Conservation Principles and Realities Flashcards
Why habitat restoration?
-They improve ecosystem service provision
-Species conservation
-Essential for meeting area-based protection targets
Importance of habitat restoration for ecosystem service provision
-60% of 24 ecosystem services are being degraded (MEA 2005)
-Nonlinear (accelerating or abrupt) changes to ecosystems will increasingly adversely impact human wellbeing (MEA 2005)
-14 out of 18 groups of ‘nature’s contribution to people’ are declining, those that have increased are doing so unsustainably (IPBES 2019)
Importance of habitat restoration for species conservation
-Habitat loss is marked, e.g., 50% of world’s original forests have been lost
-Habitat loss is main threat to 85% species on IUCN red list
-Degradation is another major factor, e.g., from invasive species, habitat fragmentation, fires, resource extraction etc
-Only 10% of area of terrestrial PAs are well connected
Importance of habitat restoration for meeting area-based protection targets
-30x30
-Global target to protect 30% of the planet for nature by 2030, Kumming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at COP15 (Dec 2022)
-Interim step to 50% by 2050?
IUCN ecosystem red list categories
-Collapsed (defining features lost, key biota no longer sustained)
-CE
-EN
-VU
-NT
-LC
-DD
-NE
IUCN ecosystem red list assessment criteria
-Reduction in geographic distribution
-Restricted distribution
-Degradation
-Disruption of biotic processes, probability of collapse (quantitative analysis)
How many ecosystems have been assessed by IUCN so far?
4,279
IUCN ecosystem red list assessment for terrestrial ecosystems
-Tiny proportion collapsed (>1%)
->5% DD
-Close to half LC (roughly 45%)
-Small amount NT
-The rest (just under 50%) evenly VU, EN and CE
IUCN ecosystem red list assessment for marine ecosystems
-No collapsed !
-Unfortunately, close to half DD (roughly 45%)
-Small amount CE (>5%)
-Remainder is LC, NT, VU and EN
IUCN ecosystem red list assessment for freshwater ecosystems
-Largest amount of collapsed of the three (about 10%)
-Also about 10% VU, EN and CE
-A lot of DD (around 40%)
-Remainder is LC
Example of collapsed ecosystems
Aral Sea
What was the Aral Sea like from 1911-1960s?
-Hydrologically stable
-4th largest continental water body
-20 freshwater fish species
-Unique invertebrate fauna (>150 species, many endemic)
-Shoreline reed-beds
What was the Aral Sea like in 2005?
-10% former area and reed-beds remaining
-Replaced with desert plains and saline lakes as water is evaporated
-28 aquatic species recorded
-Endemic species extinct
What caused the collapse of the Aral Sea?
-Diversion of rivers for agricultural irrigation
-Pesticide runoff from cotton fields
Impacts of the Aral Sea collapse on humans
-As lake dried, pesticides then accumulated in dust and as wind blows, it was deposited into local villages and towns
-These toxic dust storms lead to cancer, infant mortality (doubled) etc.
-Fishing industry collapse, abandoned rusty ships left in desert
-Local climate change, less water has led to reduced rainfall and higher temperatures
-This causes positive feedback loop, as there is less rainfall, more is needed for irrigation so more is extracted
Attempts to restore Aral Sea
-New northern basin in Kazakhstan
-Aralkum Desert in southern basin, Uzbekistan (is this restoration?)
What is the new northern basin of the Aral Sea? Is it successful?
-8 mile dam
-River improvements made to increase flow and reduce irrigation
-Salinity levels reduced, wider diversity of fish, people and fishing returned
-Diversity and salinity levels not back to normal
-Endemic species extinct
Why is the restoration of the southern basin of the Aral Sea questionable?
-No longer called a sea, main river still diverted for cotton
-0.5 million ha Saxaul plantation (important native desert grass), plan on planting further 2.5mill ha
-Want to transform it into a new habitat type with input from local conservation bodies
-Primary driver is to prevent toxic dust storms by expanding the saxaul so they will stabilise soil and remove lot of adverse health effects
-Even plans over time to reintroduce native mammalian herbivores such as large antelopes, followed by pops of Asiatic cheetah
-Is this restoration?
-Not at the original site at the time but still may have some conservation value
Re-introduction of the Santa Fe tortoise
-Each Galapagos island had endemic species
-Santa Fe tortoise went extinct in 1800s
-Feral goats ravaged the island which still wasn’t recovering despite eradication
-Espanola tortoise introduced 2015-2020
-105 island colonised, 85% survival
-Opuntia echios (keystone species that provides fruit) and an endemic land iguana Conolophus pallidus have increased
What is selective logging essentially?
-Only cutting marketable trees
-Smaller and less desirable species are left
-Utilises precise felling
What is the extent of logging?
-Between 2000-2005, 20% of tropical forests were logged
-Over 400 million hectares of tropical forest in permanent timber estate
-Asides from South America, most tropical forests have been logged
Effects of logging on biodiversity?
-Species composition differs
-IUCN red-listed bird species decline
-Only 75% of unlogged species persist
-Re-logging magnifies harm
-However, substantial amount of biodiversity still exists, including red-listed species (e.g., orangutans)
Reduced impact logging (RIL) incentives and regulations
-Includes host of strategies designed to reduce damage to forest structure and release of carbon and increase viability of timber harvest over time
-Prerequisite for timber certification under FSC
-Access to lucrative Western market (price premium 5-77% above uncertified timber)
-Pre-harvest inventories
-Planned roads
-Limits on log dumps
-Vine cutting
-During harvest, crews are trained in directional felling and extraction and big, tracked vehicles are used (help maintains soil composition)
What are pre-harvest inventories for RIL?
-Comprehensive Harvest Plan
-Identify, measure and geo-locate harvestable species and protected species
-Protect a number of mature ‘seed’ trees
What are the planned roads for RIL?
-Straight
-Narrow
-To target trees
Does RIL reduce damage?
-Harvest intensity is the same
-More dead trees in conventional logging (7% less in RIL)
-Lower skidding damage
-Fewer fatally damaged stems
-Lower area disturbance, smaller area of skid tracks with better recovery
-More recovery important species remain
Biodiversity benefits of RIL
-Meta-analysis conducted
-Compared species abundance changes between primary and CL or RIL
-3,474 comparisons from 41 studies
-Collected data on birds, mammals, amphibians and invertebrates
-Less severe impacts in RIL, especially for mammals
-Not enough data for amphibians
Is lower intensity logging viable?
-Would offer improved species retention
-No Asian figures included, which would have slightly altered the huge decrease seen, as there are logging intensities of >100m3ha-1 but yet plenty of mammals and amphibians
-Reduces timber yields
Land-sharing vs land-sparing
-Could cover whole area with low yield (sharing)
-Or log small areas with higher yields (sparing)
-Incentives required to produce either scenario are equal
-Most species do best under land-sparing
-Need to develop policy drivers for land-sparing
What questions need to be answered in land-sparing policy drivers?
-How big should spared patches be?
-What happens after logging ceases?
-Is sparing good for carbon retention? (Unknown)
What is the biggest threat to forest habitats?
-Conversion of logged forest to farmland
-Especially in over-logged forest
-E.g., ~3.5Mha logged forest in Indonesia
-Massive loss of species
How can we prevent conversion of logged forests?
-Conservation purchases
-Carbon enhancement and REDD+
Do degraded lands represent cost-effective conservation or should primary forests be conserved only?
-Logging records from 300,000 ha of forests spanning first, second and clearance rotations
-Net Present Value of timber calculated against biodiversity metrics
-Protecting twice-logged forest minimises cost, but retains much diversity
-1ha unlogged = 5ha twice-logged pricewise
Example of conservation purchase
RSPB and Birdlife to protect Harapan forest
What do REDD+ do?
-Carbon sequestered sold under REDD+
-Includes methods in tropical forests to increase the rate at which carbon is sucked from air at large scales but cheaply
-This includes liberation cutting of lianas and shrubs and enrichment planting of diverse tree species
Biodiversity impacts of REDD+
-11,000ha restored since 1934
-Two rounds of liberation cutting
-1.2 million seedlings of 52 tree species
Biodiversity impacts of REDD+, focusing on birds
-Minimal impact on species composition
-12 species declined after logging, 7 IUCN red-listed
-No difference in recovery between naturally regenerated plots and restored plots
-Phylogenetic diversity declines
-As does functional diversity
Current extent of urban areas
-Greater London: 1,569km2
-Sao Paulo: 1,521km2, causing increasing fragmentation of rainforest
-Number of megacities rapidly increasing
-As number of people in cities increases, so does importance of urban ecosystem services
-Urban areas becoming greyer, 3 million front gardens lost in UK, 1 in 3
Current impact of urban areas
-245 globally threated birds in Africa, 29 species threatened by housing and urban areas (12%)
-However, low amounts of urbanisation (1% of surface) means a disproportionate impact
-29 of 867 ecoregions are >33% urban, containing 0.3% of global land area, 12% of terrestrial vertebrates and 213 endemic vertebrates
-8% of vertebrates on IUCN red-list primarily threatened with urbanisation
-These studies are from 1995 and are underestimates for today
-Due to urbanisation in Cape Town, Erica verticella is extinct in the wild and Erica pyrimadalis is completely extinct
-In USA, urbanisation is the most important cause of threat for species
How is more urbanisation leading to higher risk of species extinction
-Urbanisation is projected to impact many IUCN red-listed species
-As urban areas expand, distance between protected areas and people reduces
-E.g., Nairobi national park is heavily urbanised
-Higher chance of illegal hunting and trade etc.
Factors that change through urbanisation
-Amount of green space
-Type of green space
-Urban heat islands (3C warmer in urban environments, detrimental impact)
-Pollution (light, air, noise)
-Disturbances
-Biotic interactions (e.g., domestic cats increasing predation rates)
What can happen to a species after urbanisation?
-Can adapt or become locally extinct
-Specialist, rare species tend to be urban avoiders, causing local extinctions
-Studies show that bird species increase in biodiversity before declining in high-density urban environments in the UK
-The peak is due to the low richness in agricultural lands surrounding urban cities compared to large suburban gardens that have more complex vegetation
Dynamics of urban communities
-Wild boars are present in European cities
-Coyotes in USA cities
Birds of prey such as buzzards are beginning to move into cities including Sheffield
How does urbanisation alter population genetic structures?
-Urban animal populations have reduced genetic diversity
-Often genetically extinct
-Could be due to genetic drift and more inbreeding
-Or due to selection pressures from pollution and/or heat
Selection pressures on plants caused by urbanisation
-55% of dispersing seeds land on concrete so can’t germinate (0% in rural)
-Significant increase in proportion of non-dispersed seeds
-Selection experiments suggest short-term evolution over 5-12 gens
-Loss of pollinators to self-pollinating plants
Why lower avian clutch sizes in urban environments?
-Could be due to individual quality or food abundance
-Study in Hungary found that urban caterpillar populations would need to increase by at least 250% for urban and rural great tits to have similar reproductive success
What are the ecosystem service categories?
-Cultural (recreation, aesthetic, spiritual)
-Regulating (climate, flood risk, disease)
-Supporting (nutrient recycling, soil formation)
-Provisioning (food, fuel)
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Percentages of population living in urban areas through time
-13% (220 million) in 1900
-49% (3.2 billion) by 2005
-Projected to be 60% (4.9 billion) by 20230
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Background of study
-Chose Britain because of the availability of high-resolution, national-scale datasets and the 16% projected increase in population by 2031
-Explored the effects that urbanisation will have on three ecosystem services: flood mitigation, agricultural production and carbon storage
-Compared two urbanization scenarios: densification (increase density of current areas) and sprawl (favour future growth at same densities as exist)
-Used a national-scale hydrological model, spatially explicit population projections and high-quality datasets for ecosystem services
(Eigenbrod et al.) - What are the amounts of land that will be converted to new urbanizations under the two scenarios?
-Densification: 948km2 (0.4% of Britain)
-Sprawl: 3302km2 (1.4%)
(Eigenbrod et al.) - How much are dense urban areas projected to rise by under the two scenarios?
