Balancing conservation priorities for nature and for people in
                        Europe

There is an urgent need to protect key areas for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (NCP). However, different values of nature are rarely considered together in conservation planning. Here, we explore potential priority areas in Europe for biodiversity (all terrestrial vertebrates) and a set of cultural and regulating NCP while considering demand for these NCP. We quantify the spatial overlap between these priorities and their performance in representing different values of nature. We show that different priorities rarely coincide, except in certain irreplaceable ecosystems. Notably, priorities for biodiversity better represent NCP than the reverse. Theoretically, protecting an extra 5% of land has the potential to double conservation gains for biodiversity while also maintaining some essential NCP, leading to co-benefits for both nature and people.

Global priorities for conservation across multiple dimensions of mammalian diversity

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ◽

10.1073/pnas.1706461114 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 114 (29) ◽

pp. 7641-7646 ◽

Cited By ~ 61

Author(s):

Fernanda T. Brum ◽

Catherine H. Graham ◽

Gabriel C. Costa ◽

S. Blair Hedges ◽

Caterina Penone ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Protected Areas ◽

Conservation Planning ◽

Three Dimensions ◽

Integrative Approach ◽

Conservation Priorities ◽

Area Network ◽

Priority Areas ◽

Multiple Dimensions ◽

Mammal Conservation ◽

Taxonomic Groups

Conservation priorities that are based on species distribution, endemism, and vulnerability may underrepresent biologically unique species as well as their functional roles and evolutionary histories. To ensure that priorities are biologically comprehensive, multiple dimensions of diversity must be considered. Further, understanding how the different dimensions relate to one another spatially is important for conservation prioritization, but the relationship remains poorly understood. Here, we use spatial conservation planning to (i) identify and compare priority regions for global mammal conservation across three key dimensions of biodiversity—taxonomic, phylogenetic, and traits—and (ii) determine the overlap of these regions with the locations of threatened species and existing protected areas. We show that priority areas for mammal conservation exhibit low overlap across the three dimensions, highlighting the need for an integrative approach for biodiversity conservation. Additionally, currently protected areas poorly represent the three dimensions of mammalian biodiversity. We identify areas of high conservation priority among and across the dimensions that should receive special attention for expanding the global protected area network. These high-priority areas, combined with areas of high priority for other taxonomic groups and with social, economic, and political considerations, provide a biological foundation for future conservation planning efforts.

Gap analysis of terrestrial vertebrates in Italy: Priorities for conservation planning in a human dominated landscape

Biological Conservation ◽

10.1016/j.biocon.2006.07.015 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 133 (4) ◽

pp. 455-473 ◽

Cited By ~ 104

Author(s):

Luigi Maiorano ◽

Alessandra Falcucci ◽

Luigi Boitani

Keyword(s):

Conservation Planning ◽

Gap Analysis ◽

Terrestrial Vertebrates

Navigating the complexities of coordinated conservation along the river Nile

Science Advances ◽

10.1126/sciadv.aau7668 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 5 (4) ◽

pp. eaau7668 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

J. R. Allan ◽

N. Levin ◽

K. R. Jones ◽

S. Abdullah ◽

J. Hongoh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Conservation Planning ◽

River Nile ◽

African Countries ◽

Conservation Action ◽

Priority Areas ◽

Conservation Costs ◽

Spatial Conservation Planning ◽

Conservation Plan ◽

Collaborative Conservation ◽

Business As Usual

The river Nile flows across 11 African countries, supporting millions of human livelihoods, and holding globally important biodiversity and endemism yet remains underprotected. No basin-wide spatial conservation planning has been attempted to date, and the importance of coordinated conservation planning for the Nile’s biodiversity remains unknown. We address these gaps by creating a basin-wide conservation plan for the Nile’s freshwater fish. We identify priority areas for conservation action and compare cross-boundary collaboration scenarios for achieving biodiversity conservation targets, accounting for river connectivity. We found that collaborative conservation efforts are crucial for reducing conservation costs, saving 34% of costs compared to an uncoordinated, business-as-usual scenario. While most Nile basin countries benefit from coordinating conservation planning, costs and benefits are unequally distributed. We identify “hot spots” consistently selected as conservation priority areas across all collaboration scenarios, and provide a framework for improving return on conservation investment for large and complex river systems globally.

Priority areas for conservation of and research focused on terrestrial vertebrates

Conservation Biology ◽

10.1111/cobi.13476 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 34 (5) ◽

pp. 1281-1291

Author(s):

Javier Nori ◽

Rafael Loyola ◽

Fabricio Villalobos

Keyword(s):

Terrestrial Vertebrates ◽

Proceedings of the 2014 conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation companion - GECCO Comp '14 ◽

Multi-objective optimization applied to systematic conservation planning and spatial conservation priorities under climate change

10.1145/2598394.2598404 ◽

2014 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Shana Schlottfeldt ◽

Jon Timmis ◽

Maria Emilia M.T. Walter ◽

Andre C.P.L.F. Carvalho ◽

Jose Alexandre F. Diniz-Filho ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Conservation Planning ◽

Conservation Priorities ◽

Multi Objective Optimization ◽

Multi Objective

Conservation planning: a macroecological approach using the endemic terrestrial vertebrates of the Brazilian Cerrado

Oryx ◽

10.1017/s0030605308001129 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 42 (04) ◽

pp. 567 ◽

Cited By ~ 23

Author(s):

José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho ◽

Luis Mauricio Bini ◽

Míriam Plaza Pinto ◽

Levi Carina Terribile ◽

Guilherme de Oliveira ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Conservation Planning ◽

