The Experts below are selected from a list of 101289 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Hugh P. Possingham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a large scale application of project prioritization to Threatened Species investment by a government agency
PLOS ONE, 2018Co-Authors: James Brazill-boast, Moira Williams, Beth Rickwood, Thalie Partridge, Grant Bywater, Bronwyn J. Cumbo, Ian Shannon, William J. M. Probert, Julie Ravallion, Hugh P. PossinghamAbstract:In a global environment of increasing Species extinctions and decreasing availability of funds with which to combat the causes of biodiversity loss, maximising the efficiency of conservation efforts is crucial. The only way to ensure maximum return on conservation investment is to incorporate the cost, benefit and likelihood of success of conservation actions into decision-making in a systematic and objective way. Here we report on the application of a Project Prioritization Protocol (PPP), first implemented by the New Zealand Government, to target and prioritize investment in Threatened Species in New South Wales, Australia, under the state’s new Saving our Species program. Detailed management prescriptions for 368 Threatened Species were developed via an expert elicitation process, and were then prioritized using quantitative data on benefit, likelihood of success and implementation cost, and a simple cost-efficiency equation. We discuss the outcomes that have been realized even in the early stages of the program; including the efficient development of planning resources made available to all potential Threatened Species investors and the demonstration of a transparent and objective approach to Threatened Species management that will significantly increase the probability of meeting an objective to secure the greatest number of Threatened Species from extinction.
-
Mapping Indigenous land management for Threatened Species conservation: An Australian case-study.
PloS one, 2017Co-Authors: Anna R. Renwick, Hugh P. Possingham, Stephen T. Garnett, Catherine J. Robinson, Ian Leiper, Josie CarwardineAbstract:Much biodiversity lives on lands to which Indigenous people retain strong legal and management rights. However this is rarely quantified. Here we provide the first quantitative overview of the importance of Indigenous land for a critical and vulnerable part of biodiversity, Threatened Species, using the continent of Australia as a case study. We find that three quarters of Australia's 272 terrestrial or freshwater vertebrate Species listed as Threatened under national legislation have projected ranges that overlap Indigenous lands. On average this overlap represents 45% of the range of each Threatened Species while Indigenous land is 52% of the country. Hotspots where multiple Threatened Species ranges overlap occur predominantly in coastal Northern Australia. Our analysis quantifies the vast potential of Indigenous land in Australia for contributing to national level conservation goals, and identifies the main land management arrangements available to Indigenous people which may enable them to deliver those goals should they choose to do so.
-
Balancing Ecosystem and Threatened Species Representation in Protected Areas and Implications for Nations Achieving Global Conservation Goals
Conservation Letters, 2016Co-Authors: Tal Polak, Hugh P. Possingham, Richard A. Fuller, James E. M. Watson, Joseph R. Bennett, Josie CarwardineAbstract:Balancing the representation of ecosystems and Threatened Species habitats is critical for optimizing protected area (PA) networks and achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity strategic goals. Here we provide a systematic approach for maximizing representativeness of ecosystems and Threatened Species within a constrained total PA network size, using Australia as a case study. We show that protection of 24.4% of Australia is needed to achieve 17% representation for each ecosystem and all Threatened Species habitat targets. When the size of the PA estate is constrained, trade-off curves between ecosystem and Species targets are J-shaped, indicating potential “win-win” configurations. For example, optimally increasing the current PA network to 17% could protect 9% of each ecosystem and ensure that all Threatened Species achieve at least 78% of their targets. This method of integrating Species and ecosystem targets in PA planning allows nations to maximize different PA goals under financial and geographical constraints.