-Densification: 94%
-Sprawl: 2%
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Changes in flood risk under the densification scenario
-Mean change in peak flows across Britain is 1.4%, s.d. of 6.3 percentage points
-Higher changes projected to occur downstream of many urban areas than in sprawl
-Approximately 1.7 million people would reside within same 1x1km2 that peak flows projected to increase by at least 10%
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Changes in flood risk under sprawl scenario
-Mean change in peak flow across Britain is 0.3%, s.d. of 0.65 percentage points
-Only 11000 people residing within 1x1km2 that peak flows will increase by at least 10%
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Carbon storage and agricultural production under the two scenarios
-Densification: CS= 0.20, AP= 0.32
-Sprawl: CS= 0.71, AP =1.12
-Sprawl 3.5x higher
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Effects of minimizing amount of carbon and agricultural losses
-Halving losses of agricultural production causes 8-10% increase in lost carbon
-Minimizing carbon losses only leads to 15-20% increase at expense of 20-25% increase in AP losses
-Small increases in number of people affected by peak flows (2% more people under 10% peak flow increases in densification, but 50% more people in sprawl (still low numbers))
(Eigenbrod et al.) - According to the hydrological model, what effects does high-density housing (dense urban) have on flooding?
-Greater reduction in subsurface water storage than low density housing (suburban)
-Increases river routing speed
-This decreases residency time, leading to faster release into rivers and increasing peak flows and downstream flooding
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Assumptions made in the models
-Static societal preferences
-That dense urbanisation results in a 70% reduction in soil storage, while suburban housing only reduces it by 30%
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Discussion of assumptions
-Static societal preference unlikely, increases in flood risk may lead to some areas being deemed unsuitable for housing
-This would decrease number of people affected by flooding but would increase developmental pressures in other area
-Current hydrological understanding agrees with the 70% and 30% decreases in carbon storage but future changes to drainage systems and urban modelling could change this
(Eigenbrod et al.) - What improvements could help decrease peak flows and the damage they cause?
-Technological innovations such as permeable pavements and urban storage that increase use of sustainable urban drainage systems, encouraged by building regulations
-Improved flood defences
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Economic cost of flooding in England in 2007
-£3.2 billion
-Affected between 46,000 and 48,000 households
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Effects of increasing human population on self sufficiency in Britain
-16% increase in population and 1.1% reduction in AP leads to a 57-48% drop in self-sufficiency by 2031
-Currently, self-sufficiency not a UK government priority
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Green roof benefits
-Could offset losses of urban green spaces associated with high urban densities
-Can provide direct positive effects on human health
-Provides additional ecosystem services
-However, recent experience suggests that such low-impact densification is likely to be challenging as recent densification policies in England have meant proportions of new dwellings built on previous residential green space has risen from 12% to 27% between 1999 and 2009
(Eigenbrod et al.) - What models were used to assess flood mitigation?
-Used G2G, a grid-based hydrological model to assess impacts of urban changes on freshwater flood mitigation provided by landscape
-Calculated % increase in peak flow at 2 year return period for 1x1km UK grid squares with drainage areas greater than 20km2
-G2G relies on digital datasets of landscapes and soil properties to provide spatial differentiation in landscape response to rainfall
-Requires estimates of precipitation and potential evaporation as input
(Eigenbrod et al.) - How does increasing populations lead to shortage in ecosystem services despite not reducing overall quantity available?
-Decreases the amount available per capita
-Human populations are increasingly located far away from where services are generated
-Could further reduce per capita supply of increase costs of service provisions such as dams and food transport
-Also likely to alter trade-offs
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Why will overall carbon emission reductions be difficult?
-A loss of 0.7% of the total carbon stock of Britain is approximately equal to 17% of the total carbon emitted in Britain in 2008
-Such extra releases of carbon make carbon emission reductions even more difficult
(Eigenbrod et al.) - Implications of study
-Illustrates that linking future supplies of ecosystem services to changes in number and distribution of beneficiaries is vital to making informed policy decisions
-Shows that shifting locations of new urban areas can halve losses of AP, with only a 10% increase in stored carbon loss
-These first projections of the interactions
between land-use change and human population growth
for Britain have major implications for conserving ecosystem services globally
(McDonald et al.) - What was the link between urban population growth and expansion of urban area (found by Angel et al.)?
-In rich countries (>$17,000 per-capita 2005GDP), for each new resident, 355m2 of built up area is added
-In middle-income countries ($3,000-$17,000) 125m2 is added
-In low-income countries ($<3000), 85m2 is added
(McDonald et al.) - What three urban growth scenarios were used?
-Baseline: per-capita area of new settlements stays the same
-Compact: per-capita ANS is 50% less than current
-Dispersed: 50% more
(McDonald et al.) - How did they conduct a ecoregional analysis?
-Looked at 825 ecoregions
-Calculated % of each region that had turned into urban areas and predicted how much natural land would be urbanised by 2030
-Focused on already urbanized ecoregions and those expected to experience significant urban growth
-Examined types of verts present, noting endemic species
-Compared to a random selection of global ecoregions, done 1000 times to ensure statistical accuracy
-Used statistical tests to determine if they had more species richness or endemism than expected by random choice
-Significance based on how often actual characteristics fell outside range seen in randomly selected ecoregions
-Species-are curves examined to determine if size of ecoregion was affecting results
-Using data from Wildfinder and IUCN, they calculated range of each species and determined percentage that is urbanized
-Assessed probability of a species to be listed NT, V, E, CE or LC on IUCN
-Used a logarithmic scale to improve statistical analysis including main effect term and interaction term
-Results help describe how current levels of urbanization relate to probability of threat to species
-Doesn’t predict how future urbanization may impact
(McDonald et al.) - How did they conduct a rare species analysis?
-Used Alliance for Zero Extinction database to find species with only one known population
-Quantified potential effect of urban growth by overlaying maps of current and projected urban areas against AZE database
-Species classed as at-risk if more than 10% of remaining unbuilt 10-km zone was urbanized by 2030
-Evaluated extent of land protection for at-risk species
-Compared at-risk IUCN rankings with non at-risk AZE species to see if urbanization had significantly worsened rankings
-Also searched IUCN for at-risk species to see if ‘habitat loss by human settlement’ is a listed threat
(McDonald et al.) - How did they conduct a protected area analysis?
-Examined amount of urban growth happening in immediate vicinity of PA but also assessed distance between PAs and nearest large city (population at least 50,000), both current and projected for 2030
-Proximity to cities important as it increases likelihood of negative human impacts such as resource extraction
-Focused on terrestrial PAs larger than 1km2 from WDPA
-Assumes that future cities will develop from existing small settlements, not de novo
-Statistical test conducted to determine significant differences in median distance from PAs to cities among different geographical regions
-PAs classified as at-risk if more than 10% of 10km zone around it is expected to be urbanised in 2030
-At-risk PAs classified into three income categories (high, middle, low)
- The correlation between the percent urban in a 10-km zone around a protected area and the distance from that protected area to a city
was weak but significant (r = 0.2, P < 0.0001)
(McDonald et al.) - Ecoregion analysis results
-Most (62% of world’s terrestrial surface) currently have <1% area urban and will be essentially unaffected by urban growth
-29 have more than 1/3 area urban
-0.3% of surface but 12% global terrestrial vertebrate species (3056)
-Smaller but denser than expected by chance
-213 endemic species, > expected by chance
-89 on red-list
-Heavily urbanized areas <10,000km2 have more diversity than others of similar size
-Urbanization targeting areas of high biodiversity value
-Likelihood of threat to an animal (IUCN) increases as more species range is urbanized, with total range area for the species an important covariate (small ranges need smaller increase in % urban for probability of being listed to increase)
-420 less species listed if no urbanization occurred (8% of list)
-15 ecoregions will lose more than 5% area to urbanization under baseline (10% of world’s vertebrates, 118 endemic, 43 NT or worse)
(McDonald et al.) - Rare species analysis results
-Baseline: 24/776 AZE species at-risk, concentrated in coastal areas and islands
-Dispersed: increases to 28
-Compact: decreases to 18
-For at least 10 AZE species, pattern of urban growth affects threat to them
-At-risk species have significantly worse IUCN rankings (71% CE) in baseline
-Of these 24 species, 12 have habitat loss from humans listed as a major threat (IUCN), 8list habitat loss from agriculture, 4 don’t have enough data
-9 of the 24 have no associated protected areas
(McDonald et al.) -Protected species analysis results
-25% PAs within 17km of cities (at least 50,000 people), expected to decrease to 15 in 2030
-Some geographic regions PAs and cities in exceptionally close proximity, ie. in Eastern Asia the median distance expected to go from 43km in 1995 to 23 in 2030, with 25% within 10km
-Under dispersed 112 PAs (0.4%) will have more than 10% new urban in 10km buffer zones, 84% in middle-income areas
-Only 6% in lowest-income but fewer PAs in less economically developed countries
(McDonald et al.) - Discussion
-Effect of urbanization on biodiversity conservation is localised but cumulatively significant
-Areas most affected tend to be small but contain significant concs of endemic species
-Association of high urbanization with small ecoregions may be because its easier for an urban area to cover larger proportions of small ecoregions than big ones
-May also reflect tendency for small ecoregions with unique flora and fauna to be near major human settlements, part of the general correlation between human pop and biodiversity, perhaps due to increased available at hotspots
-Species with more urbanised ranges more likely to be on IUCN red-list
-Results will be more refined when more precise information available
-Small at-risk AZE species but tend to be near coasts and islands where endemism is high and urban growth is high
-For example Wimmer’s Shrew lives only on outskirts of Abidjan, unlikely to withstand growth without conservationist attention
-Huge portion of PAs will be within day’s walk of cities by 2030
-Conservations need to apply strategies for guarding protected areas against nearby urban pressures
-Don’t need to be everywhere, maybe focus on at-risk PAs (mainly in SE Asia)
-Need to also think of ways that urban growth might be made compatible with biodiversity protection
(Dunn et al.) - What is the “pigeon paradox”?
-Conservation may increasingly depend on the ability of city people to maintain relationships with nature
-This includes non-natives such as feral pigeons (e.g., Columba livia)
-Lies in dependence of conservation action worldwide on people’s experiences with urban nature
-Links between urban nature and conservation outside cities are poorly appreciated but may be heart of future action
-Based on three assertions: (1) current conservation action is insufficient, (2) people are more likely to conserve nature when they have direct experiences with it, and (3) as human pops (and hence sources of conservation action) shift to cities, humans will only experience nature through contact with urban species
(Dunn et al.) - Evidence that current conservation isinsufficient
-Basic assertion that future conservation will depend more on financial and political support than currently present
-By one estimate the need for conservation funding outweighs current spending by $2.3b
-Gap between scientific evidence and political action points to need for more political pressure to ensure conservation action
-Only 22% US voters based federal, state and local elections on environmental issues
(Dunn et al.) - What does Chawla define environmental sensitivity as?
“A predisposition to take an interest in learning about the environment, feeling concern for it, and acting to conserve it”
(Dunn et al.) - Evidence that people are more likely to conserve nature when they have direct experiences with it
-Chawla suggests that an individual’s environmental sensitivity (ES) is based on formative experiences
-Direct experience, especially in childhood, appears to be most important source of ES
-Those active in conservation most often cite childhood experiences as critical anecdotes
-If we hope to nurture environmental leaders and encourage more conservation we need to ensure that children have access to nature
(Dunn et al.) - What variables determine an individual’s conservation action?
-Education
-Socioeconomic status
-Culture
-Motivation
-Awareness
-Attitudes
-Values
-Ecological knowledge
(Dunn et al.) - Evidence that as human populations (and hence sources of conservation action) shift to cities, humans will only experience nature through contact with urban species
-Majority of people live in cities
-Suspected that most people have never seen any organisms or habitats not seen in cities
-If majority of people, meaning also environmental leaders and financial resources, live in urban areas, then conservation depends on urban people’s abilities to experience nature
-This means mostly interacting with human-altered ecosystems
-Native species and ecological processes can still exist in cities
-However, most interactions are with species that have negative cultural connotations such as pigeons, roaches, rats and house sparrows
-Conservationists can’t afford to write off urban ecosystems and species
(Dunn et al.) - Consequences
-If correct, future of thousands of species and ecosystems depends on urban interactions with nature
-Propose three major courses of action: (1) restoration of urban systems, (2) improved access to urban nature, and (3) a careful consideration of costs and benefits to how we portray non-native “pest” urban species
-Possibilities for restoring diverse communities in cities are great and getting citizens involved gives the additional benefit of allowing them to appreciate the value of intact ecosystems and native species
(Dunn et al.) - Examples of urban restorations and reintroductions
-Wetland restoration in the Hackensack Meadowlands of New Jersey
-Reintroductions of painted turtles and Screech owls into Central Park by NYCs Department of Parks and Recreation
(Dunn et al.) - Need for more access to urban ecosystems in poorer areas
-Inequitable distribution of urban nature may contribute to low numbers of minorities in environmental leadership roles
-Need to place more emphasis on distribution of urban green space to attract broader support
-Almost half population classed as poor and urban, large target audience
-Poor people may not donate, but they vote
-Examples: urban restoration, more urban parks, greenways programs, community gardens, more equitable access to high-quality zoos and museums
(Dunn et al.) - What about regions where we are unable to restore habitats?
