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