-
Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for Threatened Species: An Australian case study
Oryx, 2012Co-Authors: Jessica C. Walsh, Liana N. Joseph, James E. M. Watson, Madeleine C. Bottrill, Hugh P. PossinghamAbstract:Many countries rely on formal legislation to protect and plan for the recovery of Threatened Species. Even though the listing procedures in Threatened Species legislation are designed to be consistent for all Species there is usually a bias in implementing the laws towards charismatic fauna and flora, which leads to uneven allocation of conservation efforts. However, the extent of bias in national Threatened Species lists is often unknown. Australia is a good example: the list of Threatened Species under the Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act has not been reviewed since 2000, when it was first introduced. We assessed how well this Act represents Threatened Species across taxonomic groups and threat status, and whether biases exist in the types of Species with recovery plans. We found that birds, amphibians and mammals have high levels of Threatened Species (12-24%) but < 6% of all reptiles and plants and < 0.01% of invertebrates and fish are considered Threatened. Similar taxonomic biases are present in the types of Species with recovery plans. Although there have been recent improvements in the representation of Threatened Species with recovery plans across taxonomic groups, there are still major gaps between the predicted and listed numbers of Threatened Species. Because of biases in the listing and recovery planning processes many Threatened Species may receive little attention regardless of their potential for recovery: a lost opportunity to achieve the greatest conservation impact possible. The Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act in Australia needs reform to rectify these biases.
-
What works for Threatened Species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia
Biodiversity and Conservation, 2011Co-Authors: Martin I. Taylor, Richard A. Fuller, James E. M. Watson, Paul Sattler, Megan C. Evans, Hugh P. PossinghamAbstract:Despite the growing numbers of Threatened Species and high levels of spending on their recovery worldwide, there is surprisingly little evidence about which conservation approaches are effective in arresting or reversing Threatened Species declines. Using two government data sets, we examined associations between population trends for 841 nationally-Threatened terrestrial Species in Australia, and four measures of conservation effort: (a) how much their distribution overlaps with strictly protected areas (IUCN I–IV), (b) and other protected areas (IUCN V–VI), (c) the number of recovery activities directed at the Species, and (d) numbers of natural resource conservation activities applied in areas where populations of the Threatened Species occur. We found that all populations of 606 (72%) Species were in decline. Species with greater distributional overlap with strictly protected areas had proportionately more populations that were increasing or stable. This effect was robust to geographic range size, data quality differences and extent of protection. Measures other than strictly protected areas showed no positive associations with stable or increasing trends. Indeed, Species from regions with more natural resource conservation activities were found to be more likely to be declining, consistent with differential targeting of such generalised conservation activities to highly disturbed landscapes. Major differences in trends were also found among the different jurisdictions in which Species predominantly occurred, which may be related to different legislative protections against habitat destruction. Although we were not able to test causation, this research corroborates other evidence that protected areas contribute to the stabilization or recovery of Threatened Species, and provides little empirical support for other conservation approaches.
Richard A. Fuller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Estimating the spatial coverage of citizen science for monitoring Threatened Species
Global Ecology and Conservation, 2020Co-Authors: Thomas J. Lloyd, Megan Barnes, Jessica L. Oliver, Ayesha I. T. Tulloch, Richard A. Fuller, Rochelle StevenAbstract:Monitoring Threatened Species is vital for effective conservation, and citizen science can fill information gaps where professionally derived monitoring data are unavailable or guide where further survey efforts may be warranted. Yet the geographic and taxonomic coverage of citizen science projects is poorly understood. Using a snapshot in time approach, we reviewed citizen science monitoring and survey projects in Australia in 2017 and identified 133 projects contributing to Threatened Species monitoring or conservation action in both terrestrial and marine environments. Most projects (61%) are relevant for 10 or fewer Threatened Species. Relevant citizen science projects tend to be concentrated along the more densely populated eastern and south-western coasts, while relatively few projects occur in northern regions of Australia. Our findings show a high convergence between citizen science project densities and Threatened Species richness in many terrestrial areas, although they also highlight areas with potential to expand citizen science, and indicate areas where professional monitoring is unlikely to be augmented by citizen science.
-
Aligning citizen science with best practice: Threatened Species conservation in Australia
Conservation Science and Practice, 2019Co-Authors: Rochelle Steven, Megan Barnes, Stephen T. Garnett, Georgia E. Garrard, James O'connor, Jessica L. Oliver, Catherine J. Robinson, Ayesha I. T. Tulloch, Richard A. FullerAbstract:Well‐designed citizen science projects can improve the capacity of the scientific community to detect and understand declines in Threatened Species, and with the emergence of frameworks to guide good design, there is an opportunity to test whether projects are aligned with best practice. We assessed the current landscape of citizen science projects for Threatened Species conservation via a content analysis of the online communique of citizen science projects across Australia. Only 2% of projects stated clear research questions, although approximately 86% had implied project objectives aimed at Threatened Species conservation. Most projects were focused on field‐based monitoring activities with half using structured ecological survey methods. Most reviewed projects (65%) shared data with open access biodiversity databases and the vast majority use at least one social media platform to communicate with potential and existing participants (up to 81%). Approximately 50% present citizen‐sourced data summaries or publications on their websites. Our study shows there is a very strong foundation for public participation in Threatened Species conservation activities in Australia, yet there is scope to further integrate the principles of citizen science best practice. Improved integration of these principles will likely yield better outcomes for Threatened Species as well as for the citizen scientists themselves.
