Prioritization of public and private land to protect species at risk habitat
Abstract Conservation budgets are limited, requiring strategic prioritization among actions to efficiently protect species. Systematic prioritization approaches typically determine locations for conservation that most effectively balance species protection with cost. Proxies for cost are frequently...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Conservation Science and Practice |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12771 |
| _version_ | 1817995752026144768 |
|---|---|
| author | Caitlyn A. Proctor Richard Schuster Rachel T. Buxton Joseph R. Bennett |
| author_facet | Caitlyn A. Proctor Richard Schuster Rachel T. Buxton Joseph R. Bennett |
| author_sort | Caitlyn A. Proctor |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Conservation budgets are limited, requiring strategic prioritization among actions to efficiently protect species. Systematic prioritization approaches typically determine locations for conservation that most effectively balance species protection with cost. Proxies for cost are frequently used in prioritizing land for protection. Here, we combine financial cost estimates for private land acquisition and species habitat models into a spatial prioritization to explore cost‐effective habitat protection, using a case study of species at risk in Ontario, Canada. Our findings suggest a key trade‐off, whereby protecting the areas with the greatest concentration of species at risk may not be the best strategy for protecting these species. Instead, protecting species at risk may be most cost effective in areas where species‐at‐risk richness is still relatively high, but land costs are relatively low, such as in central Ontario. However, the budget required to adequately protect species at risk through land purchase would be much larger than is currently available for conservation efforts, even if public lands are preferentially protected. Therefore, to effectively protect all species at risk in Ontario, we recommend the use of alternative conservation measures, such as easements and incentives for restoration on private land, to supplement already protected areas. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T02:12:23Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a70f3849aa0f4ce99dcdb460e4a89c88 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2578-4854 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T02:12:23Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Conservation Science and Practice |
| spelling | doaj.art-a70f3849aa0f4ce99dcdb460e4a89c882022-12-22T02:18:24ZengWileyConservation Science and Practice2578-48542022-09-0149n/an/a10.1111/csp2.12771Prioritization of public and private land to protect species at risk habitatCaitlyn A. Proctor0Richard Schuster1Rachel T. Buxton2Joseph R. Bennett3Department of Biology Carleton University Ottawa Ontario CanadaDepartment of Biology Carleton University Ottawa Ontario CanadaDepartment of Biology Carleton University Ottawa Ontario CanadaDepartment of Biology Carleton University Ottawa Ontario CanadaAbstract Conservation budgets are limited, requiring strategic prioritization among actions to efficiently protect species. Systematic prioritization approaches typically determine locations for conservation that most effectively balance species protection with cost. Proxies for cost are frequently used in prioritizing land for protection. Here, we combine financial cost estimates for private land acquisition and species habitat models into a spatial prioritization to explore cost‐effective habitat protection, using a case study of species at risk in Ontario, Canada. Our findings suggest a key trade‐off, whereby protecting the areas with the greatest concentration of species at risk may not be the best strategy for protecting these species. Instead, protecting species at risk may be most cost effective in areas where species‐at‐risk richness is still relatively high, but land costs are relatively low, such as in central Ontario. However, the budget required to adequately protect species at risk through land purchase would be much larger than is currently available for conservation efforts, even if public lands are preferentially protected. Therefore, to effectively protect all species at risk in Ontario, we recommend the use of alternative conservation measures, such as easements and incentives for restoration on private land, to supplement already protected areas.https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12771biodiversityCanadaeasementsprotected areassystematic conservation planningthreatened species |
| spellingShingle | Caitlyn A. Proctor Richard Schuster Rachel T. Buxton Joseph R. Bennett Prioritization of public and private land to protect species at risk habitat Conservation Science and Practice biodiversity Canada easements protected areas systematic conservation planning threatened species |
| title | Prioritization of public and private land to protect species at risk habitat |
| title_full | Prioritization of public and private land to protect species at risk habitat |
| title_fullStr | Prioritization of public and private land to protect species at risk habitat |
| title_full_unstemmed | Prioritization of public and private land to protect species at risk habitat |
| title_short | Prioritization of public and private land to protect species at risk habitat |
| title_sort | prioritization of public and private land to protect species at risk habitat |
| topic | biodiversity Canada easements protected areas systematic conservation planning threatened species |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12771 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT caitlynaproctor prioritizationofpublicandprivatelandtoprotectspeciesatriskhabitat AT richardschuster prioritizationofpublicandprivatelandtoprotectspeciesatriskhabitat AT racheltbuxton prioritizationofpublicandprivatelandtoprotectspeciesatriskhabitat AT josephrbennett prioritizationofpublicandprivatelandtoprotectspeciesatriskhabitat |