Coastal marine ecosystems can be managed by actions undertaken both on the land and in the ocean. Quantifying and comparing the costs and benefits of actions in both realms is therefore necessary for ...efficient management. Here, we quantify the link between terrestrial sediment runoff and a downstream coastal marine ecosystem and contrast the cost-effectiveness of marine- and land-based conservation actions. We use a dynamic land- and sea-scape model to determine whether limited funds should be directed to 1 of 4 alternative conservation actions-protection on land, protection in the ocean, restoration on land, or restoration in the ocean-to maximise the extent of light-dependent marine benthic habitats across decadal timescales. We apply the model to a case study for a seagrass meadow in Australia. We find that marine restoration is the most cost-effective action over decadal timescales in this system, based on a conservative estimate of the rate at which seagrass can expand into a new habitat. The optimal decision will vary in different social-ecological contexts, but some basic information can guide optimal investments to counteract land- and ocean-based stressors: (1) marine restoration should be prioritised if the rates of marine ecosystem decline and expansion are similar and low; (2) marine protection should take precedence if the rate of marine ecosystem decline is high or if the adjacent catchment is relatively intact and has a low rate of vegetation decline; (3) land-based actions are optimal when the ratio of marine ecosystem expansion to decline is greater than 1:1.4, with terrestrial restoration typically the most cost-effective action; and (4) land protection should be prioritised if the catchment is relatively intact but the rate of vegetation decline is high. These rules of thumb illustrate how cost-effective conservation outcomes for connected land-ocean systems can proceed without complex modelling.
Abstract
The demand for seafood is increasing globally and is being met, in some cases, by unsustainable fishing practices. When a country fishes outside of its jurisdiction, any negative social and ...environmental impacts associated with fishing are displaced to the fished location and may not be compensated. This is particularly problematic when a country fishes in jurisdictions with poorer, less-effective, fisheries management than itself (henceforth ‘unequal displacement’). Using two different indices for national fisheries management effectiveness, we calculated unequal displacement of wild-capture seafood globally. We found that up to 23% (19.8 Mt) of seafood was unequally displaced annually between 1976–2015, most of which was caught in the high seas. During the period that the management effectiveness data is most accurate (2007–2011), almost all 172 countries unequally displace seafood (
n
= 123), but a few are responsible for the majority (China, India, Japan, Norway, Russia, Republic of Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand). Achieving both sustainable food provision and ocean health requires improving international fishing and trade policies targeted at these countries to encourage the reduction of unequal seafood displacement.
Incorporating the values of the services that ecosystems provide into decision making is becoming increasingly common in nature conservation and resource management policies, both locally and ...globally. Yet with limited funds for conservation of threatened species and ecosystems there is a desire to identify priority areas where investment efficiently conserves multiple ecosystem services. We mapped four mangrove ecosystems services (coastal protection, fisheries, biodiversity, and carbon storage) across Fiji. Using a cost-effectiveness analysis, we prioritised mangrove areas for each service, where the effectiveness was a function of the benefits provided to the local communities, and the costs were associated with restricting specific uses of mangroves. We demonstrate that, although priority mangrove areas (top 20%) for each service can be managed at relatively low opportunity costs (ranging from 4.5 to 11.3% of overall opportunity costs), prioritising for a single service yields relatively low co-benefits due to limited geographical overlap with priority areas for other services. None-the-less, prioritisation of mangrove areas provides greater overlap of benefits than if sites were selected randomly for most ecosystem services. We discuss deficiencies in the mapping of ecosystems services in data poor regions and how this may impact upon the equity of managing mangroves for particular services across the urban-rural divide in developing countries. Finally we discuss how our maps may aid decision-makers to direct funding for mangrove management from various sources to localities that best meet funding objectives, as well as how this knowledge can aid in creating a national mangrove zoning scheme.
Climate change is redistributing terrestrial and marine biodiversity and altering fundamental ecological interactions. To conserve biodiversity and promote its long‐term persistence, protected areas ...should account for the ecological implications of species’ redistribution. Data paucity across many systems means that achieving this goal requires generic metrics that act as proxies for likely responses of multiple taxa to climate change. Climate velocity is one such metric, representing the potential speed and direction of species’ range shifts.
