Back

Taking a landscape approach to conservation goals: designing multi-objective landscapes

Renwick, A. R.; Chauvenet, A. L. M.; Possingham, H. P.; Adams, V. M.; McGowan, J.; Gagic, V.; Schellhorn, N. A.

2020-01-23 ecology
10.1101/2020.01.21.914721 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Designing landscapes to accommodate both humans and nature poses huge challenges, but is increasingly recognised as an essential component of conservation and land management. The land-sparing land-sharing framework has been proposed as a tool to address this challenge. However, it has been largely criticised for its simplicity. We provide a new conceptual framework amenable to the application of structured decision-making that moves beyond the dichotomy of land-sparing or land-sharing. Using this new framework, we present a general system model that can be used to make land management decisions for the conservation of species, ecosystem services and production land at different spatial scales. The model can be parameterised for specific systems using information about: the current state of the landscape, the rates of change between landscape states, and the cost and effectiveness of taking actions. To demonstrate the utility of the model we apply it to three different landscape types. Across our three case studies, we show that investment into one of three management actions (varying degrees of management and restoration) can move the system towards more biodiversity or more managed land depending on the objectives of the land manager. We show that the dynamic and flexible nature of the landscape is important to take into account rather than a static snapshot in time. Rather than focusing on establishing the perfect landscape with a set proportion dedicated to production and to biodiversity conservation, we argue that a more useful approach is to establish incremental movements towards a landscape that meets the goals of multiple objectives. Our framework can be used to illustrate to decision makers the costs and trade-offs of different actions and help them determine land management policy.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.9%
2
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
8.2%
3
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
4
Landscape Ecology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
5
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.7%
6
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
8
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
9
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
10
Ecological Modelling
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
11
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
12
Ecological Applications
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
13
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 14%
2.0%
14
Movement Ecology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.4%
18
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.4%
19
Forest Ecology and Management
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
20
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
21
MethodsX
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
22
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
24
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
25
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
Journal of Environmental Management
11 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
27
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
28
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
29
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%
30
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%