Using ecosystem services to identify inequitable outcomes in migratory species conservation

Abstract

Biodiversity conservation efforts have been criticized for generating inequitable socio-economic outcomes. These equity challenges are largely analyzed as placebased problems affecting local communities directly impacted by conservation programs. The conservation of migratory species extends this problem geographically since people in one place may benefit while those in another bear the costs of conservation. The spatial subsidies approach offers an effective tool for analyzing such relationships between places connected by migratory species. Designed to quantify ecosystem services provided and received in specific locations across a migratory species' range-and the disparities between them-the spatial subsidies approach highlights three axes of inequity: between indigenous and settler colonial societies, between urban and rural populations, and between the Global North and Global South. Recognizing these relationships is critical to achieving two mutually reinforcing policy goals: avoiding inequitable conservation outcomes in efforts to conserve migratory species, and ensuring effective long-term conservation of migratory species. In demonstrating how the spatial subsidies approach enables the identification and quantification of inequities involving three migratory species (northern pintail ducks, monarch butterflies, andThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Trends and progress in studying butterfly migration

“…Conserving migratory species is challenging because threats occurring at any location along the migratory route and at any stage of the life cycle can impact the entire population (Chester et al, 2022; Martin et al, 2007; Reynolds et al, 2017). This means that a whole series of intact habitats, perhaps in different jurisdictions, needs to be protected (Wilcove & Wikelski, 2008).…”