Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Will R. Turner is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Will R. Turner.


BioScience | 2007

Global Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Will R. Turner; Katrina Brandon; Thomas M. Brooks; Robert Costanza; Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca; Rosimeiry Portela

ABSTRACT Habitat destruction has driven much of the current biodiversity extinction crisis, and it compromises the essential benefits, or ecosystem services, that humans derive from functioning ecosystems. Securing both species and ecosystem services might be accomplished with common solutions. Yet it is unknown whether these two major conservation objectives coincide broadly enough worldwide to enable global strategies for both goals to gain synergy. In this article, we assess the concordance between these two objectives, explore how the concordance varies across different regions, and examine the global potential for safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services simultaneously. We find that published global priority maps for biodiversity conservation harbor a disproportionate share of estimated terrestrial ecosystem service value (ESV). Overlap of biodiversity priorities and ESV varies among regions, and in areas that have high biodiversity priority but low ESV, specialized conservation approaches are necessary. Overall, however, our findings suggest opportunities for safeguarding both biodiversity and ecosystem services. Sensitivity analyses indicate that results are robust to known limitations of available ESV data. Capitalizing on these opportunities will require the identification of synergies at fine scales, and the development of economic and policy tools to exploit them.


Archive | 2011

Global Biodiversity Conservation: The Critical Role of Hotspots

Russell A. Mittermeier; Will R. Turner; Frank W. Larsen; Thomas M. Brooks; Claude Gascon

Global changes, from habitat loss and invasive species to anthropogenic climate change, have initiated the sixth great mass extinction event in Earth’s history. As species become threatened and vanish, so too do the broader ecosystems and myriad benefits to human well-being that depend upon biodiversity. Bringing an end to global biodiversity loss requires that limited available resources be guided to those regions that need it most. The biodiversity hotspots do this based on the conservation planning principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability. Here, we review the development of the hotspots over the past two decades and present an analysis of their biodiversity, updated to the current set of 35 regions. We then discuss past and future efforts needed to conserve them, sustaining their fundamental role both as the home of a substantial fraction of global biodiversity and as the ultimate source of many ecosystem services upon which humanity depends.


PLOS ONE | 2007

Improvements to the Red List Index.

Stuart H. M. Butchart; H. Resit Akçakaya; Janice Chanson; Jonathan E. M. Baillie; Ben Collen; Suhel Quader; Will R. Turner; Rajan Amin; Simon N. Stuart; Craig Hilton-Taylor

The Red List Index uses information from the IUCN Red List to track trends in the projected overall extinction risk of sets of species. It has been widely recognised as an important component of the suite of indicators needed to measure progress towards the international target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. However, further application of the RLI (to non-avian taxa in particular) has revealed some shortcomings in the original formula and approach: It performs inappropriately when a value of zero is reached; RLI values are affected by the frequency of assessments; and newly evaluated species may introduce bias. Here we propose a revision to the formula, and recommend how it should be applied in order to overcome these shortcomings. Two additional advantages of the revisions are that assessment errors are not propagated through time, and the overall level extinction risk can be determined as well as trends in this over time.


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 2013

Human health impacts of ecosystem alteration

Samuel S. Myers; Lynne Gaffikin; Christopher D. Golden; Richard S. Ostfeld; Kent H. Redford; Taylor H. Ricketts; Will R. Turner; Steven A. Osofsky

Human activity is rapidly transforming most of Earth’s natural systems. How this transformation is impacting human health, whose health is at greatest risk, and the magnitude of the associated disease burden are relatively new subjects within the field of environmental health. We discuss what is known about the human health implications of changes in the structure and function of natural systems and propose that these changes are affecting human health in a variety of important ways. We identify several gaps and limitations in the research that has been done to date and propose a more systematic and comprehensive approach to applied research in this field. Such efforts could lead to a more robust understanding of the human health impacts of accelerating environmental change and inform decision making in the land-use planning, environmental conservation, and public health policy realms.


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 2008

Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group

Michael Bode; Kerrie A. Wilson; Thomas M. Brooks; Will R. Turner; Russell A. Mittermeier; Marissa F. McBride; Emma C. Underwood; Hugh P. Possingham

Priorities for conservation investment at a global scale that are based on a single taxon have been criticized because geographic richness patterns vary taxonomically. However, these concerns focused only on biodiversity patterns and did not consider the importance of socioeconomic factors, which must also be included if conservation funding is to be allocated efficiently. In this article, we create efficient global funding schedules that use information about conservation costs, predicted habitat loss rates, and the endemicity of seven different taxonomic groups. We discover that these funding allocation schedules are less sensitive to variation in taxon assessed than to variation in cost and threat. Two-thirds of funding is allocated to the same regions regardless of the taxon, compared with only one-fifth if threat and cost are not included in allocation decisions. Hence, if socioeconomic factors are considered, we can be more confident about global-scale decisions guided by single taxonomic groups.