-
Balancing Ecosystem and Threatened Species Representation in Protected Areas and Implications for Nations Achieving Global Conservation Goals
Conservation Letters, 2016Co-Authors: Tal Polak, Hugh P. Possingham, Richard A. Fuller, James E. M. Watson, Joseph R. Bennett, Josie CarwardineAbstract:Balancing the representation of ecosystems and Threatened Species habitats is critical for optimizing protected area (PA) networks and achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity strategic goals. Here we provide a systematic approach for maximizing representativeness of ecosystems and Threatened Species within a constrained total PA network size, using Australia as a case study. We show that protection of 24.4% of Australia is needed to achieve 17% representation for each ecosystem and all Threatened Species habitat targets. When the size of the PA estate is constrained, trade-off curves between ecosystem and Species targets are J-shaped, indicating potential “win-win” configurations. For example, optimally increasing the current PA network to 17% could protect 9% of each ecosystem and ensure that all Threatened Species achieve at least 78% of their targets. This method of integrating Species and ecosystem targets in PA planning allows nations to maximize different PA goals under financial and geographical constraints.
-
Cities are hotspots for Threatened Species
Global Ecology and Biogeography, 2015Co-Authors: Christopher D. Ives, Georgia E. Garrard, Richard A. Fuller, Pia E. Lentini, Caragh G. Threlfall, Karen Ikin, Danielle F. Shanahan, Sarah A. Bekessy, Laura Mumaw, Laura RaynerAbstract:Aim Although urbanization impacts many Species, there is little information on the patterns of occurrences of Threatened Species in urban relative to non-urban areas. By assessing the extent of the distribution of Threatened Species across all Australian cities, we aim to investigate the currently under-utilized opportunity that cities present for national biodiversity conservation. Location Australian mainland, Tasmania and offshore islands. Methods Distributions of Australia's 1643 legally protected terrestrial Species (hereafter ‘Threatened Species’) were compiled. We assessed the extent to which they overlapped with 99 cities (of more than 10,000 people), with all non-urban areas, and with simulated ‘dummy’ cities which covered the same area and bioregion as the true cities but were non-urban. We analysed differences between animals and plants, and examined variability within these groups using Species accumulation modelling. Threatened Species richness of true versus dummy cities was analysed using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Results Australian cities support substantially more nationally Threatened animal and plant Species than all other non-urban areas on a unit-area basis. Thirty per cent of Threatened Species were found to occur in cities. Distribution patterns differed between plants and animals: individual Threatened plant Species were generally found in fewer cities than Threatened animal Species, yet plants were more likely to have a greater proportion of their distribution in urban areas than animals. Individual cities tended to contain unique suites of Threatened Species, especially Threatened plants. The analysis of true versus dummy cities demonstrated that, even after accounting for factors such as net primary productivity and distance to the coast, cities still consistently supported a greater number of Threatened Species. Main conclusions This research highlights that Australian cities are important for the conservation of Threatened Species, and that the Species assemblages of individual cities are relatively distinct. National conservation policy should recognize that cities play an integral role when planning for and managing Threatened Species.
-
Mapping the drivers of climate change vulnerability for Australia's Threatened Species.
