from global to local: how can spatial conservation prioritization inform conservation policies and...
TRANSCRIPT
From global to local How can spatial conservation prioritization inform conservation policies and implementation
ArtDatabanken seminar 2015-04-22
Hi!
Joona LehtomäkiUniversity of HelsinkiMetapopulation Research
CentreConservation Biology
Informatics Group
@jlehtoma jlehtoma
1 Global
Local23Informing policies and implementation
BackgroundSpatial conservation prioritization
• Identify spatial allocation of conservation resources (actions)• Protection• Management • Restoration• Offsetting
… and various other forms of land use.
Global
1
Atte
Tuuli
Enrico Johanna
Fede
Aija Peter
The team
Peter
Land use change: One of the main drivers of
biodiversity crisis
e.g. Schipper et al. 2008, Butchart et al. 2010, Hoffmann et al. 2010, Gibson et al. 2011, Laurance et al. 2012
Protected areas: One of the main tools for fighting
biodiversity loss
e.g. Rodrigues et al. 2004, Butchart et al. 2012, Thomas et al. 2012, LeSaout et al. 2013
By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, 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.
CBD Aichi Target 11
1. What is the potential performance of PA network (species ranges and ecoregions)?
2. How will land-use change by 2040 impact this performance and the spatial pattern of priorities?
3. What is the difference between globally coordinated and nationally devolved PAs?
Extending the global PA networkObjectives
Pouzols et al. 2014
~25 000 Red-listed species
827 ecoregions
Land use- present - future (2040)
Country borders
Current PAs
Extending the global PA networkThe approach
Extending the global PA networkGlobal land use change scenarios
In collaboration with:
Extending the global PA networkGlobal land use change scenarios
van
Asse
len
& Ve
rbur
g 2
012
~25 000 Red-listed species
827 ecoregions
Land use- present - future (2040)
Country borders
Current PAs
Extending the global PA networkThe approach
Input featuresGIS
Expert evaluation
Ecology
Feature grids
Weights
Costs
Connectivity
Areas with highest / lowest
conservation value
Identify expansion / restoration potential
Data acquisition
Data preparatio
n
Data analysis
Inference
Extending the global PA networkZonation workflow
Extending the global PA networkThe approach
~25 000 Red-listed species
827 ecoregions
Land use- present - future (2040)
Country borders
Current PAs
Extending the global PA networkPriorities 2040
Extending the global PA networkNational priorities
Extending the global PA networkPerformance curves
Pouzols et al. 2014
Global loss
Extending the global PA networkPerformance curves
Pouzols et al. 2014
19 %
Extending the global PA networkPerformance curves
Pouzols et al. 2014
61 %
Extending the global PA networkPerformance curves
Pouzols et al. 2014
56 %
12 %
Extending the global PA networkPerformance curves
Pouzols et al. 2014
Extending the global PA networkNational or international?
Pouzols et al. 2014
Extending the global PA networkPerformance curves
Pouzols et al. 2014
43 / 38 %
Extending the global PA networkPerformance curves
Pouzols et al. 2014
• The 17 % expansion target has great potential
• Land use change may change conservation needs
• International collaboration is vital
• Additional conservation actions needed
• http://avaa.tdata.fi/web/cbig/gpan
Extending the global PA networkWrap-up
Maxwell et al. (2015) Kotiaho et al. (2015)Extending the global PA networkThe role of international targets?