Ecological Applications | 2010

Conserving biodiversity in production landscapes

Kerrie A. Wilson; Erik Meijaard; S. Drummond; Hedley S. Grantham; Luigi Boitani; Gianluca Catullo; L. Christie; Rona Dennis; Ian M. Dutton; Alessandra Falcucci; Luigi Maiorano; Hugh P. Possingham; C. Rondinini; Will R. Turner; Oscar Venter; Matt Watts

Alternative land uses make different contributions to the conservation of biodiversity and have different implementation and management costs. Conservation planning analyses to date have generally assumed that land is either protected or unprotected, and that the unprotected portion does not contribute to conservation goals. We develop and apply a new planning approach that explicitly accounts for the contribution of a diverse range of land uses to achieving conservation goals. Using East Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) as a case study, we prioritize investments in alternative conservation strategies and account for the relative contribution of land uses ranging from production forest to well-managed protected areas. We employ data on the distribution of mammals and assign species-specific conservation targets to achieve equitable protection by accounting for life history characteristics and home range sizes. The relative sensitivity of each species to forest degradation determines the contribution of each land use to achieving targets. We compare the cost effectiveness of our approach to a plan that considers only the contribution of protected areas to biodiversity conservation, and to a plan that assumes that the cost of conservation is represented by only the opportunity costs of conservation to the timber industry. Our preliminary results will require further development and substantial stakeholder engagement prior to implementation; nonetheless we reveal that, by accounting for the contribution of unprotected land, we can obtain more refined estimates of the costs of conservation. Using traditional planning approaches would overestimate the cost of achieving the conservation targets by an order of magnitude. Our approach reveals not only where to invest, but which strategies to invest in, in order to effectively and efficiently conserve biodiversity.


BioScience | 2012

Global Biodiversity Conservation and the Alleviation of Poverty

Will R. Turner; Katrina Brandon; Thomas M. Brooks; Claude Gascon; Holly K. Gibbs; Keith S. Lawrence; Russell A. Mittermeier; Elizabeth R. Selig

Poverty and biodiversity loss are two of the worlds dire challenges. Claims of conservations contribution to poverty alleviation, however, remain controversial. Here, we assess the flows of ecosystem services provided to people by priority habitats for terrestrial conservation, considering the global distributions of biodiversity, physical factors, and socioeconomic context. We estimate the value of these habitats to the poor, both through direct benefits and through payments for ecosystem services to those stewarding natural habitats. The global potential for biodiversity conservation to support poor communities is high: The top 25% of conservation priority areas could provide 56%–57% of benefits. The aggregate benefits are valued at three times the estimated opportunity costs and exceed


PLOS ONE | 2014

Global priorities for marine biodiversity conservation.

Elizabeth R. Selig; Will R. Turner; Sebastian Troëng; Bryan P. Wallace; Benjamin S. Halpern; Kristin Kaschner; Ben Lascelles; Kent E. Carpenter; Russell A. Mittermeier

1 per person per day for 331 million of the worlds poorest people. Although trade-offs remain, these results show win—win synergies between conservation and poverty alleviation, indicate that effective financial mechanisms can enhance these synergies, and suggest biodiversity conservation as a fundamental component of sustainable economic development.


PLOS ONE | 2014

A biodiversity indicators dashboard: addressing challenges to monitoring progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets using disaggregated global data

Xuemei Han; Regan L. Smyth; Bruce E. Young; Thomas M. Brooks; Alexandra Sánchez de Lozada; Philip Bubb; Stuart H. M. Butchart; Frank W. Larsen; Healy Hamilton; Matthew C. Hansen; Will R. Turner

In recent decades, many marine populations have experienced major declines in abundance, but we still know little about where management interventions may help protect the highest levels of marine biodiversity. We used modeled spatial distribution data for nearly 12,500 species to quantify global patterns of species richness and two measures of endemism. By combining these data with spatial information on cumulative human impacts, we identified priority areas where marine biodiversity is most and least impacted by human activities, both within Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). Our analyses highlighted places that are both accepted priorities for marine conservation like the Coral Triangle, as well as less well-known locations in the southwest Indian Ocean, western Pacific Ocean, Arctic and Antarctic Oceans, and within semi-enclosed seas like the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas. Within highly impacted priority areas, climate and fishing were the biggest stressors. Although new priorities may arise as we continue to improve marine species range datasets, results from this work are an essential first step in guiding limited resources to regions where investment could best sustain marine biodiversity.


PLOS ONE | 2012

Conserving Critical Sites for Biodiversity Provides Disproportionate Benefits to People

Frank W. Larsen; Will R. Turner; Thomas M. Brooks

Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the worlds governments committed in 2010 to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Convention on Biological Diversitys “Aichi Targets”. These targets, and many conservation programs, require monitoring to assess progress toward specific goals. However, comprehensive and easily understood information on biodiversity trends at appropriate spatial scales is often not available to the policy makers, managers, and scientists who require it. We surveyed conservation stakeholders in three geographically diverse regions of critical biodiversity concern (the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong) and found high demand for biodiversity indicator information but uneven availability. To begin to address this need, we present a biodiversity “dashboard” – a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed to enable tracking of biodiversity and conservation performance data in a clear, user-friendly format. This builds on previous, more conceptual, indicator work to create an operationalized online interface communicating multiple indicators at multiple spatial scales. We structured this dashboard around the Pressure-State-Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species (Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater provision). Disaggregating global data, we present dashboard maps and graphics for the three regions surveyed and their component countries. These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard. This new tool can help track progress toward the Aichi Targets, support national monitoring and reporting, and inform outcome-based policy-making for the protection of natural resources.

Collaboration


Dive into the Will R. Turner's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Russell A. Mittermeier

State University of New York System

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David G. Hole

Conservation International

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Thomas M. Brooks

Conservation International

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Frank W. Larsen

Conservation International

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Bethany A. Bradley

University of Massachusetts Amherst

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Celia A. Harvey

Conservation International

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge