design and apply statistical tests for measuring sampling bias in the raw data used to the determine priority areas for conservation, and to discuss their impact on conservation analyses for the region. Location Sub‐Saharan Africa. Methods An extensive data set comprising 78,083 vouchered locality records for 1068 passerine birds in sub‐Saharan Africa has been assembled. Using geographical information systems, we designed and applied two tests to determine if sampling of these taxa was biased. First, we detected possible biases because of accessibility by measuring the proximity of each record to cities, rivers and roads. Second, we quantified the intensity of sampling of each species inside and surrounding proposed conservation priority areas and compared it with sampling intensity in non‐priority areas. We applied statistical tests to determine if the distribution of these sampling records deviated significantly from random distributions. Results The analyses show that the location and intensity of collecting have historically been heavily influenced by accessibility. Sampling localities show dense, significant aggregation around city limits, and along rivers and roads. When examining the collecting sites of each individual species, the pattern of sampling has been significantly concentrated within and immediately surrounding areas now designated as conservation priorities. Main conclusions Assessment of patterns of species richness and endemicity at the scale useful for establishing conservation priorities, below the continental level, undoubtedly reflects biases in taxonomic sampling. This is especially problematic for priorities established using the criterion of complementarity because the estimated spatial costs of this approach are highly sensitive to sampling artefacts. Hence such conservation priorities should be interpreted with caution proportional to the bias found. We argue that conservation priority setting analyses require (1) statistical tests to detect these biases, and (2) data treatment to reflect species distribution rather than patterns of collecting effort.     

Incorporating climate change adaptation into national conservation assessments

The Convention on Biological Diversity requires that member nations establish protected area networks that are representative of the country's biodiversity. The identification of priority sites to achieve outstanding representation targets is typically accomplished through formal conservation assessments. However, representation in conservation assessments or gap analyses has largely been interpreted based on a static view of biodiversity. In a rapidly changing climate, the speed of changes in biodiversity distribution and abundance is causing us to rethink the viability of this approach. Here we describe three explicit strategies for climate change adaptation as part of national conservation assessments: conserving the geophysical stage, identifying and protecting climate refugia, and promoting cross‐environment connectivity. We demonstrate how these three approaches were integrated into a national terrestrial conservation assessment for Papua New Guinea, one of the most biodiverse countries on earth. Protected areas identified based on representing geophysical diversity were able to capture over 90% of the diversity in vegetation communities, suggesting they could help protect representative biodiversity regardless of changes in the distribution of species and communities. By including climate change refugia as part of the national conservation assessment, it was possible to substantially reduce the amount of environmental change expected to be experienced within protected areas, without increasing the overall cost of the protected area network. Explicitly considering environmental heterogeneity between adjacent areas resulted in protected area networks with over 40% more internal environmental connectivity. These three climate change adaptation strategies represent defensible ways to guide national conservation priority given the uncertainty that currently exists in our ability to predict climate changes and their impacts. Importantly, they are also consistent with data and expertise typically available during national conservation assessments, including in developing nations. This means that in the vast majority of countries, these strategies could be implemented immediately.     

Habitat conservation prioritization: A floristic approach applied to a Mediterranean wetland network

The importance of plant communities for conservation purposes is recognized in their inclusion in the “Habitat Directive” (92/43 EEC), that relates habitat types to plant community syntaxonomic units. However, habitat definitions in the Habitat Directive lead to several inaccuracies in local habitat characterization. Several wetland plant communities (and their corresponding habitats), rare in the Mediterranean basin, are not included in the Habitat Directive. This study proposes criteria for assessing the conservation importance of habitats. It deals with plant community types at the alliance level, as promising units for setting conservation priorities. The principle criteria considered as drivers for setting alliance conservation values are the distribution and abundance of plant species of conservation interest and their fidelity to a plant community. Multivariate methods were used, and a quantitative floristic index of alliance conservation priority was created. This procedure was applied to an important wetland in central Italy. Results emphasize: (i) high conservation values of some alliances not listed in the Habitat Directive, confirming various gaps in the current conservation law affecting Mediterranean wetlands; (ii) that habitats widely distributed in other biogeographical areas, may greatly underestimate their conservation importance in Mediterranean region; (iii) need to consider regional peculiarities when setting conservation priorities.     

Global conservation strategies for two clades of snakes: combining taxon-specific goals with general prioritization schemes

Aim We present the first attempt of mapping global conservation priorities for two snake clades, Viperidae and Elapidae. We compared the global conservation priorities of each clade with the nine global conservation schemes defined by Brooks et al. to evaluate how effective these schemes are in ensuring the preservation of viperid and elapid biodiversity. Location Global. Methods Based on range maps of 228 species of Viperidae and 224 species of Elapidae, we used systematic conservation planning methods of complementarity and irreplaceability to generate a set of conservation networks under two cost scenarios: (1) minimizing conservation‐human development conflicts and (2) maximizing environmental suitability for high snake richness. Analysis of variance was used to investigate whether the mean irreplaceability of cells matching the areas covered by each of the nine global prioritization schemes in Brooks et al. was higher than the mean irreplaceability of cells located outside these areas. Results Overall, few areas showed irreplaceability higher than 0.5 based on a goal of representing 25% of the species’ ranges. The conservation networks generated in expectation of low conflicts between human development and conservation were quite different from the networks of high environmental suitability. Areas with higher irreplaceability coincided with the regions covered by global schemes of Endemic Bird Areas (for Viperidae and Elapidae) and High‐Biodiversity Wilderness (for Elapidae). Main conclusions Our findings indicated the existence of viable conservation opportunities for these two snake groups. This study can be viewed as a way to overcome, at least in part, the recent criticism concerning the independent development of several global conservation priorities by evaluating which groups of organisms are better represented in each of them. More than simply determining priorities for snakes’ conservation, our analyses showed that the development of parallel priority‐setting initiatives can be reconciled with those strategies for which financial resources are already being designed.     

