Explore the vast range of titles available.

Policies and research increasingly focus on the protection of ecosystem services (ESs) through priority-area conservation. Priority areas for ESs should be identified based on ES capacity and ES demand and account for the connections between areas of ES capacity and demand (flow) resulting in areas of unique demand-supply connections (flow zones). We tested ways to account for ES demand and flow zones to identify priority areas in the European Union. We mapped the capacity and demand of a global (carbon sequestration), a regional (flood regulation), and 3 local ESs (air quality, pollination, and urban leisure). We used Zonation software to identify priority areas for ESs based on 6 tests: with and without accounting for ES demand and 4 tests that accounted for the effect of ES flow zone. There was only 37.1% overlap between the 25% of priority areas that encompassed the most ESs with and without accounting for ES demand. The level of ESs maintained in the priority areas increased from 23.2% to 57.9% after accounting for ES demand, especially for ESs with a small flow zone. Accounting for flow zone had a small effect on the location of priority areas and level of ESs maintained but resulted in fewer flow zones without ES maintained relative to ignoring flow zones. Accounting for demand and flow zones enhanced representation and distribution of ESs with local to regional flow zones without large trade-offs relative to the global ES. We found that ignoring ES demand led to the identification of priority areas in remote regions where benefits from ES capacity to society were small. Incorporating ESs in conservation planning should therefore always account for ES demand to identify an effective priority network for ESs. Las políticas y las investigaciones cada vez más se enfocan en la protección de los servicios ambientales (SAs) por medio de la conservación de áreas prioritarias. Las áreas prioritarias para los SAs deberían ser identificadas con base en la capacidad de SAs y la demanda de SAs, y deberían representar las conexiones entre las áreas de capacidad de SAs y la demanda (flujo), resultando así en áreas de conexiones únicas de demanda y suministro (zonas de flujo). Probamos maneras para representar la demanda de SAs y las zonas de flujo para identificar las áreas prioritarias en la Unión Europea. Mapeamos la capacidad y la demanda de un SA global (secuestro de carbono), regional (regulación de inundación), y tres locales (calidad del aire, polinización, y tiempo libre urbano). Usamos el software Zonation para identificar las áreas prioritarias para los SAs con base en seis experimentos: con y sin representación de la demanda de los SAs, y cuatro experimentos que representaron el efecto de la zona de flujo de los SAs. Sólo hubo un traslape de 37.1 % entre el 25 % de las áreas prioritarias que englobaron la mayoría de los SAs con y sin representación de la demanda de SAs. El nivel de los SAs que se mantuvo en las áreas prioritarias incrementó de un 23.2 % a 57.9 % después de considerar la demanda de los SAs, especialmente para aquellos SAs con una zona de flujo reducida. Representar la zona de flujo tuvo un pequeño efecto sobre la ubicación de las áreas prioritarias y el nivel de SAs que se mantuvo, pero resultó en menos zonas de flujo sin SAs mantenidos en relación a ignorar las zonas de flujo. Representar la demanda y las zonas de flujo mejoró la representación y distribución de los SAs con zonas de flujo de regionales a locales sin compensaciones grandes en relación al SA global. Hallamos que ignorar la demanda de SAs llevó a la identificación de las áreas prioritarias en las regiones remotas en donde los beneficios de la capacidad de los SAs para la sociedad fueron pequeños. Incorporar los SAs a la planeación de la conservación por lo tanto debería siempre representar a la demanda de los SAs para identificar una red efectiva de prioridades para los SAs. reducida. Representar la zona de flujo tuvo un pequeño efecto sobre la ubicación de las áreas prioritarias y el nivel de SAs que se mantuvo, pero resultó en menos zonas de flujo sin SAs mantenidos en relación a ignorar las zonas de flujo. Representar la demanda y las zonas de flujo mejoró la representación y distribución de los SAs con zonas de flujo de regionales a locales sin compensaciones grandes en relación al SA global. Hallamos que ignorar la demanda de SAs llevó a la identificación de las áreas prioritarias en las regiones remotas en donde los beneficios de la capacidad de los SAs para la sociedad fueron pequeños. Incorporar los SAs a la planeación de la conservación por lo tanto debería siempre representar a la demanda de los SAs para identificar una red efectiva de prioridades para los SAs.