PloS one, 2015Co-Authors: Jasmine Lee, Martin I. Taylor, Ramona Maggini, Richard A. FullerAbstract:Effective conservation management for climate adaptation rests on understanding the factors driving Species’ vulnerability in a spatially explicit manner so as to direct on-ground action. However, there have been only few attempts to map the spatial distribution of the factors driving vulnerability to climate change. Here we conduct a Species-level assessment of climate change vulnerability for a sample of Australia’s Threatened Species and map the distribution of Species affected by each factor driving climate change vulnerability across the continent. Almost half of the Threatened Species assessed were considered vulnerable to the impacts of climate change: amphibians being the most vulnerable group, followed by plants, reptiles, mammals and birds. Species with more restricted distributions were more likely to show high climate change vulnerability than widespread Species. The main factors driving climate change vulnerability were low genetic variation, dependence on a particular disturbance regime and reliance on a particular moisture regime or habitat. The geographic distribution of the Species impacted by each driver varies markedly across the continent, for example Species impacted by low genetic variation are prevalent across the human-dominated south-east of the country, while reliance on particular moisture regimes is prevalent across northern Australia. Our results show that actions to address climate adaptation will need to be spatially appropriate, and that in some regions a complex suite of factors driving climate change vulnerability will need to be addressed. Taxonomic and geographic variation in the factors driving climate change vulnerability highlights an urgent need for a spatial prioritisation of climate adaptation actions for Threatened Species.
James E. M. Watson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Balancing Ecosystem and Threatened Species Representation in Protected Areas and Implications for Nations Achieving Global Conservation Goals
Conservation Letters, 2016Co-Authors: Tal Polak, Hugh P. Possingham, Richard A. Fuller, James E. M. Watson, Joseph R. Bennett, Josie CarwardineAbstract:Balancing the representation of ecosystems and Threatened Species habitats is critical for optimizing protected area (PA) networks and achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity strategic goals. Here we provide a systematic approach for maximizing representativeness of ecosystems and Threatened Species within a constrained total PA network size, using Australia as a case study. We show that protection of 24.4% of Australia is needed to achieve 17% representation for each ecosystem and all Threatened Species habitat targets. When the size of the PA estate is constrained, trade-off curves between ecosystem and Species targets are J-shaped, indicating potential “win-win” configurations. For example, optimally increasing the current PA network to 17% could protect 9% of each ecosystem and ensure that all Threatened Species achieve at least 78% of their targets. This method of integrating Species and ecosystem targets in PA planning allows nations to maximize different PA goals under financial and geographical constraints.
-
Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for Threatened Species: An Australian case study
Oryx, 2012Co-Authors: Jessica C. Walsh, Liana N. Joseph, James E. M. Watson, Madeleine C. Bottrill, Hugh P. PossinghamAbstract:Many countries rely on formal legislation to protect and plan for the recovery of Threatened Species. Even though the listing procedures in Threatened Species legislation are designed to be consistent for all Species there is usually a bias in implementing the laws towards charismatic fauna and flora, which leads to uneven allocation of conservation efforts. However, the extent of bias in national Threatened Species lists is often unknown. Australia is a good example: the list of Threatened Species under the Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act has not been reviewed since 2000, when it was first introduced. We assessed how well this Act represents Threatened Species across taxonomic groups and threat status, and whether biases exist in the types of Species with recovery plans. We found that birds, amphibians and mammals have high levels of Threatened Species (12-24%) but < 6% of all reptiles and plants and < 0.01% of invertebrates and fish are considered Threatened. Similar taxonomic biases are present in the types of Species with recovery plans. Although there have been recent improvements in the representation of Threatened Species with recovery plans across taxonomic groups, there are still major gaps between the predicted and listed numbers of Threatened Species. Because of biases in the listing and recovery planning processes many Threatened Species may receive little attention regardless of their potential for recovery: a lost opportunity to achieve the greatest conservation impact possible. The Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act in Australia needs reform to rectify these biases.
-
Investing in Threatened Species conservation: does corruption outweigh purchasing power?
PloS one, 2011Co-Authors: Stephen T. Garnett, James E. M. Watson, Liana N. Joseph, Kerstin K. ZanderAbstract:In many sectors, freedom in capital flow has allowed optimization of investment returns through choosing sites that provide the best value for money. These returns, however, can be compromised in countries where corruption is prevalent. We assessed where the best value for money might be obtained for investment in Threatened Species that occur at a single site, when taking into account corruption. We found that the influence of corruption on potential investment decisions was outweighed by the likely value for money in terms of pricing parity. Nevertheless global conservation is likely to get best returns in terms of Threatened Species security by investing in "honest" countries than in corrupt ones, particularly those with a high cost of living.
