Explore the vast range of titles available.

The number of literature reviews in the fields of ecology and conservation has increased dramatically in recent years. Scientists conduct systematic literature reviews with the aim of drawing conclusions based on the content of a representative sample of publications. This requires subjective judgments on qualitative content, including interpretations and deductions. However, subjective judgments can differ substantially even between highly trained experts that are faced with the same evidence. Because classification of content into codes by one individual rater is prone to subjectivity and error, general guidelines recommend checking the produced data for consistency and reliability. Metrics on agreement between multiple people exist to assess the rate of agreement (consistency). These metrics do not account for mistakes or allow for their correction, while group discussions about codes that have been derived from classification of qualitative data have shown to improve reliability and accuracy. Here, we describe a pragmatic approach to reliability testing that gives insights into the error rate of multiple raters. Five independent raters rated and discussed categories for 23 variables within 21 peer-reviewed publications on conservation management plans. Mistakes, including overlooking information in the text, were the most common source of disagreement, followed by differences in interpretation and ambiguity around categories. Discussions could resolve most differences in ratings. We recommend our approach as a significant improvement on current review and synthesis approaches that lack assessment of misclassification.

Land‐use change in the coastal zone has led to worldwide degradation of marine coastal ecosystems and a loss of the goods and services they provide. Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed and is critical for habitats where natural recovery is hindered. Uncertainties about restoration cost and feasibility can impede decisions on whether, what, how, where, and how much to restore. Here, we perform a synthesis of 235 studies with 954 observations from restoration or rehabilitation projects of coral reefs, seagrass, mangroves, saltmarshes, and oyster reefs worldwide, and evaluate cost, survival of restored organisms, project duration, area, and techniques applied. Findings showed that while the median and average reported costs for restoration of one hectare of marine coastal habitat were around US$80 000 (2010) and US$1 600 000 (2010), respectively, the real total costs (median) are likely to be two to four times higher. Coral reefs and seagrass were among the most expensive ecosystems to restore. Mangrove restoration projects were typically the largest and the least expensive per hectare. Most marine coastal restoration projects were conducted in Australia, Europe, and USA, while total restoration costs were significantly (up to 30 times) cheaper in countries with developing economies. Community‐ or volunteer‐based marine restoration projects usually have lower costs. Median survival of restored marine and coastal organisms, often assessed only within the first one to two years after restoration, was highest for saltmarshes (64.8%) and coral reefs (64.5%) and lowest for seagrass (38.0%). However, success rates reported in the scientific literature could be biased towards publishing successes rather than failures. The majority of restoration projects were short‐lived and seldom reported monitoring costs. Restoration success depended primarily on the ecosystem, site selection, and techniques applied rather than on money spent. We need enhanced investment in both improving restoration practices and large‐scale restoration.

The transition of nomadic pastoralism to more sessile forms of rangeland utilization and increased stocking rates can result in the degradation of pasture. After political changes in the 1990s in Mongolia, population growth and missing alternative livelihoods intensified the grazing pressure on pastures, and further decreased the condition of the fragile arid ecosystems. To learn more about the productivity and quality of pasture land in Khovd Aimag in the western region of Mongolia, standing biomass was measured in the alpine region, mountain steppe and semi-desert. Plant samples were analyzed for nitrogen and fiber contents by wet chemistry and Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS). Results show clear differences in distribution of biomass with reduced biomass in the vicinity of temporary settlements. From July to early September plant nitrogen contents decreased in the alpine region, remained unchanged in the mountain steppe and increased in the semi-desert. Nitrogen concentrations were elevated in vegetation close to temporary settlements. For fiber contents (ADF) no clear patterns were found. Neither biomass/m(2) nor vegetation cover were appropriate indicators for food quality.

Human pressures on the environment are changing spatially and temporally, with profound implications for the planet’s biodiversity and human economies. Here we use recently available data on infrastructure, land cover and human access into natural areas to construct a globally standardized measure of the cumulative human footprint on the terrestrial environment at 1 km 2 resolution from 1993 to 2009. We note that while the human population has increased by 23% and the world economy has grown 153%, the human footprint has increased by just 9%. Still, 75% the planet’s land surface is experiencing measurable human pressures. Moreover, pressures are perversely intense, widespread and rapidly intensifying in places with high biodiversity. Encouragingly, we discover decreases in environmental pressures in the wealthiest countries and those with strong control of corruption. Clearly the human footprint on Earth is changing, yet there are still opportunities for conservation gains. Habitat loss and urbanization are primary components of human impact on the environment. Here, Venter et al. use global data on infrastructure, agriculture, and urbanization to show that the human footprint is growing slower than the human population, but footprints are increasing in biodiverse regions.

Remotely-sensed and bottom-up survey information were compiled on eight variables measuring the direct and indirect human pressures on the environment globally in 1993 and 2009. This represents not only the most current information of its type, but also the first temporally-consistent set of Human Footprint maps. Data on human pressures were acquired or developed for: 1) built environments, 2) population density, 3) electric infrastructure, 4) crop lands, 5) pasture lands, 6) roads, 7) railways, and 8) navigable waterways. Pressures were then overlaid to create the standardized Human Footprint maps for all non-Antarctic land areas. A validation analysis using scored pressures from 3114×1 km 2 random sample plots revealed strong agreement with the Human Footprint maps. We anticipate that the Human Footprint maps will find a range of uses as proxies for human disturbance of natural systems. The updated maps should provide an increased understanding of the human pressures that drive macro-ecological patterns, as well as for tracking environmental change and informing conservation science and application. Design Type(s) data integration objective Measurement Type(s) anthropogenic environmental process Technology Type(s) digital curation Factor Type(s) Sample Characteristic(s) Earth • anthropogenic terrestrial biome • agricultural feature • road • railway • transport feature Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data (ISA-Tab format)

