Spatial conservation prioritization on different scalesWhat was the question?
iDiv seminar, Leipzig2015-11-11
Hi!
Joona LehtomäkiUniversity of HelsinkiMetapopulation Research
CentreConservation Biology
Informatics Group
@jlehtoma jlehtoma
• Identify spatial allocation of conservation resources (actions)• Protection• Management • Restoration• Offsetting
• Why + what where, when and how?
Spatial conservation prioritization
Land-use planning
Natural resource
management
Conservation
planningSpatial
conservation
prioritization
Ferrier & Wintle (2009)
Spatial conservation planning
Zonation software
http://bit.ly/zonation
Lehtomäki 2014
Priorities:What was the question?
Global scale
Pouzols et al. (2014):1. What is the potential performance of PA
network (species ranges and ecoregions) in the context of Aichi Target 11?
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?
Objectives
~25 000 Red-listed species
827 ecoregions
Land use- present - future (2040)
Country borders
Current PAs
The approach
~25 000 Red-listed species
827 ecoregions
Land use- present - future (2040)
Country borders
Current PAs
The approach
~25 000 Red-listed species
827 ecoregions
Land use- present - future (2040)
Country borders
Current PAs
The approach
Priorities 2040
National priorities 2040
Extending the global PA networkPerformance curves
Pouzols et al. 2014
Global loss
Pouzols et al. 2014
Performance curves
19 %
Pouzols et al. 2014
Performance curves
61 %
Pouzols et al. 2014
Performance curves
56 %
12 %Pouzols et al. 2014
Performance curves
Pouzols et al. 2014
National or international?
Pouzols et al. 2014
Performance curves
43 / 38 %
Pouzols et al. 2014
Performance curves
Summary
• Emphasis on the broad patterns and overall performance
• Analysis resolution constrained by the available data
• Stakeholders not (and probably can’t be) identified
• What is the policy process to be informed?
Local scale
PrivateReserves
State
ForestryPrivateState
Lehtomäki et al. 2015
Objectives
Directed marketingAssessing sites
Stakeholders
Authorities
Objectives
Transformation(diameter) * volume
Leht
omäk
i et a
l. 20
15
© 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
• Emphasis on the verification and validation of the results
• Analysis resolution matched with the planning context
• Stakeholders clearly identified• Questions are clear; however, only little to
be generalized
Summary
Priorities:What was the question?
”Science for science”(curiosity-driven science)
”Science for action”(issue-driven science)
Objective Scientific insight, novelty, and significance
Knowledge relevant for forming and assessing policies
Products Published scientific papers
Reports and white papers, often unpublished
Important knowledge production
components
Credibility Relevance, legitimacy
Decision-making context
Does not necessarily have one
An existing context, can also aim at establishing a new process
Accountability To scientific community and professional peers
To political decision-makers, general public
Jasanoff 1990; Van den Hove 2007
”Science for science” vs ”science for action”
DataScientists
Policymakers
Stakeholders and the public
Knowledge
Decisions
Soranno et al. 2014; Young et al. 2014
The linear model of knowledge production
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
Attributes of science-policy interface
• Data• Knowledge• Decisions
Scien
tists
Policy
makersPublic
Stakeholders
Soranno et al. 2014; Lynman et al. 2007
The roundtable model of sci-pol interaction
The futurefor spatial conservation prioritization
1. Explicit framing of which policy process the prioritization is supposed to inform
2. Acknowledging that not all research into spatial conservation prioritization needs to be policy-relevant
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
Ferrier S. & Wintle B.A. (2009) Quantitative approaches to spatial conservation prioritization: matching the solution to the need. Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods & computational tools (ed. by A. Moilanen, K.A. Wilson, and H.P. Possingham), pp. 304. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Jasanoff S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Scientific Advisors as Policymakers. Harvard University Press, Harvard.
Lehtomäki, J. (2014) , Spatial conservation prioritization for Finnish forest conservation management. , University of Helsinki
Lehtomäki J., Tuominen S., Toivonen T., & Leinonen A. (2015) What Data to Use for Forest Conservation Planning? A Comparison of Coarse Open and Detailed Proprietary Forest Inventory Data in Finland. PLoS ONE, 10, e0135926.
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
Pouzols F.M., Toivonen T., Di Minin E., Kukkala A.S., Kullberg P., Kuusterä J., Lehtomäki J., Tenkanen H., Verburg P.H., & Moilanen A. (2014) Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature, 516, 383–386.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14032
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
van den Hove S. (2007) A Rationale for Science-Policy Interfaces. Futures, 39, 1–19.
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
Computationally easier
Higher ecological realism, more useful planning
Arpo
nen
et a
l. 20
12Extending the local PA networkScale matters
Informing policies and implementationAlternative/complementary models
Dicks et al. 2014