-
What works for Threatened Species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia
Biodiversity and Conservation, 2011Co-Authors: Martin I. Taylor, Richard A. Fuller, James E. M. Watson, Paul Sattler, Megan C. Evans, Hugh P. PossinghamAbstract:Despite the growing numbers of Threatened Species and high levels of spending on their recovery worldwide, there is surprisingly little evidence about which conservation approaches are effective in arresting or reversing Threatened Species declines. Using two government data sets, we examined associations between population trends for 841 nationally-Threatened terrestrial Species in Australia, and four measures of conservation effort: (a) how much their distribution overlaps with strictly protected areas (IUCN I–IV), (b) and other protected areas (IUCN V–VI), (c) the number of recovery activities directed at the Species, and (d) numbers of natural resource conservation activities applied in areas where populations of the Threatened Species occur. We found that all populations of 606 (72%) Species were in decline. Species with greater distributional overlap with strictly protected areas had proportionately more populations that were increasing or stable. This effect was robust to geographic range size, data quality differences and extent of protection. Measures other than strictly protected areas showed no positive associations with stable or increasing trends. Indeed, Species from regions with more natural resource conservation activities were found to be more likely to be declining, consistent with differential targeting of such generalised conservation activities to highly disturbed landscapes. Major differences in trends were also found among the different jurisdictions in which Species predominantly occurred, which may be related to different legislative protections against habitat destruction. Although we were not able to test causation, this research corroborates other evidence that protected areas contribute to the stabilization or recovery of Threatened Species, and provides little empirical support for other conservation approaches.
-
Does recovery planning improve the status of Threatened Species
Biological Conservation, 2011Co-Authors: Madeleine C. Bottrill, James E. M. Watson, Liana N. Joseph, Jessica C. Walsh, Alejandro Ortega-argueta, Hugh P. PossinghamAbstract:Abstract Recovery planning is a key component of government-funded initiatives to address declining populations of Threatened Species. To date, there has been limited retrospective evaluation on the impact of recovery plans, despite an increasing interest in evaluating recovery planning motivated by demands for greater accountability and a shift away from single-Species focused strategies to multi-Species, landscape and ecosystem-based plans. In the context of Threatened Species management in Australia, we aimed to investigate whether listed Species with recovery plans are more likely to have improved their status compared to listed Species without recovery plans. Since 1999, over 600 draft and approved recovery plans have been developed for more than 850 of 1663 Species currently listed Threatened Species in Australia. We applied a novel econometric matching analysis to reduce biases associated with the non-random selection of Species for listing and recovery planning. We found that the presence or absence of a recovery plan did not have a statistically significant effect on whether a Species’ status was improving, stable or declining. The result suggests that recovery plans may not be useful in the short term and uncertainty persists about whether or not they make a long term contribution to Species recovery. One major contributing factor is the lack of basic accounting of recovery planning efforts. This limits our ability to refute or confirm the impact of recovery planning on Species status, and has the potential to reduce public confidence in government expenditures. Better systems for reporting and evaluation are therefore required to promote transparency, improve existing knowledge and facilitate efficient investments in future management actions.
Liana N. Joseph - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for Threatened Species: An Australian case study
Oryx, 2012Co-Authors: Jessica C. Walsh, Liana N. Joseph, James E. M. Watson, Madeleine C. Bottrill, Hugh P. PossinghamAbstract:Many countries rely on formal legislation to protect and plan for the recovery of Threatened Species. Even though the listing procedures in Threatened Species legislation are designed to be consistent for all Species there is usually a bias in implementing the laws towards charismatic fauna and flora, which leads to uneven allocation of conservation efforts. However, the extent of bias in national Threatened Species lists is often unknown. Australia is a good example: the list of Threatened Species under the Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act has not been reviewed since 2000, when it was first introduced. We assessed how well this Act represents Threatened Species across taxonomic groups and threat status, and whether biases exist in the types of Species with recovery plans. We found that birds, amphibians and mammals have high levels of Threatened Species (12-24%) but < 6% of all reptiles and plants and < 0.01% of invertebrates and fish are considered Threatened. Similar taxonomic biases are present in the types of Species with recovery plans. Although there have been recent improvements in the representation of Threatened Species with recovery plans across taxonomic groups, there are still major gaps between the predicted and listed numbers of Threatened Species. Because of biases in the listing and recovery planning processes many Threatened Species may receive little attention regardless of their potential for recovery: a lost opportunity to achieve the greatest conservation impact possible. The Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act in Australia needs reform to rectify these biases.
