Megan Barnes

Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly being used globally to conserve marine resources. However, whether many MPAs are being effectively and equitably managed, and how MPA management influences substantive outcomes remain unknown. We developed a global database of management and fish population data (433 and 218 MPAs, respectively) to assess: MPA management processes; the effects of MPAs on fish populations; and relationships between management processes and ecological effects. Here we report that many MPAs failed to meet thresholds for effective and equitable management processes, with widespread shortfalls in staff and financial resources. Although 71% of MPAs positively influenced fish populations, these conservation impacts were highly variable. Staff and budget capacity were the strongest predictors of conservation impact: MPAs with adequate staff capacity had ecological effects 2.9 times greater than MPAs with inadequate capacity. Thus, continued global expansion of MPAs without adequate investment in human and financial capacity is likely to lead to sub-optimal conservation outcomes.

Why do we map threats? Linking threat mapping with actions to make better conservation decisions

Spatial representations of threatening processes – “threat maps” – can identify where biodiversity is at risk, and are often used to identify priority locations for conservation. In doing so, decision makers are prone to making errors, either by assuming that the level of threat dictates spatial priorities for action or by relying primarily on the location of mapped threats to choose possible actions. We show that threat mapping can be a useful tool when incorporated within a transparent and repeatable structured decision-making (SDM) process. SDM ensures transparent and defendable conservation decisions by linking objectives to biodiversity outcomes, and by considering constraints, consequences of actions, and uncertainty. If used to make conservation decisions, threat maps are best developed with an understanding of how species respond to actions that mitigate threats. This approach will ensure that conservation actions are prioritized where they are most cost-effective or have the greatest impact, rather than where threat levels are highest.

Understanding the importance of small patches of habitat for conservation

Conservation activities in fragmented landscapes have largely focused on keeping remaining large patches intact, often disregarding the increasingly important role of smaller patches in the conservation of remaining vegetation. As habitat loss proceeds in fragmented landscapes, there is an increasing need to measure the relative contribution of all patches (large and small) to overall ecosystem persistence, in a way that helps deliver effective conservation strategies aimed at preventing the death of ecosystems by a thousand cuts. Using Australian vegetation communities as a case study, we calculated the historical change in the contribution of patches below different sized thresholds to overall extent. We introduced a new patch assessment metric based on the Gini coefficient that indicates how unequal the distribution of patch sizes is relative to historical distributions. At least 22% of major vegetation communities in Australia have >50% of their remaining extent in patches <1000 ha. Loss does not always match fragmentation status: though some vegetation communities are exposed to the double jeopardy of high loss and high fragmentation, others are far more affected by fragmentation than loss of extent. For some communities, actions focused on protecting large patches are critical but for many others, protecting and managing small patches is crucial for community persistence. Synthesis and applications. Arbitrary patch size thresholds for permitting native vegetation clearing are dangerous for ecosystems whose distribution is now restricted to small patches. We recommend that clearing thresholds be scaled to reflect the fact that some ecosystems are more dominated by small patches than others. With a renewed focus on formally assessing the threat status of ecosystems as well as species, ecosystem accounts such as those demonstrated in this study are the first step to reliably assessing vulnerability. Measures of ecosystem vulnerability that only consider the extent of vegetation loss and not the size of remaining patches are likely to be ineffective for impact assessment, conservation planning and preventing ecosystem loss. Arbitrary patch size thresholds for permitting native vegetation clearing are dangerous for ecosystems whose distribution is now restricted to small patches. We recommend that clearing thresholds be scaled to reflect the fact that some ecosystems are more dominated by small patches than others. With a renewed focus on formally assessing the threat status of ecosystems as well as species, ecosystem accounts such as those demonstrated in this study are the first step to reliably assessing vulnerability. Measures of ecosystem vulnerability that only consider the extent of vegetation loss and not the size of remaining patches are likely to be ineffective for impact assessment, conservation planning and preventing ecosystem loss. Journal of Applied Ecology

Effective conservation requires clear objectives and prioritizing actions, not places or species.

In their recent article, Jenkins et al. (1) identify “priorities for future conservation investment” in the continental United States. To find these priority areas, the authors weighted species from six taxa by their range size and level of protection, summing the weighted maps to derive maps of priority scores. Such scoring systems defy contemporary planning approaches, and have repeatedly been shown to identify priorities that are biologically ineffective and economically inefficient (2).

Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size

Ensuring that protected areas (PAs) maintain the biodiversity within their boundaries is fundamental in achieving global conservation goals. Despite this objective, wildlife abundance changes in PAs are patchily documented and poorly understood. Here, we use linear mixed effect models to explore correlates of population change in 1,902 populations of birds and mammals from 447 PAs globally. On an average, we find PAs are maintaining populations of monitored birds and mammals within their boundaries. Wildlife population trends are more positive in PAs located in countries with higher development scores, and for larger-bodied species. These results suggest that active management can consistently overcome disadvantages of lower reproductive rates and more severe threats experienced by larger species of birds and mammals. The link between wildlife trends and national development shows that the social and economic conditions supporting PAs are critical for the successful maintenance of their wildlife populations.

International funding agencies: potential leaders of impact evaluation in protected areas?

Globally, protected areas are the most commonly used tools to halt biodiversity loss. Yet, some are failing to adequately conserve the biodiversity they contain. There is an urgent need for knowledge on how to make them function more effectively. Impact evaluation methods provide a set of tools that could yield this knowledge. However, rigorous outcome-focused impact evaluation is not yet used as extensively as it could be in protected area management. We examine the role of international protected area funding agencies in facilitating the use of impact evaluation. These agencies are influential stakeholders as they allocate hundreds of millions of dollars annually to support protected areas, creating a unique opportunity to shape how the conservation funds are spent globally. We identify key barriers to the use of impact evaluation, detail how large funders are uniquely placed to overcome many of these, and highlight the potential benefits if impact evaluation is used more extensively.

Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy

Aichi Target 11 has galvanized expansion of the global protected area network, but there is little evidence that this brings real biodiversity gains. We argue that area-based prioritization risks unintended perverse consequences and that the focus of protected area target development should shift from quantity to quality.

Understanding local‐scale drivers of biodiversity outcomes in terrestrial protected areas

Conservation relies heavily on protected areas (PAs) maintaining their key biodiversity features to meet global biodiversity conservation goals. However, PAs have had variable success, with many failing to fully maintain their biodiversity features. The current literature concerning what drives variability in PA performance is rapidly expanding but unclear, sometimes contradictory, and spread across multiple disciplines. A clear understanding of the drivers of successful biodiversity conservation in PAs is necessary to make them fully effective. Here, we conduct a comprehensive assessment of the current state of knowledge concerning the drivers of biological outcomes within PAs, focusing on those that can be addressed at local scales. We evaluate evidence in support of potential drivers to identify those that enable more successful outcomes and those that impede success and provide a synthetic review. Interactions are discussed where they are known, and we highlight gaps in understanding. We find that elements of PA design, management, and local and national governance challenges, species and system ecology, and sociopolitical context can all influence outcomes. Adjusting PA management to focus on actions and policies that influence the key drivers identified here could improve global biodiversity outcomes.

A novel framework for analyzing conservation impacts: evaluation, theory, and marine protected areas.

Environmental conservation initiatives, including marine protected areas (MPAs), have proliferated in recent decades. Designed to conserve marine biodiversity, many MPAs also seek to foster sustainable development. As is the case for many other environmental policies and programs, the impacts of MPAs are poorly understood. Social–ecological systems, impact evaluation, and common‐pool resource governance are three complementary scientific frameworks for documenting and explaining the ecological and social impacts of conservation interventions. We review key components of these three frameworks and their implications for the study of conservation policy, program, and project outcomes. Using MPAs as an illustrative example, we then draw upon these three frameworks to describe an integrated approach for rigorous empirical documentation and causal explanation of conservation impacts. This integrated three‐framework approach for impact evaluation of governance in social–ecological systems (3FIGS) accounts for alternative explanations, builds upon and advances social theory, and provides novel policy insights in ways that no single approach affords. Despite the inherent complexity of social–ecological systems and the difficulty of causal inference, the 3FIGS approach can dramatically advance our understanding of, and the evidentiary basis for, effective MPAs and other conservation initiatives.

Terrestrial protected areas of Australia

Australia has a long history of establishing protected areas and they are now the cornerstones of its national and regional conservation strategies, covering over 13% of the country. There are large regional variations in levels of coverage, with most large protected areas placed far from dense human populations and away from productive agricultural land. Most of the recent growth in coverage has been driven by Indigenous Protected Areas and private protected areas, a trend that is likely to increase in the future. It is difficult to say how effective protected areas are in conserving biodiversity due to shortcomings in monitoring and evaluation, but the data that exist show that biodiversity outcomes are variable and that management effectiveness could be substantially improved. Threats to the protected area system are currently increasing with strong government pressure to allow extractive industries, such as mining, logging and grazing, and damaging recreational uses such as hunting to occur on land that is currently protected. If this trend continues, the future holds a great deal of uncertainty for Australias protected areas.