from global to local: how can spatial conservation prioritization inform conservation policies and...

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


827 ecoregions


Country borders

Current PAs


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



827 ecoregions


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


Pouzols et al. 2014

19 %


Pouzols et al. 2014

61 %


Pouzols et al. 2014

56 %

12 %


Pouzols et al. 2014

Extending the global PA networkNational or international?

Pouzols et al. 2014


Pouzols et al. 2014

43 / 38 %


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

http://avaa.tdata.fi/web/cbig/gpan

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

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