-
Investing in Threatened Species conservation: does corruption outweigh purchasing power?
PloS one, 2011Co-Authors: Stephen T. Garnett, James E. M. Watson, Liana N. Joseph, Kerstin K. ZanderAbstract:In many sectors, freedom in capital flow has allowed optimization of investment returns through choosing sites that provide the best value for money. These returns, however, can be compromised in countries where corruption is prevalent. We assessed where the best value for money might be obtained for investment in Threatened Species that occur at a single site, when taking into account corruption. We found that the influence of corruption on potential investment decisions was outweighed by the likely value for money in terms of pricing parity. Nevertheless global conservation is likely to get best returns in terms of Threatened Species security by investing in "honest" countries than in corrupt ones, particularly those with a high cost of living.
-
Does recovery planning improve the status of Threatened Species
Biological Conservation, 2011Co-Authors: Madeleine C. Bottrill, James E. M. Watson, Liana N. Joseph, Jessica C. Walsh, Alejandro Ortega-argueta, Hugh P. PossinghamAbstract:Abstract Recovery planning is a key component of government-funded initiatives to address declining populations of Threatened Species. To date, there has been limited retrospective evaluation on the impact of recovery plans, despite an increasing interest in evaluating recovery planning motivated by demands for greater accountability and a shift away from single-Species focused strategies to multi-Species, landscape and ecosystem-based plans. In the context of Threatened Species management in Australia, we aimed to investigate whether listed Species with recovery plans are more likely to have improved their status compared to listed Species without recovery plans. Since 1999, over 600 draft and approved recovery plans have been developed for more than 850 of 1663 Species currently listed Threatened Species in Australia. We applied a novel econometric matching analysis to reduce biases associated with the non-random selection of Species for listing and recovery planning. We found that the presence or absence of a recovery plan did not have a statistically significant effect on whether a Species’ status was improving, stable or declining. The result suggests that recovery plans may not be useful in the short term and uncertainty persists about whether or not they make a long term contribution to Species recovery. One major contributing factor is the lack of basic accounting of recovery planning efforts. This limits our ability to refute or confirm the impact of recovery planning on Species status, and has the potential to reduce public confidence in government expenditures. Better systems for reporting and evaluation are therefore required to promote transparency, improve existing knowledge and facilitate efficient investments in future management actions.
-
The Capacity of Australia's Protected‐Area System to Represent Threatened Species
Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2010Co-Authors: James E. M. Watson, Richard A. Fuller, Martin I. Taylor, Megan C. Evans, Josie Carwardine, Liana N. Joseph, Daniel B. Segan, Roderick J. Fensham, Hugh P. PossinghamAbstract:The acquisition or designation of new protected areas is usually based on criteria for representation of different ecosystems or land-cover classes, and it is unclear how well-Threatened Species are conserved within protected-area networks. Here, we assessed how Australia's terrestrial protected-area system (89 million ha, 11.6% of the continent) overlaps with the geographic distributions of Threatened Species and compared this overlap against a model that randomly placed protected areas across the continent and a spatially efficient model that placed protected areas across the continent to maximize Threatened Species' representation within the protected-area estate. We defined the minimum area needed to conserve each Species on the basis of the Species' range size. We found that although the current configuration of protected areas met targets for representation of a given percentage of Species' ranges better than a random selection of areas, 166 (12.6%) Threatened Species occurred entirely outside protected areas and target levels of protection were met for only 259 (19.6%) Species. Critically endangered Species were among those with the least protection; 12 (21.1%) Species occurred entirely outside protected areas. Reptiles and plants were the most poorly represented taxonomic groups, and amphibians the best represented. Spatial prioritization analyses revealed that an efficient protected-area system of the same size as the current protected-area system (11.6% of the area of Australia) could meet representation targets for 1272 (93.3%) Threatened Species. Moreover, the results of these prioritization analyses showed that by protecting 17.8% of Australia, all Threatened Species could reach target levels of representation, assuming all current protected areas are retained. Although this amount of area theoretically could be protected, existing land uses and the finite resources available for conservation mean land acquisition may not be possible or even effective for the recovery of Threatened Species. The optimal use of resources must balance acquisition of new protected areas, where processes that threaten native Species are mitigated by the change in ownership or on-ground management jurisdiction, and management of Threatened Species inside and outside the existing protected-area system.