Spatial priorities for the conservation of three key Mediterranean habitats, i.e. seagrass Posidonia oceanica meadows, coralligenous formations, and marine caves, were determined through a systematic planning approach. Available information on the distribution of these habitats across the entire Mediterranean Sea was compiled to produce basin-scale distribution maps. Conservation targets for each habitat type were set according to European Union guidelines. Surrogates were used to estimate the spatial variation of opportunity cost for commercial, non-commercial fishing, and aquaculture. Marxan conservation planning software was used to evaluate the comparative utility of two planning scenarios: (a) a whole-basin scenario, referring to selection of priority areas across the whole Mediterranean Sea, and (b) an ecoregional scenario, in which priority areas were selected within eight predefined ecoregions. Although both scenarios required approximately the same total area to be protected in order to achieve conservation targets, the opportunity cost differed between them. The whole-basin scenario yielded a lower opportunity cost, but the Alboran Sea ecoregion was not represented and priority areas were predominantly located in the Ionian, Aegean, and Adriatic Seas. In comparison, the ecoregional scenario resulted in a higher representation of ecoregions and a more even distribution of priority areas, albeit with a higher opportunity cost. We suggest that planning at the ecoregional level ensures better representativeness of the selected conservation features and adequate protection of species, functional, and genetic diversity across the basin. While there are several initiatives that identify priority areas in the Mediterranean Sea, our approach is novel as it combines three issues: (a) it is based on the distribution of habitats and not species, which was rarely the case in previous efforts, (b) it considers spatial variability of cost throughout this socioeconomically heterogeneous basin, and (c) it adopts ecoregions as the most appropriate level for large-scale planning.

Decision science emphasizes necessary elements required for robust decision‐making. By incorporating decision science principles, frameworks, and tools, it has been demonstrated that decision‐makers can increase the chances of achieving conservation aims. Setting measurable objectives, clearly documenting assumptions about the impact of available actions on a specific threat or problem, explicitly considering constraints, exploring and characterizing uncertainty, and structured deliberation on trade‐offs have been identified as key elements of successful decision‐making. We quantify the extent to which these five elements were utilized in published examples of decision making in conservation in both academic and conservation practice between 2009 and 2018. We found that less than 50% of identified examples included all five elements, with differences in the degree of decision science applied across five commonly used decision support approaches: adaptive management (AM), systematic conservation planning (SCP), structured decision making (SDM), multi‐criteria decision analysis, and cost‐effectiveness analysis. Example applications that utilized the SDM framework were limited in numbers but used on average more than 50% of the five key elements we considered. Although SCP and AM constituted the majority of examples, they were more prevalent in academic studies rather than management applications. SCP and AM examples were widespread in protected area planning, threat abatement, and restoration. Strong geographic bias exists in documented conservation activities that deploy all five decision science elements. This review gives a systematic overview of how well elements from decision science have been utilised in different decision aiding frameworks and tools that were commonly applied for conservation decision making in the decade from 2009–2018. We draw on a sample of over 400 peer‐reviewed publications that describe a conservation management decision and highlight some identified possible issues and ways of improving rigor in the planning and reporting of how decisions are made.

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.

The impact of human activities on biodiversity is increasingly putting at risk the capacity of nature to support human well-being (IPBES 2019). The recent Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) reiterated the importance of land- and sea-use changes, exploitation, climate change, pollution, and the introduction of invasive alien species as the major direct drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation (Díaz et al. 2019). This assessment also highlighted the need to address the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, such as unsustainable patterns of production and consumption (IPBES 2019). Acknowledging the importance of understanding the biodiversity impacts of products and supply chains, the life cycle assessment (LCA) community has been devoted to improving how biodiversity is incorporated in LCA. To date, few operational life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods exist that account for biodiversity impacts (Crenna et al. 2020). However, more and more private and public actors are asking for appropriate methods, models, and indicators to perform biodiversity footprint of products. At EU level, this need has been recently reinforced in the biodiversity strategy (EC 2020a) by the inclusion of environmental footprint as an approach to support the assessment of biodiversity impacts due to business activities and supply chains.

Systematic conservation planning (SCP) is an operational and scientific framework that assists in deciding where, how, and when to implement conservation intervention. Studies using SCP approaches have proliferated due to their immediate relevance for applied conservation. For example, they can help identify cost‐effective opportunities for expanding areas under conservation management to achieve high‐level policy goals such as those of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Yet SCP can be conducted in various ways, and results can vary depending on problem formulation, parameterizations, contexts, and prioritization approaches. There is a need to facilitate comparison of SCP studies to understand key criteria and assumptions made in the planning process. Here, we propose a standardized reporting protocol for SCP that is readily applicable across study aims, realms, and spatial scales. The new Overview and Design Protocol for Systematic Conservation Planning (ODPSCP) describes the key steps from the design to the computational stages of SCP. It enables researchers, scientific editors, and decision‐ and policymakers to assess the scope and comprehensiveness of SCP exercises. To facilitate uptake and ease of reporting, the protocol is openly available through an interactive web interface and which can be further enhanced following methodological advancements in conservation planning. We encourage the conservation community to adopt the reporting protocol to promote transparency and reproducibility, standardized reporting as well as facilitate peer review and independent evaluation. A new standard protocol for contextualizing systematic conservation planning studies is presented and the potential benefits highlighted. By adopting such community reporting standards, scientists and practitioners will be better placed to evaluate appropriateness and the idea behind a planning study.