The prosperity and well-being of human societies relies on healthy ecosystems and the services they provide. However, the biodiversity crisis is undermining ecosystems services and functions. Vultures are among the most imperiled taxonomic groups on Earth, yet they have a fundamental ecosystem function. These obligate scavengers rapidly consume large amounts of carrion and human waste, a service that may aid in both disease prevention and control of mammalian scavengers, including feral dogs, which in turn threaten humans. We combined information about the distribution of all 15 vulture species found in Europe, Asia, and Africa with their threats and used detailed expert knowledge on threat intensity to prioritize critical areas for conserving vultures in Africa and Eurasia. Threats we identified included poisoning, mortality due to collision with wind energy infrastructures, and other anthropogenic activities related to human land use and influence. Areas important for vulture conservation were concentrated in southern and eastern Africa, South Asia, and the Iberian Peninsula, and over 80% of these areas were unprotected. Some vulture species required larger areas for protection than others. Finally, countries that had the largest share of all identified important priority areas for vulture conservation were those with the largest expenditures related to rabies burden (e.g., India, China, and Myanmar). Vulture populations have declined markedly in most of these countries. Restoring healthy vulture populations through targeted actions in the priority areas we identified may help restore the ecosystem services vultures provide, including sanitation and potentially prevention of diseases, such as rabies, a heavy burden afflicting fragile societies. Our findings may guide stakeholders to prioritize actions where they are needed most in order to achieve international goals for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. La prosperidad y el bienestar de la sociedad humana dependen de ecosistemas sanos y de los servicios ambientales que éstosproporcionan. Sin embargo, la crisisde biodiversidadestá afectandoa los servicios ambientales y sus funciones. Los buitres se encuentran entre los grupos taxonómicos con mayor amenaza sobre el planeta, a pesar de tener una función fundamental en los ecosistemas. Estos carroñeros obligados consumen rápidamente grandes cantidades de carroña y desechos humanos, un servicio que puede ayudar en la prevención de enfermedades y en el control de mamíferos carroñeros, incluyendo a los perros ferales, los cuales pueden ser un peligro para los humanos. Combinamos la información sobre la distribución de las 15 especies de buitres en Europa, Asia y África con las amenazas que presentan y usamos el conocimiento detallado de expertos sobre la intensidad de las amenazas para priorizar las áreas críticas para la conservación de buitres en África y en Eurasia. Las amenazas que identificamos incluyeron el envenenamiento, la mortalidad por colisiones con infraestructura eólica y otras actividades antropogénicas relacionadas con el uso de suelo y la influencia humana. Las áreas importantes para la conservación de buitres estuvieron concentradas en el sur y el este de África, el sur de Asia y la Península Ibérica, y más del 80% de estas áreas no contaban con protección. Algunas especies de buitres requirieron áreas más grandes para su protección que otras especies. Finalmente, los países que tuvieron la mayor porción de todas las áreas prioritarias importantes e identificadas para la conservación de buitres también fueron aquellos con los mayores gastos relacionados con la carga de la rabia (por ejemplo, India, China y Myanmar). Las poblaciones de buitres han declinado marcadamente en la mayoría de estos países. La restauración de poblaciones sanas de buitres por medio de acciones enfocadas en las áreas prioritarias que identificamos puede ayudar a restaurar los servicios ambientales que proporcionan los buitres, incluyendo el saneamiento y la prevención potencial de enfermedades, como la rabia, una carga pesada que aflige a las sociedades frágiles. Nuestros resultados pueden guiar a los interesados hacia la priorización de acciones en donde más se necesitan para poder alcanzar los objetivos internacionales para la conservación de la biodiversidad y el desarrollo sustentable. 人类社会的繁荣昌盛依赖于健康的生态系统及其所提供的服务。然而，生物多祥性危机芷在破坏生态系 统的服务和功能。秃鹰是地球上最濒危的类群之一，而它们却能提供基础的生态系统功能。它们作为专性食腐 动物可以快速消耗大量腐肉及人类废弃物，提供的生态系统服务有助于预防疾病，以及控制哺乳类食腐动物，如 会对人类造成威胁的野狗。我们将欧洲、亚洲和非洲的全部+ 五种秃鹰的分布信息与其面临的威胁相结合，利 用详细的关于威胁强度的专业知识, 确定了非洲及欧亚关键的秃鹰保护优先地区。秃鹰面临的威胁包括中毒、 撞击风能设施导致的死亡，以及与人类土地利用和影响有关的其它人类活动。秃鹰的重点保护区域集中在非洲 南部和东部、南非和利比亚半岛，这些地区超过80%的土地没有得到保护。另外，秃鹰中某些物种相比之下需 要更大区域进行保护。我们还发现,秃鹰的重要优先保护区域占比最大的国家同时也是那呰在狂犬病上的支出 最高的国家(如印度、中国、缅甸)，而其中大多数国家的秃鹰种群数量已经明显下降。通过在我们确定的优先 保护区域采取有针对性的行动来恢复健康的秃鹰种群，可能有助于恢复秃鹰提供的生态系统服务，包括环境卫 生和预防潜在疾病，比如狂犬病这种沉重的社会负担。我们的研究成果可以指导利益相关者在需求最迫切的地 方优先采取行动，以实现生物多祥性保护和可持续发展的国际目标。