-
the capacity of australia s protected area system to represent Threatened Species
Conservation Biology, 2010Co-Authors: James E. M. Watson, Richard A. Fuller, Martin I. Taylor, Megan C. Evans, Josie Carwardine, Liana N. Joseph, Daniel B. Segan, Roderick J. FenshamAbstract:The acquisition or designation of new protected areas is usually based on criteria for representation of different ecosystems or land-cover classes, and it is unclear how well-Threatened Species are conserved within protected-area networks. Here, we assessed how Australia's terrestrial protected-area system (89 million ha, 11.6% of the continent) overlaps with the geographic distributions of Threatened Species and compared this overlap against a model that randomly placed protected areas across the continent and a spatially efficient model that placed protected areas across the continent to maximize Threatened Species' representation within the protected-area estate. We defined the minimum area needed to conserve each Species on the basis of the Species' range size. We found that although the current configuration of protected areas met targets for representation of a given percentage of Species' ranges better than a random selection of areas, 166 (12.6%) Threatened Species occurred entirely outside protected areas and target levels of protection were met for only 259 (19.6%) Species. Critically endangered Species were among those with the least protection; 12 (21.1%) Species occurred entirely outside protected areas. Reptiles and plants were the most poorly represented taxonomic groups, and amphibians the best represented. Spatial prioritization analyses revealed that an efficient protected-area system of the same size as the current protected-area system (11.6% of the area of Australia) could meet representation targets for 1272 (93.3%) Threatened Species. Moreover, the results of these prioritization analyses showed that by protecting 17.8% of Australia, all Threatened Species could reach target levels of representation, assuming all current protected areas are retained. Although this amount of area theoretically could be protected, existing land uses and the finite resources available for conservation mean land acquisition may not be possible or even effective for the recovery of Threatened Species. The optimal use of resources must balance acquisition of new protected areas, where processes that threaten native Species are mitigated by the change in ownership or on-ground management jurisdiction, and management of Threatened Species inside and outside the existing protected-area system.
Josie Carwardine - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mapping Indigenous land management for Threatened Species conservation: An Australian case-study.
PloS one, 2017Co-Authors: Anna R. Renwick, Hugh P. Possingham, Stephen T. Garnett, Catherine J. Robinson, Ian Leiper, Josie CarwardineAbstract:Much biodiversity lives on lands to which Indigenous people retain strong legal and management rights. However this is rarely quantified. Here we provide the first quantitative overview of the importance of Indigenous land for a critical and vulnerable part of biodiversity, Threatened Species, using the continent of Australia as a case study. We find that three quarters of Australia's 272 terrestrial or freshwater vertebrate Species listed as Threatened under national legislation have projected ranges that overlap Indigenous lands. On average this overlap represents 45% of the range of each Threatened Species while Indigenous land is 52% of the country. Hotspots where multiple Threatened Species ranges overlap occur predominantly in coastal Northern Australia. Our analysis quantifies the vast potential of Indigenous land in Australia for contributing to national level conservation goals, and identifies the main land management arrangements available to Indigenous people which may enable them to deliver those goals should they choose to do so.
-
Balancing Ecosystem and Threatened Species Representation in Protected Areas and Implications for Nations Achieving Global Conservation Goals
Conservation Letters, 2016Co-Authors: Tal Polak, Hugh P. Possingham, Richard A. Fuller, James E. M. Watson, Joseph R. Bennett, Josie CarwardineAbstract:Balancing the representation of ecosystems and Threatened Species habitats is critical for optimizing protected area (PA) networks and achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity strategic goals. Here we provide a systematic approach for maximizing representativeness of ecosystems and Threatened Species within a constrained total PA network size, using Australia as a case study. We show that protection of 24.4% of Australia is needed to achieve 17% representation for each ecosystem and all Threatened Species habitat targets. When the size of the PA estate is constrained, trade-off curves between ecosystem and Species targets are J-shaped, indicating potential “win-win” configurations. For example, optimally increasing the current PA network to 17% could protect 9% of each ecosystem and ensure that all Threatened Species achieve at least 78% of their targets. This method of integrating Species and ecosystem targets in PA planning allows nations to maximize different PA goals under financial and geographical constraints.