Here, we explore three approaches for incorporating climate velocity into the design of marine protected areas and demonstrate their application in the Mediterranean Sea. Our methods are designed to meet the climate‐smart adaptation strategy of protecting climate refugia by selecting slow‐moving climate velocity areas.
For our case study, we found that incorporating climate velocity as a cost measure in Marxan best selects slower moving areas, which are robust indicators of climate refugia. However, this approach is unable to accommodate socio‐economic cost data and is thus impractical. Incorporating climate velocity as a boundary or as a feature selects slower moving areas with a lower socio‐economic cost. We recommend incorporating velocity as a boundary, where possible because it is a more flexible approach. The boundary approach considers the climate velocity of all planning units, rather than being limited to a subjective classification of ‘slow‐moving’ planning units when treated as a feature. However, further assessment is required. For different planning scales and for grid structures other than squares, the relative performance of incorporating climate velocity as a boundary or as a feature might vary among case studies.
This work presents simple and practical ways of including climate velocity in conservation plans to achieve the key climate‐smart objective of protecting climate refugia, thereby enhancing ecological resilience. Our methods are widely applicable, encouraging researchers and practitioners to advance the field and deliver networks of climate‐smart protected areas by 2030.
Global rarity of intact coastal regions Williams, Brooke A.; Watson, James E.M.; Beyer, Hawthorne L. ...
Conservation biology,
August 2022, Letnik:
36, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Management of the land–sea interface is essential for global conservation and sustainability objectives because coastal regions maintain natural processes that support biodiversity and the livelihood ...of billions of people. However, assessments of coastal regions have focused strictly on either the terrestrial or marine realm. Consequently, understanding of the overall state of Earth's coastal regions is poor. We integrated the terrestrial human footprint and marine cumulative human impact maps in a global assessment of the anthropogenic pressures affecting coastal regions. Of coastal regions globally, 15.5% had low anthropogenic pressure, mostly in Canada, Russia, and Greenland. Conversely, 47.9% of coastal regions were heavily affected by humanity, and in most countries (84.1%) >50% of their coastal regions were degraded. Nearly half (43.3%) of protected areas across coastal regions were exposed to high human pressures. To meet global sustainability objectives, all nations must undertake greater actions to preserve and restore the coastal regions within their borders.
costa, huella humana, impacto humano cumulativo, litoral, presión humana, restauración, tierras vírgenes
Resumen
El manejo de la interfaz entre la tierra y el mar es esencial para los objetivos mundiales de conservación y sustentabilidad ya que las regiones costeras mantienen los procesos naturales que sostienen a la biodiversidad y al sustento de miles de millones de personas. Sin embargo, los análisis de las regiones costeras se han enfocado estrictamente en el ámbito marino o en el terrestre, pero no en ambos. Por consiguiente, el conocimiento del estado general de las regiones costeras del planeta es muy pobre. Integramos la huella terrestre humana y mapas marinos del impacto humano cumulativo en un análisis global de las presiones antropogénicas que afectan las áreas costeras. De las áreas costeras de todo el mundo, el 15.5% tuvieron una presión antropogénica reducida, principalmente en Canadá, Rusia y Groenlandia. En cambio, el 47.9% de las regiones costeras estuvieron fuertemente afectas por la humanidad, y en la mayoría de los países (84.1%) >50% de sus regiones litorales se encuentran degradadas. Casi la mitad (43.3%) de las áreas protegidas en las regiones costeras tienen un grado de exposición a fuertes presiones humanas. Para cumplir los objetivos mundiales de sustentabilidad, todos los países deben emprender mejores acciones para preservar y restaurar las regiones litorales dentro de sus fronteras.
Article impact statement: Humanity's impact on Earth's coastal regions is severe and widespread; global efforts are required to preserve the remaining intact regions.
Protected areas vary enormously in their contribution to conserving biodiversity, and the inefficiency of protected area systems is widely acknowledged. However, conservation plans focus ...overwhelmingly on adding new sites to current protected area estates. Here we show that the conservation performance of a protected area system can be radically improved, without extra expenditure, by replacing a small number of protected areas with new ones that achieve more for conservation. Replacing the least cost-effective 1% of Australia's 6,990 strictly protected areas could increase the number of vegetation types that have 15% or more of their original extent protected from 18 to 54, of a maximum possible of 58. Moreover, it increases markedly the area that can be protected, with no increase in overall spending. This new paradigm for protected area system expansion could yield huge improvements to global conservation at a time when competition for land is increasingly intense.