The frequently discussed gap between conservation science and practice is manifest in the gap between spatial conservation prioritization plans and their implementation. We analyzed the researchimplementation gap of one zoning case by comparing results of a spatial prioritization analysis aimed at avoiding ecological impact of peat mining in a regional zoning process with the final zoning plan. We examined the relatively complex planning process to determine the gaps among research, zoning, and decision making. We quantified the ecological costs of the differing trade-offs between ecological and socioeconomic factors included in the different zoning suggestions by comparing the landscape-level loss of ecological features (species occurrences, habitat area, etc.) between the different solutions for spatial allocation of peat mining. We also discussed with the scientists and planners the reasons for differing zoning suggestions. The implemented plan differed from the scientists suggestion in that its focus was individual ecological features rather than all the ecological features for which there were data; planners and decision makers considered effects of peat mining on areas not included in the prioritization analysis; zoning was not truly seen as a resource-allocation process and not emphasized in general minimizing ecological losses while satisfying economic needs (peatmining potential); and decision makers based their prioritization of sites on site-level information showing high ecological value and on single legislative factors instead of finding a cost-effective landscape-level solution. We believe that if the zoning and decision-making processes are very complex, then the usefulness of science-based prioritization tools is likely to be reduced. Nevertheless, we found that high-end tools were useful in clearly exposing trade-offs between conservation and resource utilization. El frecuentemente analizado vacío entre la ciencia de la conservación y su práctica está manifiesto en el vacío entre los planes de priorización de conservación espacial y su implementación. Analizamos el vacío de implementación de la investigación en un caso de zonación al comparar los resultados de un análisis de priorización espacial enfocado en evitar el impacto ecológico de la minería de turba en un proceso de zonación regional con el plan final de zonación. Examinamos el proceso relativamente complejo de planeación para determinar los vacíos entre la investigación, la zonación y la toma de decisiones. Cuantificamos los costos ecológicos de las compensaciones discrepantes entre los factores ecológicos y socioeconómicos incluidos en las diferentes sugerencias de zonación comparando la pérdida a nivel de paisaje de las características ecológicas (ocurrencia de especies, área del hábitat, etc.) entre las diferentes soluciones para la asignación espacial de la minería de turba. También analizamos junto con los científicos y los planificadores las razones de las diferentes sugerencias de zonación. El plan implementado discrepó de la sugerencia de los científicos en que su enfoque eran las características ecológicas individuales en lugar de todas las características ecológicas para las cuales se tenían datos; los planificadores y quienes toman las decisiones consideraron los efectos de la minería de turba en áreas que no se incluyeron en el análisis de priorización; la zonación no fue vista verdaderamente como un proceso de asignación de recursos y enfatizó en general la minimización de las pérdidas ecológicas mientras se satisfacían las necesidades económicas (el potencial de minas de turba); y quienes toman las decisiones basaron su priorización de sitios en información a nivel de sitio que mostraba el alto valor ecológico y en factores legislativos únicos en lugar de encontrar una solución rentable a nivel de paisaje. Creemos que si los procesos de zonación y de toma de decisiones son muy complejos, entonces es probable que la utilidad de las herramientas de priorización con bases científicas sea reducida. Sin embargo, encontramos que las herramientas de calidad superior fueron útiles en revelar claramente las compensaciones entre la conservación y el uso de los recursos. 老生常谈的保护科学与保护实践间的鸿沟，体现在空间保护优先性规划及其实施上。我们以ー个泥煤开 采区划为案例，比较分析了科学研究与保护实践间的鸿沟，旨在避免造成生态影响的空间保护优先性分析结果与 最终实施区划的差距。我们检视了这ー相对复杂的区划过程，以确定科研、区划以及决策间的差距。通过比较 空间布局不同的泥煤开采区划在景观水平上生态特征（物种出现、生境面积等) 的损失差异，我们量化了因対生 态和社会经济因素的权衡取舍不同而产生的不同区划方案的生态代价。我们也与科学家和规划者探讨了不同区 划建议的原由。与科学家建议的方案不同，实际实施方案只关注个别生态特征而不是全部有数据的生态特征;规 划者和决策者考虑了泥煤开采对未包括在空间保护优先性分析中的地区的影响;区划没有被真正看作是ー个资 源分配过程，而是总体上着重于在满足经济需求(泥煤开采的潜力) 的同时使生态代价最小化;另外，决策者选址 的优先性是基于泥煤开采地点上表现出的高生态价值以及单一的立法因素，而不是寻找ー个在景观水平上成本 效益好的区划方案。我们相信，如果区划和决策过程非常复杂，那么就可能降低基于科学的优先性分析工具的效 用。尽管如此，我们发现一些高端工具在清晰权衡资源的保护与利用中还是很有效的。