-Think it is worth encouraging citizens to interact with and appreciate even non-native species but admit there are costs to embracing introduced species, even those that cause little ecological damage
-One cost is embracing them at expense of ability to control them
-A way around this is to encourage appreciation of native species thought of as pests (raccoons, squirrels, crows, moles) and non-native species with low environmental cost
-Initial focus could be on species with neutral cultural values, such as pigeons
(Dunn et al.) - Benefits of using pigeons as an initial focus for encouraging appreciation of urban species?
-Relatively few negative impacts on native ecosystems
-Integral part of many urban ecosystems
-Together with European Starlings and Morning Doves constitute most of the diet of raptors in these ecosystems
-Complex coos of doves can be soothing and can open the door to wider interest in nature
How much new road will there be by 2050?
-25 million km
-60% increase in total length from 2010
-90% of this construction is in developing nations
Benefits to roads?
-Facilitates economic and social development
-Market access for timber and agricultural products
-Access to remote areas
-Lower costs of land clearing
-Cheap labour
Extent of roads in Congo Basin?
-Logging roads doubled since 2003
-40% increase in roads outside of concessions
-~40,000 km logging roads abandoned (44%)
-Roads more permanent outside concessions (~15,000km abandoned by 2018 (12%))
-Lots of new roads, lots of road turnover
Ecological impacts of roads
-Habitat loss
-Road mortality
-Edge effects
-Barrier effects and fragmentation
Effects of roads on habitats
-Habitat loss initial and most obvious impact
-Roads/powerlines may alter or destroy scarce natural habitats
-Facilitates further clearings for side roads
->95% Amazonian deforestation within 50km of a road
-Risk of major deforestation fires higher closer to roads
Species susceptible to road mortality
-Species attracted to roadsides such as amphibians, reptiles, herbivores and frugivores, carrion feeders and predators
-Species with nearby habitat - wetlands, grassy verges, fruit
-Species with large area requirements
-Significant population sinks for rare and endangered species
-E.g., Florida panther: 4-5 roadkills from ~75 individuals
-Includes animals involved in ongoing studies
(Laurance and Balmford) - How much road exists in the Amazon?
-Nearly 100,00km
-Enough to circle the Earth 2.5 times
(Laurance and Balmford) -What drives road expansion?
-Escalating demand for minerals, fossil fuels, timber and arable land
-Developing nations as they work to improve transport and energy infrastructures
(Laurance and Balmford) - How much deforestation, fires and atmospheric CO2 emissions occurred close to roads?
-95%
-Within 50km of roads
(Laurance and Balmford) - What is a suitable situation for a road?
-Where farming is already widespread and intact habitat is scarce
-Where there are sizable gaps between current and potential farm yields
-High-quality roads can improve farms’ efficiency, increase their profitability and limit their environmental impact
(Laurance and Balmford) - When will food demand double?
2050
(Laurance and Balmford) - How much additional land is required to match food demand in 2050
-1 billion hectares of farming and grazing land
-An area the size of Canada
(Laurance and Balmford) - What are policy-makers focusing on regarding farms and why isn’t it enough?
-Focused on improving agriculture through modern crop varieties, pest control and better transport
-The hope is to increase yields without using too much extra land
-However, yield improvements can encourage conversion of land for more production
-Such as the innovations for oil palm causing them to increasingly expand through tropics
-Need to couple these techniques with effective land-use planning, including roads
What edge effects are caused by roads?
Physical, chemical, structural, environmental and biological impacts on adjacent habitat
(Laurance and Balmford) - Paved vs unpaved roads
-Paved highways typically have much larger environmental impacts
-In wet environments, unpaved roads can become seasonally impassable
(Laurance and Balmford) - In what context can road improvements such as paving be socially and environmentally beneficial?
-Often agriculture follows roads created for other purposes, such as mining or logging
-This results in expansion of farms into places with marginal soils and climates, or locations too far from markets to be cost-effective
-Well-planned roads can increase farmers’ access to markets, reducing waste and improving profits
-Ongoing road improvements in sub-Saharan Africa are raising rural farmers’ access to fertilizers and increasing capacity to transport crops to markets
(Laurance and Balmford) - Why is concentrating people in carefully areas beneficial?
-Studies suggest that road improvements suited to agricultural development attract migrants away from vulnerable areas like edges of pristine forest
-Relationship between deforestation and pop density is non-linear
-Migrants entering an already cleared area remove less forest than those arriving first
(Laurance and Balmford) - Example of company facing backlash for environmental disruption
-Concord Pacific, a Malaysian logging company
-Publicly castigated in early 2000s for bulldozing a 180km long road into highlands of PNG
-After making more than $60 million in illegal timber, they were fined $97 million by national court of PNG
(Laurance and Balmford) - Solutions
-Collaborative global zoning exercise
-Providing results of these analyses
-Global road-zoning scheme
-For transport projects that have high environmental costs but seem unavoidable, alternatives such as railways or river transport may be effective compromises
(Laurance and Balmford) - Collaborative global zoning scheme
-Identify where road building should be a priority and where it should be restricted/closed
-A multidisciplinary team could integrate and standardize satellite data on intact habitats
-Information on transport infrastructure, agricultural yields and losses, biodiversity indicators
-Make these results available as high-resolution colour-coded maps to aid policy makers and conservation organizations in planning roads
-Can be repeated at finer scales as circumstances change on the ground or data improves
-Beyond limiting habitat destruction, could safeguard rare environments rich in endemic species
-Could prove useful for many already planned or underway projects, such as the Tanzanian government’s plan (being legally challenged) to bisect the Serengeti NP with a highway, or the Ladia Galaska road network under construction in northern Sumatra
(Laurance et al.) - Why do the impacts of roads appear to be more acute in tropical rainforests?
-Biologically they are characterised by complex architecture and uniquely stable microclimates
-They sustain many specialised species
-Including species that avoid forest edges, unable to traverse even narrow clearings
-Others are susceptible to hunting, roadkill, elevated predation and species invasions near roads
-Due to unique characteristics, rainforest species are especially vulnerable
-Socioeconomically, rainforests occur in developing nations that experience continuous population growth, rapid economic development and intense natural-resource exploitation
-Industrial logging, oil development and mining are driving the need for more roads in these nations
-International donors also play a role
-This opens the forests up to exploitation (hunting, mining, colonisation)
-The problem is made worse by weak enforcement of environmental laws, particularly in remote frontier areas
(Laurance et al.) - Physical disturbances caused by roads
-Unless frequent culverts installed, can impede drainage, especially in tropical environments that receive heavy wet-season rainfall
-Can lead to extensive flooding on upstream side of road, killing vegetation
-On downstream side, water flow is impeded, causing desiccation stress to vegetation
-Major sources of erosion and stream sedimentation
-Can alter natural disturbances, such as creating artificial firebreaks that favour mesic vegetation
(Laurance et al.) - Chemical and nutrient pollution caused by roads
-Dust, heavy metals, nutrients, ozone and organic materials are elevated within 10-200m of road surfaces
-Lead pollution from car exhausts, especially in developing nations that still allow leaded gasoline
-Mainly impact streams and wetlands due to runoff
-Many aquatic species sensitive to water pollution
-Waterborne nutrients promote eutrophication
-Heavy metals are biomagnified in aquatic food web
(Laurance et al.) - Edge effects caused by roads
-Forests within 50-100m of edges experience greater diurnal fluctuations in light, temperature and humidity
-Elevated tree mortality, canopy gaps
-Alters community composition and abundance
-Wind disturbance and desiccation
-Narrower (<20m width) roads have less intense effects
-Clearings parallel to suns path are exposed to sunlight, suffer from heat and desiccation
-Herbicides, fires and foliage cutting disturbs adjoining forest vegetation
(Laurance et al.) - Road related mortality
-Roads have the potential to affect a broad spectrum of species
-Rare species with large ranges and low reproductive rates are most vulnerable
-If roadkill is strong, the road could become a population sink
-Narrow roads encourage road-crossing and curves reduce driver visibility, increasing roadkill
-Incised topography and riparian vegetation tend to funnel animals into certain crossing routes, whereas steep slopes, cuttings and embankments tend to inhibit road-crossing attempts
(Laurance et al.) - Barrier effects
-Block faunal movements
-High proportions of tropical species avoid even narrow (<30m) clearings
-Avoidance of forest edges and road clearings are intercorrelated and contribute to barrier effects
-Wider roads can strongly hinder movements
-In tropical Queensland, movements of native rainforest rodents fell by 67-90% across narrow clearings and by 90-100% across larger clearings
-When populations are fully isolated, deleterious effects of random genetic changes and environmental variations can drive local extinctions
-These effects are increased as road density increases, with road-dominated landscapes becoming increasingly hostile terrain for sensitive species
(Laurance et al.) - What species are more vulnerable to road mortality?
-Rare species with large ranges and low reproductive rates
-Slow-moving, ground-dwelling species (amphibians, reptiles and small mammals)
-Predominantly arboreal species that occasionally traverse open ground (tree-kangaroos, sloths etc)
-Slow flying birds bats and insects with low flight paths
-Species with poor eyesight such as giant anteaters and tamanduas
-Those that ‘freeze’ in response to approaching vehicles, such as armadillos and echidna
-Reptiles that bask at night
-Amphibians that undertake mass movements during tropical downpours
-Species with key breeding sites near roads
-Dispersing or mate-hunting individuals
-Crepuscular species (morning and evening traffic)
-Large animals
-Species that forage along roads, including those that favour edges such as hawks and bats
-Scavengers feeding on carrion
Cultural services promoted by natural environments
-Quicker surgical recovery
-Reduced mental fatigue and stress
-Improved cognition
-Childhood access to greenspace proved to decrease probability of psychiatric disorders in adulthood (Netherlands)
-Conservation may increasingly depend on ability of city people to maintain connection with nature
What did the UK government launch for greenspaces?
-Green urban space infrastructure plan
-Advocates for increase in greenspace of urban environments to 40%
What do WHO recommend with regards to greenspace?
That everyone living in a city should have access to greenspace within 250m of their home
Carbon storage in urban environments
-More important than previously thought
-97% above ground carbon stored in trees
-Trees (and hence carbon) is low in domestic gardens due to dominance of herbaceous vegetation
-10% council grassland planted with trees means 28,400 more tonnes of carbon
-10% of gardens containing one or more trees means 927 more tonnes of carbon
Direct effects of trees other than carbon storage
-Evapo-transpiration adds moisture, increasing the air’s specific heat capacity, making it harder to warm
-Shades hard surfaces, reducing radiant heat gain
-Shading cools buildings
-Flood regulation (helped by other vegetation)
Effects of greenspaces on flood regulation
-More infiltration of water into soil with green spaces
-More run-off of water in urban areas (55% compared to 10% with natural ground cover), increasing flood risk
(Laurance et al.) - Why does avoidance of forest edges and road clearings occur in tropical species?
