4. Background
Spatial conservation prioritization
• Identify spatial allocation of conservation
resources (actions)
• Protection
• Management
• Restoration
• Offsetting
… and various other forms of land use.
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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 network
Objectives
19. Extending the global PA network
The approach
~25 000
Red-listed
species
827
ecoregions
Land use
- present
- future (2040)
Country
borders
Current PAs
29. 43 / 38 %
Extending the global PA network
Performance curves
Pouzols et al. 2014
30. • 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 network
Wrap-up
31. Maxwell et al. (2015)
Kotiahoetal.(2015)
Extending the global PA network
The role of international targets?
46. • 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 network
Wrap-up
50. • Data
• Knowledge
• Decisions
Informing policies and implementation
The roundtable model of science-policy interaction
Soranno et al. 2014; Lynman et al. 2007
51. Credibility
The scientific adequacy of the technical evidence and
arguments.
Salience (relevance)
The relevance of the assessment to the needs of decision
makers.
Legitimacy
The 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 implementation
Attributes of science-policy interface
52. Credibility
Increased by bringing multiple types of expertise to the table.
Salience
Increased by engaging end-users early in defining data needs.
Legitimacy
Increased by providing multiple stakeholders with more, and
more transparent, access to the information production
process.
Cash et al. 2003
Informing policies and implementation
Attributes of science-policy interface
54. • 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 implementation
Conclusions
58. 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
59. 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
Editor's Notes
Misleading picture, I work with computers most of the time.
- Fontit
Paikallisen tason suunnittelun tarkoitus siis tuottaa käyttökelpoisia työkaluja viranomaisten käyttöön.
Koska METSO perustuu vapaaehtoisuuteen, voidaan suojeluprioriteetteja käyttää eri kohteiden vertailussa (luonnontieteelliset valintakriteerit edelleen perustana) tai maanomistajien aktivoinnissa (jos löytyy mielenkiintoisen oloisia kohteita)
Suunnittelutyön tuloksista voidaan tiedottaa esimerkiksi alueellisen yhteistoimintaverkoston kautta.
tuskeino
Tarkoituksenmukainen rajaus
Hoitotyöt
Hoito-ohje metsänomistajalle
Several potentially useful data sources primarily collected for forestry can be used for conservation prioritization as well
Again, primary biodiversity data would be desirable, but often these data are not available for large areas.
Detailed forest planning data mostly on stand level is available for most of Finland (and Sweden?). These are further complemented by national forest inventory data based on remote sensing.
Then the questions becomes how to derive biodiversity-relevant information from these data? Several options exist:
Simple habitat-suitability indexes
More complex and realistic statistical models for various species or communities
Mechanistic/process models for whole communities
Operational use of the whole toolset should not be dependent on the particular tool used (although details will vary).
Spatial conservation prioritization analysis described only provide decision-support: The most important decision criteria should, of course, still be what is actually there (field inventories).
By closely linking the result interpretation and field inventories, should work as validation and development benchmark for the methods used.
This (validation) nothing new for any predictive analytical methods, but for operational conservation planning it is a crucial component of the whole workflow.
Special care needs to be directed to opening up the decisions, methods and results for practitioners who may not have a scientific background.
“Many initiatives exist to improve communication, but these largely conform to a ‘linear’ or technocratic model of communication in which scientific ‘‘facts’’ are transmitted directly to policy advisers to ‘‘solve problems’’. While this model can help start a dialogue, it is, on its own, insufficient, as decision taking is complex, iterative and often selective in the information used.”
- Young et al. 2014
Three attributes of science-policy interface
Shold stakeholders be involved in science, or does it pollute science?
