Combining spatial prioritization and expert knowledge facilitates effectiveness of large-scale mire protection process in Finland

Abstract Conservation resource allocation involves a complex set of considerations including species, habitats, connectivity, local to global biodiversity objectives, alternative protection and restoration actions, while requiring cost-efficiency and effective implementation. We present a national scale spatial conservation prioritization analysis for complementing the network of protected mires in Finland. We show how spatial prioritization coupled with regional targets and expert knowledge can facilitate structured decision-making. In our application, discussion between experts was structured around the prioritization model enabling integration of quantitative analysis with expert knowledge. The used approach balances requirements of many biodiversity features over large landscapes, while aiming at a cost-effective solution. As a special analytical feature, mire complexes were defined prior to prioritization to form hydrologically functional planning units, including also their drained parts that require restoration for the planning unit to remain or potentially increase in value. This enabled selection of mires where restoration effort is supporting and benefitting from the core mire areas of high conservation value. We found that a key to successful implementation was early on structured co-producing between analysts, mire experts, and decision-makers. This allowed effective multidirectional knowledge transfer and evaluation of trade-offs related to the focal conservation decisions. Quantitative trade-off information was seen especially helpful by the stakeholders to decide how to follow the analysis results. Overall, we illustrate a realistic and applicable spatial conservation prioritization case supporting real world conservation decision-making. The introduced approach can be applied globally to increase effectiveness of large-scale protection and management planning of the diverse wetland ecosystem complexes.

[1]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Identification of top priority areas and management landscapes from a national Natura 2000 network , 2013 .

[2]  Asim Zia,et al.  Acknowledging Conservation Trade‐Offs and Embracing Complexity , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[3]  Richard M. Cowling,et al.  Walking in STEP: Lessons for linking spatial prioritisations to implementation strategies , 2011 .

[4]  Jane Elith,et al.  Not all data are equal: Influence of data type and amount in spatial conservation prioritisation , 2018, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[5]  Robert L Pressey,et al.  Opportunism, Threats, and the Evolution of Systematic Conservation Planning , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[6]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices , 2012 .

[7]  Aldina M. A. Franco,et al.  Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

[9]  Simo Sarkki,et al.  Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another , 2014, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[10]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research , 2013 .

[11]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Administrative regions in conservation: Balancing local priorities with regional to global preferences in spatial planning , 2011 .

[12]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Exposing ecological and economic costs of the research‐implementation gap and compromises in decision making , 2018, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[13]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[14]  P. Hulme.  EDITORIAL: Bridging the knowing–doing gap: know‐who, know‐what, know‐why, know‐how and know‐when , 2014 .

[15]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Accounting for habitat dynamics in conservation planning , 2009 .

[16]  Richard M Cowling,et al.  Knowing But Not Doing: Selecting Priority Conservation Areas and the Research–Implementation Gap , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[17]  M. White,et al.  Integrating environmental gap analysis with spatial conservation prioritization: a case study from Victoria, Australia. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[18]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Incorporating consumer–resource spatial interactions in reserve design , 2009 .

[19]  A. Moilanen,et al.  Evaluation, Gap Analysis, and Potential Expansion of the Finnish Marine Protected Area Network , 2018, Front. Mar. Sci..

[20]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  The expert or the algorithm?—comparison of priority conservation areas in the Cape Floristic Region identified by park managers and reserve selection software , 2003 .

[21]  Yves Meinard,et al.  A meta-decision-analysis approach to structure operational and legitimate environmental policies - With an application to wetland prioritization. , 2019, The Science of the total environment.

[22]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Use of Inverse Spatial Conservation Prioritization to Avoid Biological Diversity Loss Outside Protected Areas , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[23]  Michael Drescher,et al.  A systematic review of transparency in the methods of expert knowledge use , 2018, Journal of Applied Ecology.

[24]  S. Nicol,et al.  Navigating Complex Decisions in Restoration Investment , 2017 .

[25]  The case of conflicting Finnish peatland management - Skewed representation of nature, participation and policy instruments. , 2018, Journal of environmental management.

[26]  R. Pardini,et al.  A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science–practice gap in ecology and conservation , 2018, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[27]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[28]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Global Consequences of Land Use , 2005, Science.

[29]  H. Possingham,et al.  Optimal Conservation Outcomes Require Both Restoration and Protection , 2015, PLoS biology.

[30]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: Unifying reserve selection strategies , 2007 .

[31]  W. Sutherland,et al.  The need for evidence-based conservation. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[32]  R. Gregory,et al.  When experts disagree (and better science won't help much): using structured deliberations to support endangered species recovery planning. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[33]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[34]  E. Primmer,et al.  Integrating Social and Ecological Knowledge for Targeting Voluntary Biodiversity Conservation , 2018 .

[35]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Applying spatial conservation prioritization software and high-resolution GIS data to a national-scale study in forest conservation , 2009 .

[36]  Richard M Cowling,et al.  An Operational Model for Implementing Conservation Action , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[37]  Libby Rumpff,et al.  Using structured decision‐making to set restoration objectives when multiple values and preferences exist , 2017 .

[38]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  The use, and usefulness, of spatial conservation prioritizations , 2018 .

[39]  K. Gaston,et al.  Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[40]  S. Hamilton,et al.  Conservation planning for river-wetland mosaics: A flexible spatial approach to integrate floodplain and upstream catchment connectivity , 2019, Biological Conservation.

[41]  D. Gilbert,et al.  Buried by bad decisions , 2011, Nature.

[42]  R. Cowling,et al.  From theory to practice: Designing and situating spatial prioritization approaches to better implement conservation action , 2009 .

[43]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning , 2012, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[44]  J. Barlow,et al.  Navigating the Space between Research and Implementation in Conservation , 2017 .