Outdoor recreation is typically assumed to be compatible with biodiversity conservation and is permitted in most protected areas worldwide. However, increasing numbers of studies are discovering negative effects of recreation on animals. We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature and analyzed 274 articles on the effects of non-consumptive recreation on animals, across all geographic areas, taxonomic groups, and recreation activities. We quantified trends in publication rates and outlets, identified knowledge gaps, and assessed evidence for effects of recreation. Although publication rates are low and knowledge gaps remain, the evidence was clear with over 93% of reviewed articles documenting at least one effect of recreation on animals, the majority of which (59%) were classified as negative effects. Most articles focused on mammals (42% of articles) or birds (37%), locations in North America (37.7%) or Europe (26.6%), and individual-level responses (49%). Meanwhile, studies of amphibians, reptiles, and fish, locations in South America, Asia, and Africa, and responses at the population and community levels are lacking. Although responses are likely to be species-specific in many cases, some taxonomic groups (e.g., raptors, shorebirds, ungulates, and corals) had greater evidence for an effect of recreation. Counter to public perception, non-motorized activities had more evidence for a negative effect of recreation than motorized activities, with effects observed 1.2 times more frequently. Snow-based activities had more evidence for an effect than other types of recreation, with effects observed 1.3 times more frequently. Protecting biodiversity from potentially harmful effects of recreation is a primary concern for conservation planners and land managers who face increases in park visitation rates; accordingly, there is demand for science-based information to help solve these dilemmas.

Incentive-based strategies such as conservation easements and short-term management agreements are popular tools for conserving biodiversity on private lands. Billions of dollars are spent by government and private conservation organizations to support land conservation. Although much of conservation biology focuses on reserve design, these methods are often ineffective at optimizing the protection of biological benefits for conservation programs. Our review of the recent literature on protected-area planning identifies some of the reasons why. We analyzed the site-selection process according to three important components: biological benefits, land costs, and likelihood of land-use change. We compared our benefit-loss-cost targeting approach with more conventional strategies that omit or inadequately address either land costs or likelihood of land-use change. Our proposed strategy aims to minimize the expected loss in biological benefit due to future land-use conversion while considering the full or partial costs of land acquisition. The implicit positive correlation between the likelihood of land-use conversion and cost of land protection means high-vulnerability sites with suitable land quality are typically more expensive than low-vulnerability sites with poor land quality. Therefore, land-use change and land costs need to be addressed jointly to improve spatial targeting strategies for land conservation. This approach can be extended effectively to land trusts and other institutions implementing conservation programs.Economía y Cambio en el Uso de Suelo en la Priorización de la Conservación de Tierras Privadas Resumen: Las estrategias basadas en incentivos, como los derechos de conservación y los acuerdos de manejo a corto plazo, son herramientas populares para conservar la biodiversidad en tierras privadas. Las organizaciones conservacionistas gubernamentales y privadas gastan billones de dólares para financiar la conservación. Aunque la mayor parte de la biología de la conservación se centra en el diseño de reservas, estos métodos a menudo no son efectivos para laóptima protección de los beneficios biológicos de los programas de conservación. Nuestra revisión de la literatura reciente sobre planificación deáreas protegidas identifica algunas de las razones de lo anterior. Analizamos los procesos de selección de sitios en función de tres componentes importantes: beneficios biológicos, costo de las tierras y la probabilidad de cambio en el uso de suelo. Comparamos nuestro enfoque en el beneficio-pérdida-costo con métodos más tradicionales que omiten, o abordan inadecuadamente, el costo de las tierras y/o la probabilidad de cambio en el uso de suelo. La estrategia que proponemos trata de minimizar la pérdida esperada del beneficio biológico debido a la conversión del uso de suelo en el futuro al tiempo que considera los costos parciales o totales de la adquisición de tierras. La correlación positiva implícita entre la probabilidad de conversión en el uso de suelo y el costo de la protección de tierras signific...

There is growing recognition that interdisciplinary approaches that account for both ecological and social processes are necessary to successfully address human-wildlife interactions. However, such approaches are hindered by challenges in aligning data types, communicating across disciplines, and applying social science information to conservation actions. To meet these challenges, we propose a conceptual model that adopts a social-ecological systems approach and integrates social and ecological theory to identify the multiple, nested levels of influence on both human and animal behavior. By accounting for a diverse array of influences and feedback mechanisms between social and ecological systems, this model fulfills a need for approaches that treat social and ecological processes with equal depth and facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the drivers of human and animal behaviors that perpetuate human-wildlife interactions. We apply this conceptual model to our work on human-black bear conflicts in Colorado, USA to demonstrate its utility. Using this example, we identify key lessons and offer guidance to researchers and conservation practitioners for applying integrated approaches to other human-wildlife systems.