The outcome of analyses that prioritize locations for conservation on the basis of distributions of species, land cover, or other elements is influenced by the spatial resolution of data used in the analyses. We explored the influence of data resolution on prioritization of Finnish forests with Zonation, a software program that ranks the priority of cells in a landscape for conservation. We used data on the distribution of different forest types that were aggregated to nine different resolutions ranging from 0.1 × 0.1 km to 25.6 × 25.6 km. We analyzed data at each resolution with two variants of Zonation that had different criteria for prioritization, with and without accounting for connectivity and with and without adjustment for the effect on the analysis of edges between areas at the project boundary and adjacent areas for which data do not exist. Spatial overlap of the 10% of cells ranked most highly when data were analyzed at different resolutions varied approximately from 15% to 60% and was greatest among analyses with similar resolutions. Inclusion of connectivity or edge adjustment changed the location of areas that were prioritized for conservation. Even though different locations received high priority for conservation in analyses with and without accounting for connectivity, accounting f or connectivity did not reduce the representation of different forest types. Inclusion of connectivity influenced most the outcome of fine-resolution analyses because the connectivity extents that we based on dispersal distances of typical forest species were small. When we kept the area set aside for conservation constant, representation of the forest types increased as resolution increased. We do not think it is necessary to avoid use of high-resolution data in spatial conservation prioritization. Our results show that large extent, fine-resolution analyses are computationally feasible, and we suggest they can give more flexibility to implementation of well-connected reserve networks. El resultado de análisis que priorizan sitios para conservación con base en la distribución de especies, cobertura de suelo otros elementos está influido por la resolución espacial de los datos utilizados en el análisis. Exploramos la influencia de la resolución de datos en la priorización de bosques finlandeses con Zonation, un programa que clasifica la prioridad de conservación de las celdas en un paisaje. Utilizamos datos sobre la distribución de diferentes tipos de bosque agregados en nueve resoluciones diferentes, desde 0.1 × 0.1 km hasta 25.6 × 25.6 km. Analizamos los datos de cada resolución con dos variantes de Zonation con criterios de priorización diferentes, considerando y no considerando la conecttividad y con y sin ajuste por el efecto de bordes entre áreas sobre el análisis en los límites del proyecto y áreas adyacentes sin datos disponibles. El traslape espacial de 10% de las celdas tuvo la mayor clasificación y varió entre 15% y 60% cuando los datos fueron analizados en resoluciones distintas y fue mayor entre análisis con resoluciones similares. La inclusión de la conectividad y ajuste de bordes cambio la localización de las áreas prioritarias para la conservación. Aun cuando localidades diferentes recibieron prioridad alta para la conservación en análisis con y sin consideración de la conectividad, la representación de los diferentes tipos de bosques no disminuyó cuando se consideró la conectividad. La inclusión de la conectividad influyó en la mayoría de los resultados de los análisis de resolución fina porque las extensiones de conectividad que basamos en distancias de dispersión de especies típicas de bosques fueron pequeñas. Cuado mantuvimos constante el área conservada, la representación de los tipos de bosque incrementó a medida que incrementó la resolución. Consideramos que no es necesario evitar el uso de datos de resolución alta en la priorización espacial de la conservación. Nuestros resultados muestran que los análisis de resolución fina en grandes extensiones son factibles computacionalmente.