-Have locomotor specializations, such as being strictly arboreal
-Adapted for flying in dense environments
-Require, dark, humid microclimates or specialised food resources
-Exhibit strong psychological avoidance of clearings due to past selection pressures
-Shun humans or traffic noise, light, movement and air pollution
-Repelled by invasive or generalised species in road clearings
-Align defended territories with clearing boundaries, suppressing local movements by conspecifics
(Laurance et al.) - Exotic species invasions caused by roads
-Linear clearings are facilitating widespread species invasions in the tropics
-Ranging from fire ants, exotic earthworms and fungal die-back
-Some are having major impacts on tropical biota
-Invasions occur rapidly in tropical areas lacking seasonal restrictions on movement or growth
-Repeated spraying, burning or mowing of vegetation favours exotic and disturbance-adapted species at expense of native species
(Laurance et al.) - Extent and impact of little fire ants (Wasmannia auropunctuta) caused by roads
-Proliferate through African rainforests ~60x faster along logging roads than through undisturbed forest
-Responsible for causing mortality or blindness in native species such as primates, leopards and invertebrates
(Laurance et al.) - Effect of species invasions on people living near roads
-In Ecuador, levels of human enteric pathogens were 2-8 times higher in villages near roads
-Likewise, increased incidence of dengue fever, malaria and HIV have been reported in people living near roads in India, Brazil and Uganda respectively
(Laurance et al.) - Human invasions caused by roads
-Facilitates invasions of hunters, miners, colonists and land speculators
-In Brazilian Amazonia ~95% of all deforestation and fires occur within 50km of roads
-In Suriname, most illegal gold-mining operations are located near roads
-In tropical Africa, hunting intensity is so elevated near roads that it strongly effects the large-scale distribution of forest elephants, duikers and primates
-Roads can also increase trade in bush-meat and wildlife products
-An average of 8 killed mammals transported per hour along a single highway in Sulawesi
(Laurance et al.) - Reducing and mitigating the impacts of linear clearings: Limiting road expansion
-Roads that penetrate into remote frontier regions often lead to forest encroachment and destruction
-Paved roads particularly damaging as they tend to spawn networks of secondary roads
-Large-scale efforts to expand regional highway networks are cause for special concern
-Maintaining large, roadless areas of intact forest should be among highest priority
(Laurance et al.) - Reducing and mitigating the impacts of linear clearings: Managing timber operations
-Industrial timber operations currently occur in ~28% of tropical forests worldwide
-Probably greatest single driver of road expansion
-The Congo alone has at least 52,000km of recently created logging roads
-In Amazon, forests penetrated by roads for selective logging are ~400% more likely to be deforested
-Most selective logging is poorly planned
-Some schemes for logging expansion appear particularly risky
-For example in Brazilian Amazonia plans are being developed to log dozens of widely scattered National Forests, many located in remote pristine areas, encompassing over 50million ha
-Roading impacts would be lower if logging was focused along existing highways
(Laurance et al.) - Ongoing measures to reduce ecological impacts of selective logging through roads
-Minimizing roadworks via careful pre-harvest planning
-Restricting roads to flatter slopes and ridgelines where possible
-Limiting widths of logging roads and loading ramps
-Minimizing stream crossings to reduce impacts on streams and riparian vegetation
-Prohibiting roading during wetter periods to reduce soil erosion and stream sedimentation
(Laurance et al.) - Reducing and mitigating the impacts of linear clearings: Reducing forest invasions
-When roads in frontier areas cannot be avoided, forest invasions can be reduced by creating PAs along the road route in advance of expansion
-For example, in Brazilian Amazonia, forest destruction has been more severe along the Cuiba-Santarem Highway which had few PAs in place prior to road construction than along the Porto Velho-Manaus Highway, where 13 PAs were established
-Major forest fires less frequent near roads in Amazonian PAs than near roads in unprotected forest
-Another strategy is establishing railroads, partially controlling incursions into forests because trains stop at designated places that can be positioned strategically to limit invasions.
-For example in Brazil a railroad has been advocated instead of Manaus-Porto Velho Highway
-Although burying oil and gas pipelines can be moderately expensive, invasions can be reduced by such a measure by allowing overlying forests to regenerate
(Laurance et al.) - Reducing and mitigating the impacts of linear clearings: Properly assessing road impacts
-In many developing nations, EIAs of roads focus solely on the road route itself, ignoring impacts on forest invasions, hunting, land speculation and secondary-road expansion
-For mines, hydroelectric dams and other large developments, the EIA focuses on the project itself but not the impact of the roads
-New roads will continue to be major drivers of rainforest and degradation as long as the EIA process is so fundamentally flawed
(Laurance et al.) - Reducing and mitigating the impacts of linear clearings: Road-design strategies
-In areas of high conservation significance, various measures can be used to reduce road impacts
-For nature reserves, roads should generally be minimized, and roadless core-areas maximised
-Destructive flooding can be minimized by establishment of large culverts under roads, ensuring increased stream velocity does not create a barrier to aquatic fauna
-Soil erosion and stream sedimentation reduced by confining use of heavy equipment to drier months + seeding fast-growing native plants over disused areas
-Edge effects can be reduced by allowing secondary growth and vines to proliferate along forest margins and embankments, providing a physical buffer that lessens forest desiccation and wind
-Maintaining relatively continuous canopy reduces effects on microclimate and vegetation
-Barrier effects can be reduced by limiting road widths, although this can increase roadkill
-Underpasses and culverts can be designed to enhance attractiveness
-Roadkill can be reduced by limiting speeds, posting warning signs, establishing fences that steer animals to culverts, and night-time restricted driving as most road kills occur at night and near dawn/dusk when animal activity is highest
(Laurance et al.) - Vulnerability of tropical forests
-Complex, multi-layered architecture with dense canopy cover creates a dark, humid, thermally stable environment that contrasts with harsher environments in road clearings, with these strong physical gradients making edge effects more potent
-Rainforests sustain specialised species that tend to avoid clearings and road edges, increasing impact of barrier effects
-Intense tropical rainfall can exacerbate erosion and runoff, increasing sedimentation and impacting aquatic ecosystems
-Road infrastructure impedes drainage, causing upslope flooding and downslope desiccation of vegetation, simplifying habitats and acting as barriers for aquatic fauna
-When rainfall is seasonal, heavy metals and other pollutants can build up near road surface to be flushed into streams with first heavy rains
-Tropical forests mainly exist in developing nations that are being transformed by ongoing industrialisation, pop growth and natural-resource exploitation
(Laurance et al.) - A proactive approach
-Efforts to promote road expansion in the tropics are perhaps the most striking example of how regional integration
and economic development can be directly at odds with
nature conservation
-Infrastructure planners typically praise the ‘opening up’ of frontiers
-Forest carbon-trading initiatives should focus explicitly on limiting and mitigating further roads
-E.g., REDD+ could be used to help plan and minimize road works, establish PAs in advance, regulate road access and close down most environmentally destructive roads
-Actively limiting frontier roads, we believe, is by far the
most realistic, cost-effective approach to promote the conservation of tropical nature and its crucial ecosystem
services
What did the UN say about there never being a more urgent need to revive damaged ecosystems than now?
-They support all life
-The healthier our ecosystems, the healthier the planet and its people
-The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration aims to prevent, halt and reverse the degradation of ecosystems on every continent and ocean
-Can help to end poverty, combat climate change and prevent a mass extinction
-Will only succeed if everyone plays a part
Why are the groups of ‘nature’s contribution to people’ that are increasing, doing so unsustainably
-Only doing so because of increased resource extraction
-Things like provision of food from oceans
Why is degradation a factor for species conservation?
-Even when habitat is not entirely gone, it is not as high quality as it was
-Therefore still requires some form of restoration
What was the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment?
-Big global initiative set up in early 2000s
-Looking at extent to which ecosystems were still functioning
Examples of restorations
-Aral sea
-Sundarbans
-Harrapan rainforest
Sundarbans as example of habitat restoration
-On border between India and Bangladesh
-Was rich in mangrove forests, providing for a large population of tigers
-Also supported critically endangered birds
-Led to massive efforts of mangrove restoration
-Global mangrove loss has seen a 40% decline to 2016
-However, it is locally higher, e.g., Sumatra >85% loss since 2000
Mangrove loss in Sumatra
->85%
-Globally supports $65 billion flood protection, supports 4.1 million small scale fishers and 8.5 giga tonnes of carbon
-Unique biodiversity
-Numerous local restoration schemes
-E.g., Sumatra above ground carbon increased from close to zero to 314 tons per ha, income per capita doubled
Restoration of Sumatra rainforest
-Indonesia has 25 million ha of former (selective) logging concessions without current management, usually going to plantations
-Harrapan rainforest is 98,000 ha (980km2) of Ecosystem Restoration Concession (ERC) and supports 300 birds species, Sumatran tiger etc.
-Integrates forest utilization, environmental services, biodiversity protection and improves livelihood of local people
-Newly planted trees higher than average survival rate
General ecosystem restoration principles
-Promote inclusive and participatory governance, social fairness and equity from the start and throughout the process and outcomes
-Include a continuum of restorative activities
-Aim to achieve the highest level of recovery for biodiversity, ecosystem health and integrity, and human well-being
-Address direct and indirect causes of ecosystem degradation
-Incorporate all types of knowledge and promote their exchange and integration throughout the process
-Based on well-defined short-, medium-, and long-term ecological, cultural, and socio-economic objectives and goals
-Tailored to the local ecological, cultural, and socio-economic contexts, while considering the larger landscape or seascape
-Includes monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management throughout and beyond the lifetime of the project or programme
-Enabled by policies and measures that promote its long-term progress, fostering replication and scaling up
General ecosystem restoration principles summarised
-Consider all stakeholders and diverse goals
-Remove all threats
-Clear measurable (and measured) targets across multiple time frames
-Diversity of approaches that scale up
-Regulation and policy support across scales needed (local, national and global)
-IUCN reintroduction guidelines (summarised): Feasability
-The species must be shown to have been previously present in the region
-After re-establishment the species should be self-maintaining
-There needs to be a sound knowledge of the species’ natural history
-There should be an understanding of likely ecological effects
-The re-introduction should be modelled to predict its outcome
-A Population Viability Analysis should be done
-IUCN reintroduction guidelines (summarised): Appropriateness
-Suitable sites with good habitat within the former range must exist
-The cause of the original extinction must be identified and eliminated
-IUCN reintroduction guidelines (summarised): Provenance
-Re-introduced animals should be of same or similar genetic stock
-They must not endanger status of source populations
-They should be free of pathogens and screened by a vet
-Re-introduced animals from captive stock must have been appropriately reared
-Captive stock must be able to adapt behaviourally
-IUCN reintroduction guidelines (summarised): Socioeconomic
-The project should have long-term financial and political support
-There should be a cost-benefit analysis for local human pop
-Local attitudes should be assessed as re-introductions should have local support
-There needs to be government support
-Risks to life and property need to be assessed and accepted
-IUCN reintroduction guidelines (summarised): Release
-Pre- and post- release monitoring is needed
-There needs to be a proper release strategy with veterinary supervision
-There needs to be a public relations programme
-There should be a scientific evaluation that is later published
UK examples of reintroductions
-Large blue butterfly
-Common crane
-Capercaillie
-Concerns that UK not the best place to be investing money for conservation
Reintroduction of big blue butterfly UK
-Extinct 1979
-Re-introduced 1980s
-NT globally
Reintroduction of Common crane UK
-Extinct 1500s
-Small natural recolonization 1980s, only around 10 breeding pairs and not increasing
-Re-introduced 2010
-Successfully breeding
-LC globally
Reintroduction of capercaillie UK
-Extinct 1785 primarily due to overhunting
-Re-introduced 1837 (one of first)
-Declining due to low breeding success (wetter summers) and collisions with fences causing higher mortality
-LC globally
Reintroduction of California condor
-Late 1980s, only 22 left in wild
-All captured and brought to captive breeding facility
-Controversial and intense
-Reintroduction in 1990s
-Now present in CA and AZ, reintroduction happening in Mexico too, 92 mature condors in wild
-Lead poisoning causing death of 60% of individuals, no public support to stop this
-GPS trackers to help protect from lead poisoning
-Less lead in Mexico, hence reintroduction there
-IUCN deemed reintroduction partially successful
-Due for reassessment next year, potentially from CE to EN
Reintroduction of Eastern Bettong
-Restricted to Tasmania, used to be widespread on mainland
-32 moved to predator free (cats, foxes etc.) woodland restoration area
-There were issues, but now self-sustaining population (120-180) at carrying capacity
-Classified as highly successful conservation reintroduction
What were the issues with the Eastern Bettong reintroduction?
-Trapping based rejection of pouched young, solved by taping young back into pouch
-GPS collars caused mortality by snaring, trapping and strangling
-Low densities in source area
Methods of managing logging for biodiversity
-Reduced Impact Logging (RIL)
-Lower intensity logging
-Land sharing vs land sparing
What are we seeing an emergence of, with regards to managing logging of primary forests?
-Market incentives (FSC, REDD+)
-Regulation (e.g., Bolivia, Brazilian Amazon)
If farming at lower intensities reduces loss, is this pattern the same for under-logging?
-Meta analysis of relative species richness between primary and logged forests
-98 comparisons from 48 studies
-Birds show minor increase as logging intensifies, as primary species still exist but also edge tolerant species move in
-Declines in mammals and amphibians (halving) at logging intensities of 38 and 63m3ha-1, respectively
Why is urbanisation important for conservation?
