Sensitivity analysis of conservation targets in systematic conservation planning.

Systematic conservation planning has rapidly advanced in the past decade and has been increasingly incorporated in multiple studies and conservation projects. One of its requirements is a quantitative definition of conservation targets. While the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to expand the world's protected area network to 17% of the land surface, in many cases such uniform policy-driven targets may not be appropriate for achieving persistence of various species. Targets are often set arbitrarily, often because information required for the persistence of each species is unavailable or unknown in the focal region. Conservation planners therefore need to establish complementary novel approaches to address the gaps in setting targets. Here, we develop and present a novel method that aims to help guide the selection of conservation targets, providing support for decision makers, planners, and managers. This is achieved by examining the overall flexibility of the conservation network resulting from conservation prioritization, and aiming for greater flexibility. To test this approach we applied the decision support tool Marxan to determine marine conservation priority areas in the eastern Mediterranean Sea as a case study. We assessed the flexibility of the conservation network by comparing 80 different scenarios in which conservation targets were gradually increased and assessed by a range of calculated metrics (e.g., the percentage of the total area selected, the overall connectivity). We discovered that when conservation targets were set too low (i.e., below 10% of the distribution range of each species), very few areas were identified as irreplaceable and the conservation network was not well defined. Interestingly, when conservation targets were set too high (over 50% of the species' range), too many conservation priority areas were selected as irreplaceable, an outcome which is realistically infeasible to implement. As a general guideline, we found that flexibility in a conservation network is adequate when ~10-20% of the study area is considered irreplaceable (selection frequency values over 90%). This approach offers a useful sensitivity analysis when applying target-based systematic conservation planning tools, ensuring that the resulting protected area conservation network offers more choices for managers and decision makers.

[1]  S. Cameron,et al.  Efficiency and Concordance of Alternative Methods for Minimizing Opportunity Costs in Conservation Planning , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[2]  S. Kark,et al.  Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Rebecca Weeks,et al.  Incorporating local tenure in the systematic design of marine protected area networks , 2010 .

[4]  Liana N. Joseph,et al.  Targeting Global Protected Area Expansion for Imperiled Biodiversity , 2014, PLoS biology.

[5]  Heather M. Leslie,et al.  Using siting algorithms in the design of marine reserve networks , 2003 .

[6]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  SELECTING MARINE RESERVES USING HABITATS AND SPECIES ASSEMBLAGES AS SURROGATES FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY , 1999 .

[7]  H. Possingham,et al.  Hitting the target and missing the point: target‐based conservation planning in context , 2009 .

[8]  Jane Elith,et al.  Sensitivity of conservation planning to different approaches to using predicted species distribution data , 2005 .

[9]  E. Feitelson The Four Eras of Israeli Water Policies , 2013 .

[10]  S. Andelman,et al.  Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks , 2000 .

[11]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Using multivariate analysis to deliver conservation planning products that align with practitioner needs , 2011 .

[12]  H. Possingham,et al.  Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Efficiency, costs and trade-offs in marine reserve system design , 2005 .

[14]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Spatial marine zoning for fisheries and conservation , 2010 .

[15]  John E. Parks,et al.  Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas , 2003 .

[16]  Vasiliki S. Karpouzi,et al.  The Mediterranean Sea under siege: spatial overlap between marine biodiversity, cumulative threats and marine reserves , 2012 .

[17]  Mark D. McDonnell,et al.  Mathematical Methods for Spatially Cohesive Reserve Design , 2002 .

[18]  S. Somot,et al.  The Biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Estimates, Patterns, and Threats , 2010, PloS one.

[19]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Towards sustainability in the water sector – The importance of human actors and processes of social learning , 2002, Aquatic Sciences.

[20]  P. Kareiva,et al.  How Much Is Enough? The Recurrent Problem of Setting Measurable Objectives in Conservation , 2005 .

[21]  S. Kark,et al.  Marine conservation challenges in an era of economic crisis and geopolitical instability: The case of the Mediterranean Sea , 2015 .

[22]  M. Spalding,et al.  Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  T. Brooks,et al.  Protected Areas and Species , 2004 .

[24]  S. Kark,et al.  Oil spill contamination probability in the southeastern Levantine basin. , 2015, Marine pollution bulletin.

[25]  Corinne S. Martin,et al.  Systematic conservation planning in the eastern English Channel: comparing the Marxan and Zonation decision-support tools , 2012 .

[26]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Setting Priorities for Regional Conservation Planning in the Mediterranean Sea , 2013, PLoS ONE.

[27]  W. A. Rochester,et al.  Conservation planning with irreplaceability: does the method matter? , 2006, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[28]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Protected areas: Goals, limitations, and design , 2006 .

[29]  Matthew E. Watts,et al.  Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritization , 2009 .

[30]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  The Effect of Incremental Reserve Design and Changing Reservation Goals on the Long‐Term Efficiency of Reserve Systems , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[31]  Brenda Shaffer,et al.  Israel--New natural gas producer in the Mediterranean , 2011 .

[32]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  H. Possingham,et al.  Spatial conservation prioritization: Quantitative methods and computational tools , 2009 .

[34]  S. Kark,et al.  The Crowded Sea: Incorporating Multiple Marine Activities in Conservation Plans Can Significantly Alter Spatial Priorities , 2014, PloS one.

[35]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Formulating conservation targets for biodiversity pattern and process in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa , 2003 .

[36]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Large-scale conservation planning in a multinational marine environment: cost matters. , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[37]  Leona K. Svancara,et al.  Policy-driven versus Evidence-based Conservation: A Review of Political Targets and Biological Needs , 2005 .

[38]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Incorporating uncertainty associated with habitat data in marine reserve design , 2013 .

[39]  T. Taşan-Kok Changing Interpretations of ‘Flexibility’ in the Planning Literature: From Opportunism to Creativity? , 2008 .

[40]  R. McDonald The promise and pitfalls of systematic conservation planning , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  S. Kark,et al.  Incorporating Socioeconomic and Political Drivers of International Collaboration into Marine Conservation Planning , 2013 .

[42]  Jeroen Steenbeek,et al.  Biodiversity data requirements for systematic conservation planning in the Mediterranean Sea , 2014 .