ContextSpatial conservation prioritization (SCP) has most often been applied to the design of reserve network expansion. In addition to occurrences of species and habitats inside protected area candidate sites, one may also be interested about network-level connectivity considerations.ObjectivesWe applied SCP to the identification of ecological networks to inform the development of a new regional plan for the region of Uusimaa (South-Finland, including the Finnish capital district).MethodsInput data were 59 high-quality layers of biotope and species distribution data. We identified ecological networks based on a combination of a Zonation balanced priority ranking map and a weighted range size rarity map, to account for both relative and absolute conservation values in the process. We also identified ecological corridors between protected areas and other ecologically high-priority areas using the corridor retention method of Zonation. Furthermore, we identified candidate sites for habitat restoration.ResultsWe found seven large ecological networks (132–1201 km2) which stand out from their surrounding landscape in terms of ecological value and have clear connectivity bottlenecks between them. Highest restoration needs were found between large high-priority sites that are connected via remnant habitat fragments in comparatively highly modified areas.ConclusionsLand conversion should be avoided in areas of highest ecological priorities and network-level connectivity. Restoration should be considered for connectivity bottlenecks. Methods described here can be applied in any location where relevant spatial data are available. The present results are actively used by the regional council and municipalities in the region of Uusimaa.

Context Spatial conservation prioritization (SCP) concerns, for example, identification of spatial priorities for biodiversity conservation or for impact avoidance in economic development. Software useable for SCP include Marxan, C-Plan and Zonation. SCP is often based on data about the distributions of biodiversity features (e.g., species, habitats), costs, threats, and/or ecosystem services (ES). Objectives and methods At simplest ES can be entered into a SCP analysis as independent supply maps, but this is not very satisfactory because connectivity requirements and consequent ideal spatial priority patterns may vary between ES. Therefore, we examine different ES and their connectivity requirements at the conceptual level. Results We find that the ideal spatial priority pattern for ES may differ in terms of: local supply area size and regional network requirements for the maintenance of ES provision, for flow between provision and demand, and with respect to the degree of dispersion that is needed for ES provision and access across different administrative regions. We then identify existing technical options in the Zonation software for dealing with such connectivity requirements of ES in SCP. Conclusions This work helps users of SCP to improve how ES are accounted for in analysis together with biodiversity and other considerations.

Efforts to bring together Indigenous and Western science systems of knowledge have been ongoing for decades. In light of challenges related to knowledge integration, which have typically resulted in the favoring of Western knowledge systems at the expense of Indigenous knowledge, efforts to bridge these knowledges have expanded. Within such approaches, the two knowledge systems exist independently; one is not controlled or validated by the other. These efforts are especially critical within land use and conservation planning, which has often failed to include a broad range of Indigenous values, practices, and perspectives. We examine the extent to which two tools, including Indigenous land use and cultural mapping and a conservation prioritization software called Zonation, can be useful in bringing together Western scientific and Indigenous knowledge systems to inform conservation and land use planning. We look specifically at the experiences of Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, a First Nation in the Yukon, northern Canada, and their approach of “walking in two worlds” within a regional land use planning process. We also explore how the conservation prioritization method and software, Zonation, can be modified with Indigenous cultural values and subsistence use areas. Our methodology aims to better understand the extent to which the software can be adapted to include other variations of bio-cultural attributes in partnerships with Indigenous peoples. We identified challenges, successes, and lessons learned within Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in’s approach, as well as insights for knowledge bridging efforts and land planning involving Indigenous authorities.