-At large spatial scales areas with more species contain more people
-At small spatial scales, urban development often focuses on areas of high wildlife importance
-By 2030, 300% increase, and a 900% increase within biodiversity hotspots with little current urbanisation
-E.g., Eastern Afromontane, Guinean forests of West Africa
-Urbanisation is projected to impact many IUCN red-listed species, such as mammals in sub-Saharan Africa
Why at large spatial scales do areas with more species contain more people?
-Probably because biodiversity responds to same climatic factors that influence human movement and settlement
-Warm and wet good for growing crops, also good for biodiversity
Why at small spatial scales does urban development often focuses on areas of high wildlife importance?
-Saves areas that are more important for people such as fertile land for crops
-Chooses ‘semi-natural’ environments
Road mortality impacts on different taxa
-Amphibians suffer greater losses (500/600 killed per km)
-Increased road width causes declines in mortality across all taxa
Other than roadkill, how do roads lead to mortality?
-Bush meat hunting
-Substantial depression in detection rates of many species close to road
-This is because roads encourage hunting of animals close by
Road edge effects: Pollution
-Chemical emissions may lead to pollution of air, soil and water adjacent to roads
-Energy emissions in the form of noise, headlights, vibrations and movements may disturb sensitive wildlife
-Runoff
Road edge effects: Habitat decay
-Changing microclimatic conditions (humidity, light, temperature, wind speed and turbulence)
-Increased tree damage and death
-Increased tree dynamics (turnover, species composition)
-Changes in stream ecology (altered flow patterns and impacts on aquatic and stream bank life)
Road edge effects on wildlife, a case study
-Created fake road
-Put out loudspeakers to create road, habitat remained untouched otherwise
-Emulated sounds without actual presence
-31% of birds avoided the ‘road’
-When speakers were off, catchment rate matched the control
-When speakers on, catchment rates dropped significantly
-Birds that stayed had lower overall body composition
-When no roads, birds can forage and regain weight lost overnight
-This does not happen when roads are present
-Next they moved to laboratory and experimented on white crowned sparrows
-When noise was played, more head lifts occured
-These results suggest vigilance-foraging behaviour tradeoff as a mechanism
Do all species suffer edge effects from roads?
-Study looking at edge avoidance by understory birds in Amazon
-Distance from road against capture rate
-Lot fewer numbers closer to roads for terrestrial birds
-Opposite for gap loving species
-Midstory and canopy species not very affected, probably due to them living in treetops
Barrier effects and fragmentation caused by roads
-Divide up habitats and wildlife populations
-Roads can be barriers to gene flow
-Smaller partially isolated populations at greater risk of extinction due to deterministic processes
Effects of roads on gene flow
-Can result in speciation
-Famous example from biogeographical studies in Amazon
-Found that speciation levels affected by major river, the Amazon and its tributaries
-Further down rivers, generally detect new species in same/similar genus occupying similar ecological niches
-Rivers have acted as natural barriers and facilitated speciation
Study on bird movement responses to roads
-Susan Laurance
-Passive observation of which species crossed roads and which didn’t
-Then did experimental translocations of non-crossing birds
-Tested if birds could be forced to cross by taking them to other side of road
-Observed that some had very limited dispersal capabilities and will not cross
-Tracked these birds, releasing on opposite side of road to where caught
-MSF groups have rapid returns, within 3-19 hours
-Understory birds within 1-2 days
-Terrestrial birds never returned, never crossed roads
-Probably because these birds rely heavily on foraging, something not available at roads
Implications of Susan Laurance’s study
-Dispersal is a principal factor determining survival
-Populations could become isolated by roads
Mitigation methods to reduce wildlife mortality from roads
-Barrier fencing
-Road signs (do they even work?)
-Speed limits, especially in PAs, but what speed is appropriate? And how do we enforce these?
-Windy roads or speed bumps
-Road closures, only on small roads (economic incentive to protect species?)
-Prohibit hunting, but can it be enforced?
Mitigation methods to enhance permeability (dispersal ability) of roads
-Extend bridges over watercourses and riparian vegetation
-Allow natural canopy connections
-Canopy bridges (cheap)
-Gilder poles for flying/gliding animals (even cheaper)
-Overpasses and underpasses
Is mitigation of roads ecologically effective and cost effective?
-Often very expensive, does it really protect populations?
-Problem is that very few road mitigations are experimentally/analytically tested
-Built into initial plans (adequate EIA) vs after realising problem (inadequate/no EIA)
-Either way we need rigorous scientific assessment
-Study conducted by Polak
Study by Polak on the effectiveness of road mitigation methods?
-Looks at optimal planning for mitigating impacts of roads
-Focused on the koala in SE Queensland
-Used a spatially explicit population model and decision-science framework
-Did this to determine cost-effective mitigation solutions under budget constraints
-Found that mitigation solutions can be very effective but very expensive
Some key unanswered questions for road mitigation
-Does structure work, what type/size do we use?
-How many crossing structures need to be built?
-Is it more effective to install few large crossing structures or large number of small ones?
-How much (if any) barrier fencing is needed?
-Is funnel fencing needed and how long should it be?
-How to manage/manipulate environment in area around crossing structures and fencing?
-Where should they be placed?
Where should we focus our road building for new roads?
-Take into consideration terrestrial biodiversity, key habitats and wilderness and environmental services
-Then consider road benefits such as being suitable for agricultural intensification and promoting increased production
-Can create a global road map
-Conflicting areas in Africa, Central America and parts of SE and East Asia
Policy recommendations for roads
-Roads are major drivers of forest and biodiversity loss
-EIA of roads, reduce road widths to maintain connectivity
-Mitigation strategies (but limited evidence for value)
-Maintain large roadless areas of intact habitat
-Direct roads to areas with yield gaps (and low biodiversity)
-Carbon markets (REDD+) could direct payments to countries in conflict zones?
Brief history of agriculture
-Agricultural systems have been a part of the globe for millennia, even intensive agriculture
-Very long history, becoming ‘common’ in most parts of the world 10000-3000 BP
-Urbanisation is much more recent
-Big increase in cereal production through time, while land-use has remained relatively stable
-Increase in production therefore due to increased yields through improvements to farming
-Cereal production mainly increased with population, but are also grown for livestock
-Recent increase due to expansion and intensification
Why will further increases in cereal production be necessary?
-2022: ~8 billion people
-2048: 9 billion people
-Shift to western diets that tend to rely more on animal products
Food security
-Not just reliant on amount of food but also prices relative to income
-As prices increase, it is the poor that struggle to meet daily food requirements
-Can lead to riots, such as in Mexico
-To decrease prices, supply is often increased
-Supply is thought to be threatened by climate change
-Also issues with commodity trading
-Additional issues surrounding volatile oil prices as oil is very important to power tractors, produce pesticides, transport crops etc.
-A clear need to increase food availability
-However, globally a third of food produced is wasted
Example of commodity trading affecting food security
-2010 Russian wildfires and drought caused yield decreases of <5%
-Due to speculation and commodity trading this caused price increases of 50%
Food waste
-Globally a third of food produced is wasted
-In developing countries, this is usually because food cannot be stored fast enough in farms and so spoils
-In developed countries, usually domestic waste is the main problem in houses/shops etc.
Agricultural extent
-Globally humans acquire 30% of net primary productivity
-72% in Western Europe
-Taking this amount of energy from food chain is affecting biodiversity
-Getting close to half of land surface dominated by agriculture
-This is expanding rapidly
-Expansion linked to urbanisation
-Expansion is also happening in areas important for conservation, such as EBAs experiencing higher rates of habitat loss to agriculture
Link between expansion of agriculture and urbanisation
-50-63% of urban expansion will occur on current croplands
-Global crop production will decline by approximately 1-4%
-Equivalent to the annual food needs for key crops of 122-1389 million people
-Creates intense pressure to clear areas of natural
-Available land less fertile than land lost to urbanisation
-Also must think about ‘leakage’
What is agricultural ‘leakage’?
-Impacts of demand on non-local areas
-Transporting this food also contributes to climate change
Agricultural impacts
-20-25% of pre-agricultural bird numbers lost by 1990
-Agriculture is the biggest threat to globally endangered bird species
-Similar for other groups, e.g., 80% of threatened vertebrates
-Interactions between livestock and wild ungulates
-Intensification on bees
Agricultural intensification on bees study
-Melon farming in US
-Looked at three different farm types (ON (organic near to natural areas), OF, (organic and far), CF (conventional and far))
-ONs had higher levels of pollination, necessary for producing marketable fruit
-Showed that reason for higher pollination in ONS is due to higher diversity of bees
-Tells us that even on organic farms, we need natural habitats close by to supply natural bee populations
-Far away farms spend a lot of money on domesticated bees to make up for this
Livestock and wild ungulate interactions
-In all cases except wild pigs, much higher densities of large mammals where domestic livestock don’t enter to graze
-This is because the livestock are removing food otherwise eaten by large mammals
-Experiment done on cattle and zebra
Experiment on cattle and zebra by Young et al., (2005)
-In Laikipia, Kenya
-Cattle and zebra diets and habitat selections are very similar
-Looked at two systems (10 cattle/km2 and 0)
-Found that excluding cattle increases zebra population by 46%
-Grass cover is reduced by cattle, correlating with changes in zebra population
-These effects are reduced by elephants, as they were probably disturbing cattle, reducing foraging
-This creates radical views, such as those that we should get rid of cattle in sub-Saharan Africa and feed off the native wild animals
Discuss the radical view that we should get rid of cattle in sub–Saharan Africa and instead feed off the native wild mammals
-Controversial but would require fewer inputs and less habitat modification
-Wild game are also better adapted than livestock
-Also applies in Britain, high populations of rabbit and deers etc.
-BUT would require policy and legislative changes as well as setting quotas
-Could create extra bushmeat demand and would require enforcement
Solutions to agricultural intensification and its effects on biodiversity
-Certification of agricultural products that are produced in systems better for biodiversity
-UK agri-environmental schemes
-Organic farming
-Land sparing vs sharing
Example of agricultural certification
-Coffee certification
-Cirl bunting distributions
Coffee certification
-Coffee traditionally found in rainforest understoreys
-Therefore requires canopy and is not particularly adapted to sun exposure
-That system had low yields, and so breeders bred coffee to be able to grow in open areas
-Avian diversity in these systems is very different
-Link between countries producing coffee (Central and South America) and the ones consuming (USA and Canada) is migrating birds
-Higher densities of these birds in shaded plantations
-Led to marketing shaded coffee as ‘bird friendly coffee’ and increasing prices to compensate for low yields
Problems with the coffee certification
-Was seen as great solution, but initially was not robust
-No specification of what the ‘shade’ had to entail
-This led to farmers removing trees, planting bananas (and profiting off them), arguing that they had shaded coffee
-This loophole has now been closed in some certification schemes (not all)
-Highlights how conservationists muct be very precise
UK agri-environment schemes
-Entry Level Stewardship
-Higher Level Stewardship
-In the process of being replaced with Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs)
Entry Level Stewardship
-Launched in 2005
-Uptake relatively high
-Clearly defined broad objectives
-Small changes
-Evidence-based simple prescriptions
-Monitoring against objectives, but none for biodiversity response
Higher Level Stewardship
-Also launched in 2005
-Uptake lower
-Clearly defined, narrow objectives
-Evidence-based complex prescriptions
-Geographical targeting
-Project officers
-Payments linked to delivery of habitat quality
Environmental Land Management schemes
-Sustainable Farming Incentive
-Local Nature Recovery
-Landscape Recovery
-At trial stage, maintain focus on ‘public money for public goofs’ such as biodiversity and ecosystem services
-In a state of flux
-Conservative government want to revert to area-based payments
Review of agri-environment schemes
-Looked at 5 European countries and 202 paired fields
-Marginal to moderate benefits in all countries
-Common species benefit more than rare ones
-Red data book species rarely benefit
-More detailed tailoring of schemes required for precise habitat requirements
Benefits of organic farming
-Study looking at effects of organic farming on biodiversity yield and profit across world
-As organic fields increase in size, biodiversity gains increase
-But yield gaps also increase
-But profits increased
Cirl bunting distribution
-Was widespread across southern England in 1930s
-Restricted to southern Devon by 1989
-Due to changes in agricultural landscapes
-This is because they have very specific habitat requirements of weedy cereal stubs as seeds for winter, and a mix of grasslands (insects) and cereals (ripening grain) in summer
-They require winter and summer habitats close together
-Polarization of farmland (used to be mixed cereals and grasslands, now separated) has contributed
-So have increased uses of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers
-With this ecological knowledge, organisations put in efforts to compensate farmers for creating habitats better suited to the Cirl bunting
Efforts put in by organisations to compensate farmers for creating habitats better suited to the Cirl bunting
-Started with voluntary set-asides
-RSPB introduced stubble scheme
-Followed by mandatory set-asides
-Countryside Stewardship Special Project with very specific requirements
-Populations began to increase, passed the BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) target of 500 territories
-Good example of how scientific understanding has led to species revivals
Study on land sparing vs land sharing agriculture
-Conducted in India and Ghana
-Measured diversity of trees and birds in three habitat types (remaining forest fragments, low intensity farming and high intensity farming)
-Looked at how population density of focal taxa changed with yield
-Showed that land-sparing is generally better
-Paradox that intensive farming is better for species
-But in some places low intensity farming can be essential (30 globally endangered birds rely on low intensity farming)
Core assumption of land-sparing
-Because we have reached a point where we do have some low intensity farms, abandoning these will lead to forest regeneration
-Some studies support this but some suggest otherwise
Studies against land-sparing core assumption
-El Salvador, local rural population density uncorrelated with forest recovery
-Argentina, rural population declining but forest cover is too
-Mexico, 16/17 studies, conditions met forest transition model but still net deforestation
-Costa Rica, intensification, rural to urban migration, and ecotourism revenues, but forest fragmentation continues
Historical PA movement
-Can be traced back to Myanmar
-Religious motivations, such as surrounding buildings of worship
-Resource management motivations too such as by the UK monarchy for their own hunting pleasure
Late 19th century PA movement
-Yellowstone NP in 1872
-Wilderness preservation motivations
Modern PA movement
-Took off in 50s/60s
-Driven by IUCN
-Motivations include species, habitats and ESs
What is a Protected Area?