Coastal ecosystems can be degraded by poor water quality. Tracing the causes of poor water quality back to land-use change is necessary to target catchment management for coastal zone management. ...However, existing models for tracing the sources of pollution require extensive data-sets which are not available for many of the world's coral reef regions that may have severe water quality issues. Here we develop a hierarchical Bayesian model that uses freely available satellite data to infer the connection between land-uses in catchments and water clarity in coastal oceans. We apply the model to estimate the influence of land-use change on water clarity in Fiji. We tested the model's predictions against underwater surveys, finding that predictions of poor water quality are consistent with observations of high siltation and low coverage of sediment-sensitive coral genera. The model thus provides a means to link land-use change to declines in coastal water quality.
Multinational conservation initiatives that prioritize investment across a region invariably navigate trade-offs among multiple objectives. It seems logical to focus where several objectives can be ...achieved efficiently, but such multi-objective hotspots may be ecologically inappropriate, or politically inequitable. Here we devise a framework to facilitate a regionally cohesive set of marine-protected areas driven by national preferences and supported by quantitative conservation prioritization analyses, and illustrate it using the Coral Triangle Initiative. We identify areas important for achieving six objectives to address ecosystem representation, threatened fauna, connectivity and climate change. We expose trade-offs between areas that contribute substantially to several objectives and those meeting one or two objectives extremely well. Hence there are two strategies to guide countries choosing to implement regional goals nationally: multi-objective hotspots and complementary sets of single-objective priorities. This novel framework is applicable to any multilateral or global initiative seeking to apply quantitative information in decision making.
The typical mandate in conservation planning is to identify areas that represent biodiversity targets within the smallest possible area of land or sea, despite the fact that area may be a poor ...surrogate for the cost of many conservation actions. It is also common for priorities for conservation investment to be identified without regard to the particular conservation action that will be implemented. This demonstrates inadequate problem specification and may lead to inefficiency: the cost of alternative conservation actions can differ throughout a landscape, and may result in dissimilar conservation priorities.
We investigate the importance of formulating conservation planning problems with objectives and cost data that relate to specific conservation actions. We identify priority areas in Australia for two alternative conservation actions: land acquisition and stewardship. Our analyses show that using the cost surrogate that most closely reflects the planned conservation action can cut the cost of achieving our biodiversity goals by half. We highlight spatial differences in relative priorities for land acquisition and stewardship in Australia, and provide a simple approach for determining which action should be undertaken where.
Our study shows that a poorly posed conservation problem that fails to pre-specify the planned conservation action and incorporate cost a priori can lead to expensive mistakes. We can be more efficient in achieving conservation goals by clearly specifying our conservation objective and parameterising the problem with economic data that reflects this objective.
AIM: Increasing sea‐surface temperatures (SST) have resulted in poleward range expansions of scleractinian corals and declines in their core ranges. These changes may provide management opportunities ...for the long‐term persistence of corals, but spatial prioritization rarely considers and anticipates these changes. We developed a spatio‐temporal conservation plan that accommodates future coral range expansions based on projections of future SST. Our spatial planning approach is particularly useful in places with limited information about species distributions. Our aims were to (1) identify areas that consistently remain important for conservation through time and (2) determine the differences between priorities for conservation that account for potential coral range expansions and those that ignore them. LOCATION: Japan. METHODS: We developed spatial planning approaches using predicted coral habitat distributions for current conditions, the near future and the distant future. Using the Marxan conservation planning software, we designed conservation plans for scenarios that incorporated different types of spatial and temporal connections. Spatial connections are physical connections between adjacent and nearby areas, whereas temporal connections connect planning areas throughout time. RESULTS: We found that protecting areas important for current and future coral habitat distributions is possible by prioritizing places that are consistently important through time. A spatially and temporally cohesive plan was accomplished with only a 14% increase in the overall reserve system costs, compared with reserve systems ignoring future coral habitat distributions. The attributes of priority areas (e.g. locations, outside boundary length and size) were substantially different when we varied the types of connections. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that areas with highest conservation priority now will not necessarily be optimal when planning for future change, such as coral range expansions. Furthermore, we showed that incorporating spatio‐temporal connections into spatial prioritization achieves objectives of simultaneously conserving corals in the current climate and facilitating their expansions as SST rises.
PDF