Assessing conservation priorities of threatened medicinal plants in China: A new comprehensive phylogenetic scoring system

Over-harvesting, habitat loss and fragmentation, and biological invasions have led to a sharp decline in wild medicinal plants population in China, where they are an essential component of traditional medicine and used widely. The current national list of protected medicinal materials, the State Key-protected Wild Medicinal Species List (SKPWMSL), which has not been revised for 30 years, is in urgent need of an update. This study proposes a new scoring system with seven indicators that set the conservation priorities of threatened medicinal plants. The advantages of our approach include: (i) quantitative methods with high repeatability and comparability; and (ii) consideration of the evolutionary history of medicinal species. After assessing 911 threatened medicinal angiosperms in China, we identified 112 species as key medicinal plants for conservation priority (KMPCP). We suggest promoting the SKPWMSL with KMPCP as a supplement and update. Meanwhile, our scoring system will improve the future setting of conservation priority and can be extended to other countries or regions.     

When the method for mapping species matters: defining priority areas for conservation of African freshwater turtles

Aim Defining priority areas for conservation is essential to minimize biodiversity loss, but the adoption of different methods for describing species distributions influences the outcomes. In order to provide a robust basis for the conservation of freshwater turtles in Africa, we compared the effect that different species‐mapping approaches had on derived patterns of species richness, species vulnerability and protected‐area representativeness. Location Africa. Methods We adopted three different approaches with increasing complexity for generating species distribution maps. The first approach was based on the geographic intersection of species records and grid squares; the second on the union of local convex polygons; and the third on inductive distribution modelling techniques. We used distribution maps, generated using these three approaches, to determine conservation priorities based on geographic patterns of species richness and vulnerability, as well as for conducting gap and irreplaceability analyses. Results We obtained markedly different distribution maps using the three methods, which in turn caused differences in conservation priorities. The grid‐square approach underestimated range sizes and species richness, while the polygon approach overestimated these attributes. The distribution modelling approach provided the most realistic outcome in terms of diversity patterns, by minimizing both commission and omission errors. An integrated map of conservation priority – derived by combining individual measures of priority based on the distribution modelling approach – identified the Gulf of Guinea coast and the Albertine Rift as major priority areas. Main conclusions Each species‐mapping approach has both advantages and disadvantages. The choice of the most appropriate approach in any given situation depends on the availability of locality records and on the relative importance of mitigating omission and commission errors. Our findings suggest that in most circumstances, the use of distribution modelling has many advantages relative to the other approaches. The priority areas identified in this study should be considered for targeting efforts to conserve Africa freshwater turtles in the coming years.     

Four approaches to guide ecological restoration in Latin America

There is strong upswing in conservation and restoration efforts in Latin America (LA), particularly in the recent decades after several countries have committed to international agreements such as the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Initiative 20×20, and the Bonn Challenge. To fulfill these agreements, the practice of ecological restoration has to be defined based on ecological knowledge, but also on the specific social, economic, and legal aspects of each country in the region. Here, we give some examples about the national understanding of ecological restoration in 10 countries of LA. We identify difficulties and opportunities to define restoration priorities and needs, and discuss some approaches to cope with economic constraints and agreements, including the potential role of restoration networks in this process. On the basis of the socioecological complexity of these countries and the expectations they have in relation to restoration, we proposed four approaches to guide restoration practice and policy in the region: (1) including biodiversity and ecosystem services approach into ecosystem restoration initiatives; (2) promoting restoration in their frequently human‐modified landscapes; (3) accounting for cost–benefit trade‐offs; and (4) assembling “horizontal” communication frameworks. These approaches should be based at national levels, but adapted to local‐regional levels, in a bottom‐up perspective. We consider that national and international restoration networks in the region can help to overcome difficulties, fostering a solid scientific community, helping to develop national approaches that better match the specific conditions of each country and enhancing communication among different groups of stakeholders.     

Funding begets biodiversity

Aim Effective conservation of biodiversity relies on an unbiased knowledge of its distribution. Conservation priority assessments are typically based on the levels of species richness, endemism and threat. Areas identified as important receive the majority of conservation investments, often facilitating further research that results in more species discoveries. Here, we test whether there is circularity between funding and perceived biodiversity, which may reinforce the conservation status of areas already perceived to be important while other areas with less initial funding may remain overlooked. Location Eastern Arc Mountains, Tanzania. Methods We analysed time series data (1980–2007) of funding (n = 134 projects) and plant species records (n = 75,631) from a newly compiled database. Perceived plant diversity, over three decades, is regressed against funding and environmental factors, and variances decomposed in partial regressions. Cross‐correlations are used to assess whether perceived biodiversity drives funding or vice versa. Results Funding explained 65% of variation in perceived biodiversity patterns – six times more variation than accounted for by 34 candidate environmental factors. Cross‐correlation analysis showed that funding is likely to be driving conservation priorities and not vice versa. It was also apparent that investment itself may trigger further investments as a result of reduced start‐up costs for new projects in areas where infrastructure already exists. It is therefore difficult to establish whether funding, perceived biodiversity, or both drive further funding. However, in all cases, the results suggest that regional assessments of biodiversity conservation importance may be biased by investment. Funding effects might also confound studies on mechanisms of species richness patterns. Main conclusions Continued biodiversity loss commands urgent conservation action even if our knowledge of its whereabouts is incomplete; however, by concentrating inventory funds in areas already perceived as important in terms of biodiversity and/or where start‐up costs are lower, we risk losing other areas of underestimated or unknown value.