-Previously over 1,000 definitions, defined by national legislation, and varied over time
-Need for standardisation raised in 1962 World Parks Conference
-IUCN agreed definitions in 1994, revised in 2008
-‘An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means’ – IUCN 1994
-‘A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’ – IUCN 2008
Why were IUCN PA categories established
-To capture full range of PA values
-To help global accounting and comparisons
-To reduce confusion over PA names and types across various countries
-To promote international standards
IUCN PA categories
-Lower the number, stricter they are
-Ia, Strict Nature Reserve, a PA managed mainly for science e.g., Sundarbans NP, India
-Ib, Wilderness Area, a PA managed mainly for wilderness protection
-II, National Park, PA managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation e.g., Kakadu, Australia
-III, Natural Monument, PA managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features e.g., Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe
-IV, Habitat/Species Management Area, PA managed mainly for conservation through management intervention e.g., Seleous game reserve, Tanzania
-V, Protected Landscape/Seascape, PA managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation e.g., Dartmoor NP
-VI, Managed Resource PA, managed mainly for sustainable use of natural ecosystems, e.g., Kiunga Marine National Reserve, Kenya
Global expansion of PA network
-Set, as a conservation community, a target of having 17% protection of terrestrial surface protected and 10% of ocean by 2020 (Aichi)
-More or less reached the target for terrestrial, fell slightly behind
-In terms of marine, amount of PAs set up Beyond National Jurisdiction is low as this requires multinational agreements
Impact of the global expansion of PA network
-Living planet index (WWF) still falling
-Not sufficient to help biodiversity loss
-Need to focus on future targets and where to place these PAs
Work by Pouzols on where to locate future PAs
-Showed where to expand current PAs to meet targets and biodiversity impacts
-Most of this was predicted to be needed in tropical regions
-Found that only ~19% of species ranges covered by PAs (2014)
-Included how this was effected by land use changes in 2040, mainly due to urbanisation and agriculture
-Found that global priority methods preserve more biodiversity than national priorities
-Impact of future habitat loss has a dramatic impact on the average species ranges that will be protected
Post 2020 PA targets, ‘Global Deal for Nature’
-30% by 2030, Kunning-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP15
->100 countries now signed, including UK
-Aligns with the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 to legally protect at least 30% of land area
-Interim target for 50% by 2050?
Is it feasible to have 50% of the terrestrial surface protected by 2050 (Dinerstein et al., (2017))?
-98 (12%) ecoregions already 50% protected
-313 (37%) ecoregions ‘could reach half by 2050’ as they still have >50% of their natural vegetation left but currently <50% protected
-228 (27%) ecoregions ‘nature could recover’, 20-49% natural vegetation left
-207 (24%) ecoregions ‘nature imperilled’, <20% natural vegetation (mean 4%)
-Reaching these targets impedes other UN goals, such as world hunger
How does having 50% of the terrestrial surface protected impede the UN goal to tackle world hunger?
-Massive loss of food production capacity if we reach these targets
-Reduced if we allow a shared landscape (not land-sparing)
Current major issues of PAs
-Overall extent
-Biased distribution
-Individual PA size
-Isolation
-Inadequate protection
Future threats to PAs
-Human population growth
-Climate change
-Invasive species
-PADDD, PA downgrading, downsizing and degazettement
Biased distribution of PAs
-Often established due to lack of economic potential
-Opportunity and availability rather than biological characteristics
-Such as Greenland, world’s biggest PA but has little ecological value
-Lots of species currently outside of PAs (gap species)
Distribution of globally endangered species currently outside of PAs (gap species), Rodrigues et al., (2015)
-149 mammals (14%)
-232 birds (19.8%)
-411 amphibians (27%)
-Major issue
-Further studies on this by Klein et al., (2015)
Individual PA size as a threat to PAs
-Half are <10km2
-Smallest PA is 7m2
-Declining size of new sites
-Can’t maintain viable populations of species that require large home ranges
-Edge effects have a greater relative influence in small reserves
Isolation of PAs
-Increasing
-Only 10% of area of terrestrial PAs are well connected
-Habitat fragmentation is going to be a big pressure on maintaining viable populations in PAs
Can we do anything about PA isolation?
-Ward et al., (2020) plotted % of connected PAs per country against % of intact land available per country
-Some positives such as Guyana and Kiribati, even though Kiribati has little intact land remaining
-However, countries like Egypt have a lot of intact land remaining, but little PAs
-Challenges in countries such as Philippines and DRC where little intact land remains, and so lots of PAs will not be well-connected
-These countries are very important for biodiversity, massive restoration programs needed
Work by Laurence et al., (2012) on reserve effectiveness
-Recent analysis looked at 60 reserves across the tropics of Africa, Asia and the Americas
-Conducted interviews with PA managers
-Looked at changes in 20-30 year time period, in both diversity of the PAs and environmental change drivers
-Divided reserves into those suffering and those succeeding
-Even succeeding PAs had factors getting worse
-Then looked at the relationship between between anthropogenic pressures inside and outside reserves
-Strong correlation meant reserve was ineffective at combatting pressure, weak means opposite
-Revealed that reserves very good at combatting soil erosion, selective logging, exotic tree plantations and livestock grazing
-Lots of factors, including fires, illegal mines, and pollutions that tropical PAs seem to be ineffective at dealing with
-However, reserves that have been better protected over time have better health, proof that PAs can work with sufficient management
-This also means that meeting targets involves more financial and physical investment, but also training many more personnel
-Potential opportunity, especially for economy, but also a challenge
PA protection: Further studies
-Van Schiak et al., (1997)
-Craige et al., (2010)
-Geldmann et al., (2019)
-Cazalis et al., (2020)
-Pacifici et al., (2020)
PA protection: Van Schiak et al., (1997)
-Worked on 204 parks in 16 tropical countries
-Looked at biggest anthropogenic threats to PAs
-Found that human encroachment and resource extraction are common
PA protection: Craige et al., (2010)
-Found that there are declines in mammal species within PAs of Africa
-Except for Southern Africa
PA protection: Geldmann et al., (2019)
-Found that globally, there is a slight increase in ability of PAs to resist anthropogenic pressures compared to areas outside of similar environment, but it is marginal
-Some regions perform better, such as Neotropical and Indomalaya regions
PA protection: Cazalis et al., (2020)
-Looked at effectiveness of PAs in conserving tropical forest birds
-For endemic birds, not particularly positive
-However, threatened and NT species show stronger evidence that PAs can be effective a preserving
PA protection: Pacifici et al., (2020)
-Looked at % of mammal ranges that are protected today against 1970
-At first glance, it seems there are a lot more species with higher % range protected
-However, this is not because PAs have expanded to cover their range, but because these species have become extinct outside of PAs (range contraction into PAs)
-May be negative, but also shows that PAs can slow down extinction even when faced with anthropogenic pressures
PA management options
-Park focus/fortress conservation
-People focus/community-based conservation
What is park focus/fortress conservation?
-E.g., forceful extraction of local people or major restrictions on their activities
-Such as Dian Fossey, who did increase the gorilla populations but not by a lot, and was murdered by the people that she put restrictions on
-Since then, management of these zones has become more collaborative with local people and there have been steeper increases
Study by Oldekop et al., (2016) on PA management
-Found that a lot of PAs have negative impacts on local people
-But those that don’t were more likely to report that they were able to meet conservation goals
-Evidence that working with local people can be beneficial for enhancing conservation outcomes
Quotes from Oldekop et al., (2016)
-“Protected areas associated with positive socioeconomic outcomes were more likely to report positive conservation outcomes”
-“Positive conservation and socioeconomic outcomes were more likely to occur when PAs adopted co-management regimes, empowered local people, reduced economic inequalities, and maintained cultural and livelihood benefits”
-“PAs that explicitly integrated local people as stakeholders tended to be more effective at achieving joint biological conservation and socioeconomic development outcomes”
Examples of people focus/community-based conservation
-Amanda Vincent’s seahorse conservation in SE Asia
-Kibale NP, Uganda (McKenzie et al., 2011)
-Study by Van der Braber et al., (2018) on impact of PAs on local livelihoods
Amanda Vincent’s seahorse conservation in SE Asia
-Originally in Philippines, but now expanded, including to Vietnam
-Seahorses endangered as they are valuable in Chinese medicine, more valuable than silver by weight in 90s
-Amanda worked with local people to put in conservation strategies that still allowed them to fish the seahorses
-Was so successful that people from other villages came and asked for her help
-Amanda focused on how banning wildlife trade altogether is not always the best answer, as it has negative impacts on local communities, and either illegal trade will still continue or people will find other ways to exploit the environment, such as deforestation
What strategies did Amanda Vincent utilise?
-Let male seahorses give birth into marine environment first and then they could be sold
-Set size quotas, leaving the larger ones that contributed most to breeding
-Set aside small area where no fishing was allowed, created surplus recruits to replenish individuals
Kibale NP, Uganda as an example of people focus/community-based conservation (McKenzzie at el., 2011)
-People living on park edges are poorer and the poor experience lowest growth in wealth
-Seen as poverty trap, and people were against its conservation
-But researching further it was shown that the risk of people losing their land and therefore livelihood was much lower closer to the park
-So actually, the park was helping people hold on to their land and it was simply that environmental conditions closer to the park were such that it was harder to make a living
-Conservationists started considering pressures that villagers were under
Conservation work in Kibale NP, Uganda (McKenzie et al., 2011)
-Started considering pressures that villagers were under
-Found that 89% of villagers on park edge wanted access to timber but it is illegal
-38% were illegally extracting timber
-Set up resource access agreements that allowed villagers to enter the park to extract other resources that conservationists helped them to sell, such as wild honey
-This caused significant reductions in illegal logging
-Also increased local incomes by $250
Impact of PAs on local livelihoods (Van der Braber, et al., 2018)
-Used three measures (mean poverty, extreme poverty, mean inequality)
-Reduction in these over time, greater in villages that are protected
-Probably due to tourism brought in by PAs
Human population growth as a future threat to PAs (Wittemyer et al., 2008)
-Analysis in South America and Africa shows that human pop growth is much bigger closer to PAs
-Not sure why, could be people moving towards them to exploit the natural resources available
-Consequence is that amount of people living and trying to extract a livelihood close to PAs is going to disproportionately increase in future, making it more important for conservationists to work with local people in order to effectively protect biodiversity
Climate change as a future threat to PAs (Hole et al., 2009)
-Predicted turnover in priority avian species in African IBAs
-Turnover >50% at 42% of sites
-But 90% of species retain climatic space in IBAs
-Only 7-8 species have no climatic representation
-PAs will remain valuable, just for different set of species
Species in UK extending range sizes due to climate change (Thomas et al, 2012)
-Almost all species disproportionately colonising PAs as they move north
-PAs helping species cope with climate change and shift ranges to adapt to it
-95% of invertebrates that are shifting ranges are disproportionately using PAs to do so
Invasive species as a future threat to PAs (Liu et al., 2020)
-Currently, relatively few PAs impacted by invasive species
-But there is mounting pressure outside
-Eventually these species will invade PAs, potentially compromising biodiversity
PADDD as a future threat to PAs (Mascia et al., 2014)
-PA downgrading, downsizing and degazettement
-Increased land area that was protected is being impacted by PADDD events as people try to overturn PA designation to enable economic activity
-Primarily driven by industrial-scale activities (mining, oil extraction etc.) and partly from people trying to take back land taken from them back in 60s/70s/80s, another reason to work with local people
Why does global diversity continue to decline?