Aim: To quantify and compare species coverage in priority areas for conservation identified using species richness as opposed to approaches that use individual species range maps. Location: Global. Methods: We compare the coverage of species when global priority areas for conservation are identified based on (1) twelve species richness maps of all and small-range amphibians, birds and mammals and all and small-range threatened (i.e., vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered) species; (2) weighted range size rarity, a richness measure corrected for range size; and (3) a complementarity-based analysis including species range maps for 21,075 terrestrial vertebrate species listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. We also assessed whether any combination of small-range and/or threatened species richness could be a suitable surrogate for a complementarity-based analysis by assessing species coverage in priority areas located using (1) richness of small-range species only; (2) richness of all threatened species only; and (3) richness of small-range and threatened species. Results: Our results show clear differences in the spatial pattern of priority areas for conservation among the prioritizations based on species richness, weighted range size rarity and species range maps, with the species richness-based priority areas being highly aggregated in the tropics and the species range map priority areas being more evenly spread among the global terrestrial area. We also find that identifying priority areas for conservation using species richness produces a lower coverage of species than priority areas based on complementarity methods and identified using species range maps, where just one species was left without any protection. Main Conclusions: As methods and software currently exist for processing large numbers of individual species distribution maps in spatial prioritization, the use of species richness appears to be an unnecessary simplification of biodiversity pattern.

ContextSpatial prioritization is an analytical approach that can be used to provide decision support in spatial conservation planning (SCP), and in tasks such as conservation area network design, zoning, planning for impact avoidance or targeting of habitat management or restoration.MethodsBased on literature, we summarize the role of connectivity as one component of relevance in the broad structure of spatial prioritization in both marine and terrestrial realms.ResultsPartially diffuse, directed connectivity can be approximated in Zonation-based multi-criteria SCP by applying hydrodynamic modelling, knowledge on species traits, and information on species occurrences and quality of habitats. Sources and destinations of larvae or propagules can be identified as separate spatial layers and taken into account in full-scale spatial prioritization involving data on biota, as well as economic factors, threats, and administrative constraints. While population connectivity is an important determinant of metapopulation persistence, the importance of marine connectivity depends on species traits and the marine environment studied. At one end of the continuum are species that occupy isolated habitats and have long pelagic larval durations in deeper sea areas with strong directional currents. At the other extreme are species with short pelagic durations that occupy fragmented habitats in shallow topographically complex sea areas with weak and variable currents.ConclusionsWe conclude that the same objectives, methods, and analysis structures are applicable to both terrestrial and marine spatial prioritization. Marine spatial conservation planning, marine spatial planning, marine zoning, etc., can be implemented using methods originated in the terrestrial realm of planning.

Aim On the basis of multitaxon biogeographical processes related to region‐specific geohistory and palaeoclimate, we identified a balanced and area‐effective protected area network (PAN) expansion in the East Asian islands, a global biodiversity hotspot. Location Japanese archipelago, Ryukyu archipelago and Izu‐Bonin oceanic islands. Methods We modelled the distributions of 6,325 species (amphibians, birds, freshwater fish, mammals, plants and reptiles) using 4,389,489 occurrence data points. We then applied the Zonation software for spatial conservation prioritization. First, we identified environmental drivers underpinning taxon‐specific biodiversity patterns. Second, we analysed each taxon individually to understand baseline priority patterns. Third, we combined all taxa into an inclusive analysis to identify the most important PAN expansions. Results Biodiversity patterns were well explained by geographical factors (climate, habitat stability, isolation and area), but their explanatory power differed between the taxa. There was remarkably little overlap between priority areas for the individual higher taxa. The inclusive prioritization analysis across all taxa identified priority regions, in particular in southern subtropical and mountainous areas. Expanding the PAN up to 17% would cover most of the ranges for rare and/or restricted‐range species. On average, approximately 30% of the ranges of all species could be covered by the 17% expansion identified here. Main conclusions Our analyses identified top candidates for the expansion of Japan's protected area network. Taxon‐specific prioritization was informative for understanding the conservation priority patterns of different taxa associated with unique biogeographical processes. For the basis of PAN expansion, we recommend multi‐taxon prioritization as an area‐efficient compromise that reflects taxon‐specific priority patterns. Spatial prioritization across multiple taxa provides a promising start for the development of conservation plans with the aim of long‐term persistence of biodiversity on the East Asian islands.