Priorities for Improving the Scientific Foundation of Conservation Policy in North America

Noss, Reed F.; Fleishman, Erica; DellaSala, Dominick A.; Fitzgerald, John; Gross, Mart R.; Main, Martin B.; Nagle, Fiona; O'Malley, Stacey Lee; Rosales, Jon

doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01282.x

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This optimism extends to the suggestion by TEEB that even incomplete valuation not covering the full range of ecosystem services can provide useful information for decision makers, when compared with the benefits from conversion (see also Balmford et al 2002;Cimon-Morin et al 2013). Noss et al (2009) argue that even partial quantification of ecosystem service benefits is often enough to make the case for conservation, promoting conservation over conversion. A case study by Tallis and Polasky (2009) supports this idea:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Ecosystem services can promote conservation over conversion and protect local biodiversity, but these local win-wins can be a regional disaster

Faith

2017

Australian Zoologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services programs are rapidly increasing and are seen as a pathway for biodiversity conservation based on the attractive idea that quantified values of the ecosystem services of intact land may exceed any gains from conversion to intensive logging or other non-conservation uses. However, I show that, even when all local biodiversity is protected whenever ecosystem services values create greater benefits from conservation compared to conversion, this may lead to poor outcomes for regional biodiversity conservation. I examine this dangerous idea by re-visiting early planning case studies in the Bateman's Bay region of NSW. Integration of ecosystem services into systematic conservation planning typically can ensure good regional biodiversity outcomes. However, as we increase the estimated value of ecosystem services in localities, the region reaches a tipping point where the capacity for good regional biodiversity outcomes collapses. This collapse results because the priority ecosystem services sites tend to represent similar biodiversity, contrasting with the biodiversity complementarity required for efficient conservation planning. Recent proposals for spatial planning that continue to focus only on local win-win outcomes highlight the disregard for planning lessons forged 20 years ago in NSW, and promote a dangerous planning framework where we may never know how much biodiversity we have lost.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Ecosystem services can promote conservation over conversion and protect local biodiversity, but these local win-wins can be a regional disaster

Faith

2017

Australian Zoologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of the common challenges to achieving the goals of SPIs included the identification of relevant research topics Vohland et al 2011;Sarkki et al 2013) as well as a lack of clarity about what these goals and objectives should be (Chapple et al 2011;Kim et al 2016). The most common possible solutions identified for overcoming these common challenges included joint formulation of research that would produce science to inform policy, by scientists and policymakers (Noss et al 2009;Pullin et al 2009;Ferreira et al 2012;Sarkki et al 2013;Young et al 2014;Chaves et al 2015;Nesshöver et al 2016), and developing and adjusting clear goals and priorities of SPIs among different stakeholders at the initial stage of the SPI formulation (Kim et al 2016). In a survey of the scientific community on the need and possible options for a science-policy platform, many respondents considered decision-making (i.e., policymaking) to be complex, iterative, and often selective in the information used.…”

Section: Spi Goalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the Current Understanding of Biodiversity Science–Policy Interfaces

Matsumoto

Takahashi

Mader

et al. 2020

Science for Sustainable Societies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter contributes to improve an understanding of the effectiveness of different biodiversity science-policy interfaces (SPIs), which play a vital role in navigating policies and actions with sound evidence base. The single comprehensive study that was found to exist, assessed SPIs in terms of their 'features'-goals, structure, process, outputs and outcomes. We conducted a renewed systematic review of 96 SPI studies in terms of these features, but separating outcomes, as a proxy for effectiveness, from other features. Outcomes were considered in terms of their perceived credibility, relevance and legitimacy. SPI studies were found to focus mostly on global scale SPIs, followed by national and regional scale SPIs and few at subnational or local scale. The global emphasis is largely explained by the numerous studies that focused on the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Regionally, the vast majority of studies were European, with a severe shortage of studies, and possibly SPIs themselves, in especially the developing world. Communication at the science-policy interface was found to occur mostly between academia and governments, who were also found to initiate most communication. Certain themes emerged across the different features of effective SPIs, including capacity building, trust building, adaptability and continuity. For inclusive, meaningful and continuous participation in biodiversity SPIs, continuous, scientifically sound and adaptable processes are required. Effective, interdisciplinary SPIs and timely and relevant inputs for policymakers are required

show abstract

“…Recently, Noss et al (2009) reported that 28.6% of the vascular plant species in United States are critically imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable species, collectively referred to as "threatened species." According to the most recent report of the IUCN (2010a), among 7,000 plant species examined, 22% are under threat, and 33% could not be evaluated due to a lack of information.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are the conservation areas sufficient to conserve endangered plant species in Korea?

Kang¹,

Shin²,

Whang³

2010

J. Ecol. Environ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the factors relevant to endangerment and the patterns of habitat locations in relation to protected areas is critically important for the conservation of rare species. Although 64 plant species have recently been listed as endangered species in Korea, this information has, until now, not been available, making appropriate management and conservation strategies impossible to devise. Thus, we collected information on potentially threatening factors, as well as information on the locations in which these species were observed. The potentially threatening factors were classified into seven categories. National parks, provincial parks, ecosystem conservation areas, and wetland conservation areas were defined as protected conservation areas. Korean digital elevation model data, along with the maps of all protected areas were combined with the maps of endangered plant species, and analyzed via Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Excluding the category of "small population", endangered plant species in Korea were associated more frequently with extrinsic factors than intrinsic factors. Considering land surface only, all conservation areas in Korea totaled 4.9% of the land, far lower than International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)'s 10% coverage target. At the species level, 69% of the endangered plant species were detected in conservation areas, mostly in national parks. However, this result demonstrates that 31% of endangered species inhabit areas outside the conservation zones. Furthermore, at the habitat level, a large proportion of endangered species were found to reside in unprotected areas, revealing "gaps" in protected land. In the face of rapid environmental changes such as population increases, urbanization, and climate changes, converting these gap areas to endangered species' habitats, or at least including them in habitat networks, will help to perpetuate the existence of endangered species.

show abstract

Priorities for Improving the Scientific Foundation of Conservation Policy in North America

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

Ecosystem services can promote conservation over conversion and protect local biodiversity, but these local win-wins can be a regional disaster

Ecosystem services can promote conservation over conversion and protect local biodiversity, but these local win-wins can be a regional disaster

Mapping the Current Understanding of Biodiversity Science–Policy Interfaces

Are the conservation areas sufficient to conserve endangered plant species in Korea?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About