-Pressures are increasing
-ESs and biodiversity declining
-Responses are increasing, but not enough
-Maybe we don’t know how to do conservation properly
-Maybe it’s insufficient support
Maybe we don’t know how to do conservation properly?
-Argued against
-‘Conservation science is a mature discipline armed with the knowledge and tools for effective management of populations and habitats’ - Johnson et al., (2017)
-Gigon et al., (1998) show that outcomes of conservation responses for Swiss birds and plants have been mainly positive
Insufficient support for conservation
-Inadequate funds from governments and corporations
-Non-compliance e.g., illegal logging and pesticide use
-Repealed legislation by government changes, especially in Brazil and USA
-Individual choices also matter
The role of individual choices in conservation
-Key differences exist between developed and developing worlds but human behaviours play a key role in all cases
-Developed countries have a lack of conservation despite ‘ability’ to support it
-Developing countries lack conservation support because of perceived conflict with ‘legitimate’ development issues such as food security
Quantifying level of conservation support (Codwell and Evans, 2017): Methods
-6 urban areas of England
-Randomly selected c.300 people
-Conducted a behavioural scale, a willingness to sacrifice scale (WTS) and a financial scale
Quantifying level of conservation support (Codwell and Evans, 2017): Behavioural scale
-Commitment to environment sustainability scale (CESS)
-3 questions, 12 points available
-E.g., “The environment is a low priority for me compared with a lot of other things in my life”
Quantifying level of conservation support (Codwell and Evans, 2017): WTS scale
-5 questions, 40 points available
-E.g., “I am willing to give up things that I like doing if they harm the natural environment”
Quantifying level of conservation support (Codwell and Evans, 2017): Financial scale
-Donations across charitable sectors
-Actual vs hypothetical
Quantifying level of conservation support (Codwell and Evans, 2017): Results
-For CESS, there was a mean score of 8/12, and only 16% scored 11 or more (83% or above)
-For WTS, there was a mean score of 26/40, with 27% scoring 33 or more (probably overestimates)
-The financial scale found that conservation donations actually lose out to other charitable priorities
-A false dichotomy between investing in vulnerable people and investing in conservation?
Coupled natural-human systems
-Human system impacts and reorganises natural system and vice versa
-Humans effecting nature (human-natural coupling), “human system impacts and re-organises natural system”
-Nature effecting humans (nature-human coupling), “natural system responds to human management and other drivers influencing human systems”
-Case study in India
-Highlights that understanding people through social science is key
Coupled natural-human systems: Case study
-India
-Elephants arrive and destroy crops, costing farmers’ livelihoods, death of elephants or people etc
-Human-natural coupling as there is human induced forest loss and fragmentation, and 40-50 elephants killed annually (an IUCN red-list animal)
-Nature effects humans in return (nature-human coupling), as 100 people (max 300) killed annually by crop-trampling elephants, and individual farmers experience severe economic loss
-Conflict is increasing (associated with forest cover decline <30-40%)
Why is understanding people through social science key for conservation?
-Helps us understand human attitudes and responses to natural world and conservation, including people centric costs and benefits
-Helps promote sustainable pro-environmental behaviour
Methods to changing human behaviour and increasing support for conservation
-Conservation advertising
-Eco-labels
-Financial incentives
-Promoting nature connectedness/educational approach
-Nudging behaviour
-Social networks
Methods to changing human behaviour and increasing support for conservation: Conservation advertising
-RSPB national advert around 15 years ago, promoting their work through lens of home gardens, hugely successful
-“Biggest and most effective campaign the RSPB has ever launched”
-Caused a huge increase in RSPB membership
-But was this success due to the austerity after the 2008 crash, affecting disposable income
-No evidence that behaviour changed, just that RSPB membership increased
-Don’t fully understand impact of conservation advertising
Methods to changing human behaviour and increasing support for conservation: Eco-labels
-Theory is to mimic labels of health and food quality/safety standards that benefit individuals
-However individual benefit is not clear compared to individual cost
-Consumers also care less about eco-labels as effects are spread across society, not to individuals
-No adverse consequences for consumers who cannot distinguish effective and ineffective eco-labels, so lots of ‘mimics’
-Industries use weak eco-labels to avoid strong regulation
Methods to changing human behaviour and increasing support for conservation: Financial incentives
-People generally economically rational
-E.g., REDD+
-However, REDD+ does not fully incorporate local needs, and it requires insurance schemes, which not all have
-Decision making is also 25% logic, 75% emotion
-E.g., 9 million UK adults in serious debt, mainly due to behaviours
-Therefore people not completely economically rational
Methods to changing human behaviour and increasing support for conservation: Financial incentives, skylark plots
-Only 2% uptake
-People not behaving economically rational
-Usually because too much hassle and mess
Methods to changing human behaviour and increasing support for conservation: Promote nature connectedness/educational approach
-Baba Dioum 1968 IUCN meeting, “In the end we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught”
-Further expanded by David Attenbrough, Guardian, 4th November 2018
-Idea that if you engage with nature you will get much more knowledge and want to support more
Study by Codwell and Evans, (2017) on promoting natural connectedness/educational approach to promoting conservation
-Found that those that visited greenspace were more supportive in conservation
-Gap in service provision between people experiencing urban greenspaces and those experiencing the countryside
-50% of survey occupants only visited countryside once every few months
-But nature connectedness and pro-environmentalism attitudes often poor predictors of pro-environmental behaviour
(Codwell and Evans, 2017) - Why are nature connectedness and pro-environmentalism attitudes often poor predictors of pro-environmental behaviour?
-E.g., air travel
-People with higher pro-environmental attitudes and climate concern scores are actually more likely to fly
-Within ‘flyers’, distance flown and pro-environmental attitudes positively correlated
-Deficit model assumes that lack of information is key, educate people and they ‘do the right thing’
-This is evidently not always true, there are a whole lot of other factors
Factors influencing pro-environmental behaviour in people
-Financial constraints
-Attitudes
-Values
-Emotions
-Efficacy
-Responsibility
-Time restraints
-These cognitive constraints and biases have key roles in decision making
Methods to changing human behaviour and increasing support for conservation: Nudging behaviour
-Financial incentives and education targets controlled conscious deliberation
-People tend to put off making complex hard decisions, which can further reduce effectiveness
-Nudging targets contextual variables that often moderate behaviour through automatic, unconscious cognitive processes
Contextual approaches to promoting conservation and pro-environmental behaviour
-Commitments, creates personal pride
-Defaults, e.g., change default cafe menu to vegetarian only, move meat-based to separate menu
-Messengers such as influencers (possibly matching gender/ethnicity)
-Social norms, generally likely to be conformed to
-Priming, shown that people living in sustainably built buildings are primed to think about conservation and unrelated behaviours are changed
-Salience, reminders and notifications
Comparison of contextual methods to promoting pro-environmental behaviours vs education and finance methods
-Messengers and priming seem to be very rarely used
-Contextual approaches tend to be more promising
-Outperform education interventions, as do financial incentives (education alone is not enough)
-Contextual vs financial pattern is unclear (insufficient data)
-Suggests that combined approaches may be most effective
Methods to changing human behaviour and increasing support for conservation: Social networks
-Similar kinds of people tend to interact more with each other for two reasons
-One reason is social selection, similar people chose to interact
-Or we influence other people’s behaviours
-Can be powerful for conservation
-E.g., shark bycatch in the Hawaiian longline tuna fishery
Shark bycatch in the Hawaiian longline tuna fishery as an example of using social networks to promote pro-environmental behaviours (Barnes, et al., 2016)
-Three groups engage in this fishery
-Labelled yellow, blue and red
-Yellow have high numbers of bycatch, red relatively low
-Information exchange (e.g., red group informing yellow group) could save 46,000 sharks (2008-12) in just one fishery
-This may sound similar to education but involves social norms
Co-design conservation solutions
-From local community perspectives imposing ideas/regulations can create resentment and reduce compliance
-Issues are greatest when social or ethnic differences arise between ‘rule’ creators and receivers
-Preferable to work together to co-design workable solutions that take advantage of local knowledge and increase trust and mutual understanding
-E.g., albatross bycatch or CBNRM
Albatross bycatch as an example of a co-design conservation solution
-Off coast of South Africa
-2004, 19 of 22 sp. IUCN red-list and 100,000 albatrosses killed per year
-Albatrosses are long-lived species (up to 70 years), reproduce slowly
-Largest species only lay one egg every two years and take 10 years to reach sexual maturity
-Mortality rates too high for species to witshtand
-Bait lost to birds means no catch, so also bad for fishermen
-Observers from organisations worked with fishermen, observing fishing methods and bycatch
-Began as a hostile environment but eventually worked together to establish three systems to reduce bycatch
Systems to reduce albatross bycatch
-Tori lines create visual signs to help albatrosses avoid lines
-Line weighting, double (sank faster, bait available for less time)
-Night setting (albatrosses evolved to forage at day)
Line weighting
-Designed by Japanese fisherman
-Motivated by adverse effects of sharks catching bait and causing lines to flick back at fishermen, causing injuries
Results and impact of co-design strategies to reduce albatross bycatch
-99% by-catch reduction in South Africa
-7/10 fisheries use methods now
-4 species removed from IUCN red-list
CBNRM
-Community based natural resource management
-Arose in 1980s
-Community decision making facilitated by conservations, co-design
-Core principles are for equitable access to natural resources and the promotion of sustainable livelihoods, with joint conservation and non-conservation goals
-Mixed outcomes but can be highly successful
-A good example is the Lion Guardians
-A less successful example is the World Pheasant Association’s Pipar Project, Annapurna
Lion Guardians
-Citizen science and CBNRM
-Tsavo/Amboseli area of 4,000km2
-Communities rely on livestock and have evolved traditions surrounding lions
-These include a community coming of age ceremony where men hunt lions with spears
-This is because lions prey on livestock
-People were trained (and paid!) to track lions and collate scientific data instead of killing them
Outcomes of the Lion Guardians
-Mean number of observed lions per month increased dramatically
-Lion home range estimates doubled
-Recovery of $1,000,000 worth of livestock
-Reinforced over 300 corrals
-Found 20 lost child herders
-Stopped 47 lion hunts by other warriors
-“The program has increased our status in the community because we are now literate. With our GPS and scientific forms, it has placed us in a different league.”
-“Lion Guardians has given us the opportunity to gain formal, gainful employment. It has helped us as individuals and known lion killers, saved us from a life behind bars.”
Complexity and connectivity of CBNRM
-Increasing use of mobile phone subscriptions worldwide as society develops
-Increasing land grab contract sizes
-Many other factors also increase complexity (e.g., migration, environmental degradation)
-These make it increasingly difficult for CBNRM to operate
-Companies are purchasing masses of land, a threat to CBNRM
World Pheasant Association: Pinar Project, Annapurna
-Nepal mountains
-Pheasants were declining from habitat loss and hunting from the local communities
-In 80s, conservationists worked with communities and developed a successful project and a school
-In exchange for education they convinced local communities to collect less wood and to hunt less
-Got villagers involved in lower scale agricultural methods to reduce need for pheasant meat
-Originally went well
What went wrong with the World Pheasant Association: Pinar Project, Annapurna?