Local
1
PrivateReserves
State
ForestryPrivateState
Lehtomäki et al. submitted
Extending the local PA networkObjectives
Directed marketingAssessing sites
Collaboration network
Authorities
Extending the local PA networkZonation as decision support tool
Transformation(diameter) * volume
Leht
omäk
i et a
l. in
pre
p
Leht
omäk
i et a
l. su
bmitt
ed
© MetlaWoodland key
habitats
Protected areas
© Metsähallitus
Kainuu
Pohjois-Pohjanmaa
Etelä-Savo
Keski-Suomi
Pohjois-Savo
Pirkanmaa
Lapin METSO-alue
Pohjois-Karjala
Etelä- ja Keski-Pohjanmaa ja Ra
Lounais-Suomi ja RannikkoHäme-Uusimaa ja Rannikko
Kaakkois-Suomi
Computationally easier
Higher ecological realism, more useful planning
Arpo
nen
et a
l. 20
12Extending the local PA networkScale matters
• Great emphasis on the validity of the results
• Analysis resolution needs to be matched with the planning need
• Stakeholder involvement important
• Multiple conservation actions needed
Extending the local PA networkWrap-up
Informing policies and
implementation
3
Informing policies and implementationAlternative/complementary models
Dicks et al. 2014
DataScientists
Policymakers
Stakeholders and the public
Knowledge
Decisions
Informing policies and implementationThe deficit-linear model of science-policy interaction
Soranno et al. 2014; Young et al. 2014
• Data• Knowledge• Decisions
Scien
tists
Policy
makersPublic
Stakeholders
Informing policies and implementationThe roundtable model of science-policy interaction
Soranno et al. 2014; Lynman et al. 2007
CredibilityThe scientific adequacy of the technical evidence and arguments.
Salience (relevance)The relevance of the assessment to the needs of decision makers.
LegitimacyThe perception that the production of information and technology has been respectful of stakeholders’ divergent values and beliefs, unbiased in its conduct, and fair in its treatment of opposing views and interests.
Cash et al. 2003
Informing policies and implementationAttributes of science-policy interface
CredibilityIncreased by bringing multiple types of expertise to the table.SalienceIncreased by engaging end-users early in defining data needs.
LegitimacyIncreased by providing multiple stakeholders with more, and more transparent, access to the information production process.
Cash et al. 2003
Informing policies and implementationAttributes of science-policy interface
CredibilityQuality
assessmentCommunication of uncertainties
Supply-driven
SalienceTimely
Simple
Demand-driven
LegitimacyConsensus
Wide participation
Range of views
Sarkki et al. 2013
Informing policies and implementationTrade-offs
Possible in global context?
• Global prioritization can produce informative results, but who exactly are we informing?
• Local prioritization usually has well-defined scope, but is it too parochial?
• In both cases, need for better data
• Scope for work at scales between global and local?
Informing policies and implementationConclusions
Fennoscandian
green-belt
© CBD
Informing policies and implementationConclusions
Collaborators
Funders
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Thanks for listening!
Joona Lehtomä[email protected]: @jlehtoma
References
Cash, D.W. et al. (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100, 8086–91
Dicks, L. V et al. (2014) Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a “4S” hierarchy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29, 607–613
Lehtomäki, J. (2014) , Spatial conservation prioritization for Finnish forest conservation management. , University of Helsinki
Lehtomäki, J. et al. (2009) Applying spatial conservation prioritization software and high-resolution GIS data to a national-scale study in forest conservation. Forest Ecology and Management 258, 2439–2449
Lynam, T. et al. (2007) A Review of Tools for Incorporating Community Knowledge , Preferences , and Values into Decision Making in Natural Resources Management. Ecology And Society 12, 5
Sarkki, S. et al. (2013) Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces. Science and Public Policy
Soranno, P.A. et al. (2015) It’s good to share: Why environmental scientists' ethics are out of date. BioScience 65, 69–73
Pielke Jr, R.A. (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, Cambridge University Press.
Young, J.C. et al. (2014) Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: Having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodiversity and Conservation 23, 387–404
References – conservation biology
Cook, C.N. et al. (2013) Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conservation Biology 27, 669–678
Opdam, P. (2010) Learning science from practice. Landscape Ecology 25, 821–823
Reyers, B. et al. (2010) Conservation Planning as a Transdisciplinary Process. Conservation biology 24, 957–65