-
The Capacity of Australia's Protected‐Area System to Represent Threatened Species
Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2010Co-Authors: James E. M. Watson, Richard A. Fuller, Martin I. Taylor, Megan C. Evans, Josie Carwardine, Liana N. Joseph, Daniel B. Segan, Roderick J. Fensham, Hugh P. PossinghamAbstract:The acquisition or designation of new protected areas is usually based on criteria for representation of different ecosystems or land-cover classes, and it is unclear how well-Threatened Species are conserved within protected-area networks. Here, we assessed how Australia's terrestrial protected-area system (89 million ha, 11.6% of the continent) overlaps with the geographic distributions of Threatened Species and compared this overlap against a model that randomly placed protected areas across the continent and a spatially efficient model that placed protected areas across the continent to maximize Threatened Species' representation within the protected-area estate. We defined the minimum area needed to conserve each Species on the basis of the Species' range size. We found that although the current configuration of protected areas met targets for representation of a given percentage of Species' ranges better than a random selection of areas, 166 (12.6%) Threatened Species occurred entirely outside protected areas and target levels of protection were met for only 259 (19.6%) Species. Critically endangered Species were among those with the least protection; 12 (21.1%) Species occurred entirely outside protected areas. Reptiles and plants were the most poorly represented taxonomic groups, and amphibians the best represented. Spatial prioritization analyses revealed that an efficient protected-area system of the same size as the current protected-area system (11.6% of the area of Australia) could meet representation targets for 1272 (93.3%) Threatened Species. Moreover, the results of these prioritization analyses showed that by protecting 17.8% of Australia, all Threatened Species could reach target levels of representation, assuming all current protected areas are retained. Although this amount of area theoretically could be protected, existing land uses and the finite resources available for conservation mean land acquisition may not be possible or even effective for the recovery of Threatened Species. The optimal use of resources must balance acquisition of new protected areas, where processes that threaten native Species are mitigated by the change in ownership or on-ground management jurisdiction, and management of Threatened Species inside and outside the existing protected-area system.
-
the capacity of australia s protected area system to represent Threatened Species
Conservation Biology, 2010Co-Authors: James E. M. Watson, Richard A. Fuller, Martin I. Taylor, Megan C. Evans, Josie Carwardine, Liana N. Joseph, Daniel B. Segan, Roderick J. FenshamAbstract:The acquisition or designation of new protected areas is usually based on criteria for representation of different ecosystems or land-cover classes, and it is unclear how well-Threatened Species are conserved within protected-area networks. Here, we assessed how Australia's terrestrial protected-area system (89 million ha, 11.6% of the continent) overlaps with the geographic distributions of Threatened Species and compared this overlap against a model that randomly placed protected areas across the continent and a spatially efficient model that placed protected areas across the continent to maximize Threatened Species' representation within the protected-area estate. We defined the minimum area needed to conserve each Species on the basis of the Species' range size. We found that although the current configuration of protected areas met targets for representation of a given percentage of Species' ranges better than a random selection of areas, 166 (12.6%) Threatened Species occurred entirely outside protected areas and target levels of protection were met for only 259 (19.6%) Species. Critically endangered Species were among those with the least protection; 12 (21.1%) Species occurred entirely outside protected areas. Reptiles and plants were the most poorly represented taxonomic groups, and amphibians the best represented. Spatial prioritization analyses revealed that an efficient protected-area system of the same size as the current protected-area system (11.6% of the area of Australia) could meet representation targets for 1272 (93.3%) Threatened Species. Moreover, the results of these prioritization analyses showed that by protecting 17.8% of Australia, all Threatened Species could reach target levels of representation, assuming all current protected areas are retained. Although this amount of area theoretically could be protected, existing land uses and the finite resources available for conservation mean land acquisition may not be possible or even effective for the recovery of Threatened Species. The optimal use of resources must balance acquisition of new protected areas, where processes that threaten native Species are mitigated by the change in ownership or on-ground management jurisdiction, and management of Threatened Species inside and outside the existing protected-area system.