Brazilian Cerrado ◽

Terrestrial Vertebrates

Systematic Conservation Planning for Intraspecific Genetic Diversity

10.1101/105544 ◽

2017 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ivan Paz-Vinas ◽

Géraldine Loot ◽

Virgilio Hermoso ◽

Charlotte Veyssiere ◽

Nicolas Poulet ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Genetic Diversity ◽

Conservation Planning ◽

Allelic Richness ◽

Single Species ◽

Diversity Indices ◽

Intraspecific Diversity ◽

Conservation Areas ◽

Conservation Units ◽

AbstractIntraspecific diversity informs the demographic and evolutionary histories of populations, and should be a main conservation target. Although approaches exist for identifying relevant biological conservation units, attempts to identify priority conservation areas for intraspecific diversity are scarce, especially within a multi-specific framework. We used neutral molecular data on six European freshwater fish species (Squalius cephalus, Phoxinus phoxinus, Barbatula barbatula, Gobio occitaniae, Leuciscus burdigalensis and Parachondrostoma toxostoma) sampled at the riverscape scale (i.e. the Garonne-Dordogne River basin, France) to determine hot- and cold-spots of genetic diversity, and to identify priority conservation areas using a systematic conservation planning approach. We demonstrate that systematic conservation planning is efficient for identifying priority areas representing a predefined part of the total genetic diversity of a whole landscape. With the exception of private allelic richness, classical genetic diversity indices (allelic richness, genetic uniqueness) were poor predictors for identifying priority areas. Moreover, we identified weak surrogacies among conservation solutions found for each species, implying that conservation solutions are highly species-specific. Nonetheless, we showed that priority areas identified using intraspecific genetic data from multiple species provide more effective conservation solutions than areas identified for single species or on the basis of traditional taxonomic criteria.

Systematic conservation planning for intraspecific genetic diversity

Proceedings of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences ◽

10.1098/rspb.2017.2746 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 285 (1877) ◽

pp. 20172746 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Ivan Paz-Vinas ◽

Géraldine Loot ◽

Virgilio Hermoso ◽

Charlotte Veyssière ◽

Nicolas Poulet ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Genetic Diversity ◽

Conservation Planning ◽

Allelic Richness ◽

Single Species ◽

Diversity Indices ◽

Intraspecific Diversity ◽

Conservation Areas ◽

Conservation Units ◽

Intraspecific diversity informs the demographic and evolutionary histories of populations, and should be a main conservation target. Although approaches exist for identifying relevant biological conservation units, attempts to identify priority conservation areas for intraspecific diversity are scarce, especially within a multi-specific framework. We used neutral molecular data on six European freshwater fish species (Squalius cephalus,Phoxinus phoxinus, Barbatula barbatula,Gobio occitaniae,Leuciscus burdigalensisandParachondrostoma toxostoma) sampled at the riverscape scale (i.e. the Garonne-Dordogne river basin, France) to determine hot- and coldspots of genetic diversity, and to identify priority conservation areas using a systematic conservation planning approach. We demonstrate that systematic conservation planning is efficient for identifying priority areas representing a predefined part of the total genetic diversity of a whole landscape. With the exception of private allelic richness (PA), classical genetic diversity indices (allelic richness, genetic uniqueness) were poor predictors for identifying priority areas. Moreover, we identified weak surrogacies among conservation solutions found for each species, implying that conservation solutions are highly species-specific. Nonetheless, we showed that priority areas identified using intraspecific genetic data from multiple species provide more effective conservation solutions than areas identified for single species or on the basis of traditional taxonomic criteria.

Space use data and systematic conservation planning inform habitat conservation priorities for brown bears in Romania

10.17011/conference/eccb2018/108017 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Mihai Pop ◽

Ruben Iosif ◽

Viorica-Iulia Miu ◽

Laurentiu Rozylowicz ◽

Viorel Popescu

Keyword(s):

Conservation Planning ◽

Space Use ◽

Habitat Conservation ◽

Conservation Priorities ◽

Brown Bears

Systematic conservation planning in the eastern English Channel: comparing the Marxan and Zonation decision-support tools

ICES Journal of Marine Science ◽

10.1093/icesjms/fsr180 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 69 (1) ◽

pp. 75-83 ◽

Cited By ~ 34

Author(s):

Juliette Delavenne ◽

Kristian Metcalfe ◽

Robert J. Smith ◽

Sandrine Vaz ◽

Corinne S. Martin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Support ◽

Conservation Planning ◽

Planning Process ◽

Marine Protected Area ◽

Wide Distribution ◽

Decision Support Tools ◽

English Channel ◽

Priority Areas ◽

Support Tools

Abstract Delavenne, J., Metcalfe, K., Smith, R. J., Vaz, S., Martin, C. S., Dupuis, L., Coppin, F., and Carpentier, A. 2012. Systematic conservation planning in the eastern English Channel: comparing the Marxan and Zonation decision-support tools. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69: 75–83. The systematic conservation approach is now commonly used for the design of efficient marine protected area (MPA) networks, and identifying these priority areas often involves using specific conservation-planning software. Several such software programmes have been developed in recent years, each differing in the underlying algorithms used. Here, an investigation is made into whether the choice of software influences the location of priority areas by comparing outputs from Marxan and Zonation, two widely used conservation-planning, decision-support tools. Using biological and socio-economic data from the eastern English Channel, outputs are compared and it is shown that the two software packages identified similar sets of priority areas, although the relatively wide distribution of habitat types and species considered offered much flexibility. Moreover, the similarity increased with increasing spatial constraint, especially when using real-world cost data, suggesting that the choice of cost metric has a greater influence on conservation-planning analyses than the choice of software. However, Marxan generally produced more efficient results and Zonation produced results with greater connectivity, so the most appropriate software package will depend on the overall goals of the MPA planning process.