-A road was built, close to village, connecting to highway that led to Kathmandu
-This meant that facilities such as education were more accessible to local community, less benefit of local school provided by conservationists
-Yarsagumba fungus, a caterpillar parasite used in Chinese medicine was now easily accessible
-Villagers would then collect this, increasing desire to collect wood and hunt pheasants
-This was due to the money available from collecting fungi
-Eventually in late 90s, conservationists realised project wasn’t working
What are corrals?
Thickets used to protect livestock
What would have helped the World Pheasant Association: Pinar Project, Annapurna to work?
-Constant re-evaluation of community needs
-Horizon scanning of possible disruption
-Adapting community benefits accordingly
Is punishment an effective conservation practice?
-Meta analysis of 100 large bodied species targeted for luxury market
-Poaching fines have little effect on extinction risk
-Need to be 10x to 100x higher
-Level of fines collected too low to limit deforestation in southern Amazon
-Fines can be interpreted as a permit to ‘behave badly’ such as in the case of late arriving parents at nursery
-UK landfill tax disincentivised waste recovery and discouraged investment in separation technologies, so incentivised landfill
-Companies managing waste collection thought it cheaper to pay tax than to invest in new systems
Framing conservation as ecosystem services to emphasise benefits to people
-Cf. ecosystem services (carbon storage, carbon sequestration, grassland production of livestock, water provision)
-Rank importance of ecoregions for # endemic vertebrates
-No correlation between two
-Focus on ecosystem services does not always prioritise biodiversity conversation
-Is important for some localities however, so for these, could use strategies for promoting wider engagement of conservation by emphasising benefits that people get from it
-Ecosystem service focus attracts 4x as much funding thanks to 3x as much corporate attention
-But public responses differ
Peak District as an example of framing conservation as ecosystem services
-United Utilities moorland restoration
-Area of peatland usually covered in heather moorland
-Degraded, mainly due to trampling from hikers
-UU, a major water company owns a large area of this peatland, 57,000 ha and 30% SSSI
-Peat erosion is bad for biodiversity as it reduces vegetation and thus carrying capacity for key species such as wading birds
-Also affects UU key service as eroded peat gets into water and discolours it, also causing turbidity
-UU invested lots of money to try and restore the moorlands and peatbogs because of ESs it provides
-As a result, 94% of owned SSSI is in favourable condition (baseline for wider PD of 14%)
-Improved water colour and turbidity, wading bird populations and resilience to climate change
Study on public responses to framing conservation as ecosystem services
-Mimics fundraising materials
-Used a control of natural resource description
-Used a treatment of natural resource plus ES financial eval
-Donations decreased once ES framing was provided
-Theory is that if you put an economic value on ESs, then people will believe that surely the governments and corporations benefiting should be the ones donating money, not the individuals
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for conservation action
-Intrinsic motivations are spontaneous joy and interest, linked to autonomy, competence and relatedness
-Extrinsic motivations are imposed externally e.g., government decisions to punish or fine certain behaviours
-Success has been shown to be 3x more likely if connecting to intrinsic human values
-Relatively few conservation initiatives connect to intrinsic values
Reframing the ecosystem services argument in terms of justice and identities
-Suggested by Chan et al., (2017)
-Wider movement around social and environmental justice
-E.g., EJF or the air pollution campaign
Reframing the ecosystem services argument in terms of justice and identities: EJF
-Environmental Justice Foundation
-Relatively young organisation (but increasingly prevalent)
-Highlights the fact that a lot of fishing (especially illegal fishing) is associated with forced or slave labour
-Finds connection between conservation and human rights
-Now a EU card system for forced labour, thought to be very good for reducing forced labour in illegal fishing industries and thus reducing overharvesting
Reframing the ecosystem services argument in terms of justice and identities: Air pollution campaign
-Led by ClientEarth
-Led to major headlines
-Focuses on the fact that the most heavily affected areas are the poorer areas
-Poor people are paying the price for the behaviour of wealthier people
-Took UK government to court three times, always winning
(Brashares) - Yellowstone as an example of the hardships of maintaining PAs
-World’s first PA, erected in 1903 and dedicated as a place where “the wild creatures of the Park are scrupulously preserved”
-Thirty years later, scientists have reported local extinctions of white-tailed deer, cougar, lynx, wolf, and possibly wolverines
(Brashares) - Threats to PAs
-Range from global phenomena such as climate change and atmospheric pollution, to regional issues such as shifts in fire regimes, disease dynamics or invasive species, to more localised threats such as overharvest, habitat conversion and isolation
-Can interact both additively and synergistically to create syndromes of extinction that confound diagnosis and remedy
-Final layer of complexity is that each threat can have a unique impact on each species
(Brashares) - Examples of situations where finding a root cause of extinction has been difficult
-Recent studies of wildlife declines across India reveal multiple, overlapping pathways to extinction
-Similarly in a review of declines of marine species, Jackson devotes equal attention to exploitation, pollution, habitat destruction, climate change and the synergistic impact of these
-Three new studies of wildlife declines in Australia’s PAs also demonstrate this point, particularly at the micro-level
(Brashares) - Study in Kakadu NP
-Woinarski et al surveyed small mammals
-Found a 65% decline in species richness and 75% decline in abundance from 1996-2009
-Researchers suggested that causes of declines were species-specific and may have involved the individual or combined effects of change in fire frequency and habitat structure
-They also suggest increases in invasive predators (feral cats and cane toads) and other factors not easy to measure played a part
(Brashares) - Mountain caribou
-Recent extinction in Banff NP
-Years of population decline from habitat loss, isolation and competition with moose
-Ended with the death of last known individual in avalanche
(Brashares) - What does research show is positively associated with wildlife persistence?
-Size
-Connectedness
-Remoteness of PA
-Intactness of surrounding ecosystems
(Brashares) - What does the author suggest for the future?
-Move away from broad generalizations and towards species and community specific approaches to conservation
-First step is a renewed commitment to wildlife monitoring in PAs
-Intensive, long-term monitoring is essential to gaining empirical knowledge of synergies among threats, the role of indirect effects, and other questions critical to minimizing species loss in PAs
(Brashares) - Other studies mentioned
-Firth et al. on the extinction of brush-tailed rabbit-rats in Garig Gunak Barlu NP, Australia
-They determined that dry-season fires significantly reduced wildlife survival but also observed pop declines in unburned control areas and concluded that additional threats were at work
-Ford et al. on the decline of bron treecreepers and hooded robins in NSW
-Observed powerful lagged effects of isolation due to habitat loss and fragmentation over past 100 years
(Hole et al., 2009) - Study background
-PA networks most valuable resource for conserving global diversity
-Majority however are established on present-day species’ patterns, increasingly susceptibility of anthropogenic drivers such as climate change
-Evidence shows that species responses to projected climate change over coming decades could alter present biodiversity patterns
-Attempts have been made to assess climate change risks to reserves, but no assessment has been done to a rigorously defined existing network at pan-continental scale
-IBAs across Africa represent ideal system to test resilience of real-world network to climate change
-863 sites across 42 countries covering ~2,079306km2 (7% of continent)
-Identified as critical for avian conservation in face of threats of habitat loss and fragmentation
-Despite this, more than 40% currently lack any form of protected status under national or international law
-Used modelled relationship between current climatic variables and present distributions of 1608 bird species, 815 meeting criteria to determine projected levels of turnover and persistence
-Utilized two modelling methodologies and three general circulation models to represent variability in projections
(Hole et al., 2009) - Criteria for IBAs
-Contain significant numbers of one or more globally threatened species
-And/ or represent sites of restricted range species
-Or biome restricted species
-And/or hold exceptionally large numbers of individuals of congregatory species
-IBAs in this study together support 875 species matching these criteria
-Also likely to represent significant proportion of the region’s entire terrestrial breeding avifauna of 1679 species
(Hole et al., 2009) - Results
-Median projected turnover for all IBAs is estimated to be 10-13% by 2025 and 20-26% by 2085
-For priority species, 18-21% by 2025, and 35-45% by 2085
-Higher turnover attributed to sensitivity of range and biome restricted species to climate change
-Higher turnover in Southern Africa, Horn of Africa and parts of Senegal
-Less turnover in Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia, projected to retain suitable climate space
-Changes across biomes, the Namib-Karoo, Fynbos and Afrotropical Highlands are expected to lose greatest IBA representation by 2085
-Sudan and Guinea Savanna and Sahara-Sindian projected to increase representation
-Changes expected to be noticeable even by 2025
-Despite this, median projected persistence remains notably high within IBAs, ranging from 74-80%, 55-68% for priority species
-88-92% of priority species projected to retain suitable climate space within one or more IBAs by 2085
-Only 7-8 species projected to lose all suitable climate space
(Hole et al., 2009) - Factors influencing change
-Shifts and disappearing of existing climates
-Along with emergence of novel climatic conditions
-Disappearing climates concentrated in tropical mountain regions
-Topographical influences
-Alterations in representation patterns could lead to reductions in species range, increasing risk of extinction, especially for species in specific climate zones
(Hole et al., 2009) - Discussion
-Suggests that PAs and entire networks will face substantial disruption due to climate change
-The study contrasts with previous beliefs that habitat loss is the main threat to avian communities in tropical and sub-tropical regions
-It highlights the need to address shifts in species’ ranges caused by climate change as a significant threat to avian conservation in Africa
-Could have profound implications
-Emphasizes the need for regionally focused, adaptive management approaches, especially in areas with the highest projected turnover and lowest projected persistence
-Recommended strategies such as increasing number and size of PAs, enhancing permeability within human-dominated landscapes, habitat restoration and setting species representation targets
-Adequate monitoring is crucial
-The establishment of protected areas based solely on the premise that they will retain their current species complement must be re-evaluated
(Andam et al., 2010) - Why are some developing nations against PAs and why is this opinion not valid?
-Because ecosystem protection limits agricultural development and exploitation of natural resources, opposition is frequently driven by the assumption that they impose large economic costs and thus exacerbate local poverty
-However, PAs can also generate economic benefits by supplying ESs, promoting tourism, and improving infrastructure in remote areas
-Net impacts on poverty can be positive or negative
-2003 World Congress on PAs’ Durban Accord urges society to commit “to PA management that strives to reduce, and in no way exacerbate, poverty”
(Andam et al., 2010) - Appropriate method to judge whether PAs are responsible for exacerbating poverty
-Comparison between communities living in or near protected areas and communities with similar characteristics and trends that are not affected by PAs
-Household-level poverty data provides the most reliable comparative indicators of human welfare
-Analyse impacts at local scale, the scale at which PAs more likely to affect communities
-Employ matching methods to select appropriate control communities
(Andam et al., 2010) - Results
-Initial assessments, without accounting for confounding factors, suggest that PAs may have worsened poverty
-However, using matching techniques to control for these factors, these show a reduction in poverty associated with protection
-In Costa Rica, mean poverty index in PAs was about 1.3 points lower than in matched control segments, indicating that approx 10% of observed pov reduction is due to PAs
-In Thailand, mean PI in PAs was 7.9 lower than in controls, 30%
-Matching with calipers (tolerance levels for good matches) did not significantly alter the impact estimates, suggesting consistency in the findings
(Andam et al., 2010) - Discussion
-This study aims to fill gaps by combining spatially explicit data on poverty, PAs and land use/land cover change with statistical methods to identify causal relationships
-Despite differences in institutions, economic development and PA history between CR and Thailand, the study finds no evidence that their PAs exacerbated poverty in neighbouring communities
-Study acknowledges caveats, such as the omission of short-term impacts and the limits of poverty measure that do not elucidate specific mechanisms through which PAs have reduced poverty
-Acknowledges that CR and Thailand are not representative of all developing nations and calls for replications in other nations
(Andam et al., 2010) - Background
-The effect of national parks and reserves on their human
neighbours is arguably the most controversial debate in conservation policy
-Many studies document
high poverty levels and negative community events that are associated with the establishment of protected areas
-However, these studies do not clearly demonstrate a causal link between protection and poverty because they fail to use direct measures of socioeconomic wellbeing and to control for confounding effects of geographic and baseline characteristic
-To judge whether protected
areas are responsible for exacerbating poverty, the appropriate comparison must be between communities living in or near protected areas and communities with similar characteristics and trends that are not affected by protected areas
(Andam et al., 2010) - Robustness
-Addressed potential rival explanations
-First examined whether PAs displaced poor people into the controls, thus falsely suggesting poverty alleviation
-Found no support for this
-Second examined the possibility of negative effects on poverty in nearby controls
-Results did not support negative spillover and if they did exist, were positive
(Edwards et al., 2014) -
