1 Atte Moilanen, Joona Lehtomäki, Heini Kujala, Federico M. Pouzols, Jarno Leppänen, Laura Meller...
-
Upload
augusta-bruce -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Atte Moilanen, Joona Lehtomäki, Heini Kujala, Federico M. Pouzols, Jarno Leppänen, Laura Meller...
1
Atte Moilanen, Joona Lehtomäki, Heini Kujala, Federico M. Pouzols, Jarno Leppänen, Laura Meller & Victoria Veach
C-BIG - Biodiversity Conservation Informatics GroupDept. of Biosciences, University of Helsinki
http://cbig.it.helsinki.fi
Conservation resource allocation and
the Zonation framework
2
1. Introduction to conservation resource allocation
2.Zonation• Illustrative example• Operational principle and features• More examples
Introduction: contents 1h+
3
ConservationResourceallocation
01
4
• To identify different (spatial) allocations of conservation resources (actions) best possible long-term conservation outcome
(population sizes, persistence)
• Limited resources prioritization
• Spatial allocation, various forms of land use: protection, management, restoration, offsetting, competing uses
• What are the consequences and interactions between different (possibly complementary) actions
Objective
5
• Often: species• Many others:
• Habitat types and properties (e.g. suitability) • Communities• Ecological processes• Ecosystem services• Vegetation classes• Functional traits• Genetic information• Socio-cultural factors
• Surrogates, pervasive: complete information usually missing
Biodiversity features
6
• Fundamental quantities of spatial population biology:1. Area: the available habitat (spatial amount)2. Quality: resource density (e.g. micro-climate)3. Aggregation: spatial (network) structure of the
habitat
Area and quality determine the carrying capacity Aggregation affects the local dynamics and
occupancy
3 key dimensions
7
3 key dimensions:
Qua
lity
AreaAggregation
Fundamental quantities
Fundamental quantities ofspatialpopulation biology
9
• Spatial distributions and local occurrence levels of biodiversity features (species, communities etc...)
• Connectivity and minimum population size requirements
• Habitat loss and degradation, landscape change• Climate change• Availability of conservation resources• Socio-political constraints• Pervasive uncertainties about biological facts and
economic realities, sparse data
Conservation prioritization: Relevant factors
10CRA is not the only part of the puzzle –
Social Dimension!
Knight et al. Cons Biol. 2006.
11
More about Spatial Conservation Prioritization
+ Recent review:
Kukkala, A. & A. Moilanen. 2013. The core concepts of spatial prioritization in systematic conservation planning. Biological Reviews, 88: 443-464.
12
The Zonation framework and software
02
13
Illustrative example: evaluation of the proposed benthic protection areas of
New Zealand
Leathwick et al. 2008. Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters.
Conservation Letters, 1: 91-102.
14
Aim: evaluate proposed New Zealand’s Benthic Protected Areas (BPAs)
15
Marine protection areas of New Zealand: Data
• 1.59 million 1 km2 grid cells
• 100 demersal fish species
• Habitat models based on 21000 experimental
trawls
• ~20 environmental variables
• Locations of commercial trawls = cost data
16
Basic Zonation output 1
• Map of priority rank
Cell rank0 - 50%50 - 75%75 - 90%90 - 100% (= 10% best)
17
Basic output 2: representation of features with different ranks
Endemic weighted higher
With equal weights
10% of total area
Prop
ortio
n of
feat
ure
dist
ributi
on p
rote
cted
Rank (proportion of landscape not under conservation action)
18Pr
opor
tion
of s
peci
es d
istrib
ution
pro
tect
ed
Proportion of cells removed
Replacement cost analysis for proposed reserve areas
LOSS = COST
Performance curve for”ideal” solution
Curve forforced solution
Rank (proportion of landscape not under conservation action)
Prop
ortio
n of
feat
ure
dist
ributi
on p
rote
cted
19
Influence of cost
0 10 20 30 40 50
01
02
03
04
05
0
Fishing opportunity cost (%)
Co
nse
rva
tion
be
ne
fit (
%)
10% geographic protectionno cost constraint
full cost constraint
modif ied cost constraints
BPAs - 16.6% geographic protection
20% geographic protection
no cost constraint
full cost constraint
modif ied cost constraints
Fishing opportunity cost [%]
Cons
erva
tion
bene
fit, %
of a
ll
ProposedBPAs
Zonation,Full cost
Zonation,Ideal free solution
20
Zonation
operational principle
and features
21
Zonation
• Produces a hierarchical zoning of a landscape • looking for priority sites for conservation • indirectly aiming at species persistence• using large grids
2%
2-5%
5-10%
10-25%
25-50%
50-80%
80-100%
Top fraction of the landscape
2%
2-5%
5-10%
10-25%
25-50%
50-80%
80-100%
Top fraction of the landscape
22
Zonation
• Persistence by considering:• Habitat quantity, quality and connectivity• For multiple biodiversity features simultaneously
(species, communities, ecoregions, functional traits, etc.)
• Can optimize:• Return on investment (ROI)• Targets
23
• Basic input:• Spatial distributions of biodiversity features as static patterns in raster
maps:• Presence• Abundance• Probability
• Many more optional inputs: uncertainty, PAs, interactions, etc.
• Produces 2 main outputs:• Spatial priority ranking for conservation (map)• Performance curves (x-y plots)
• Zonation is not about:• GIS processing• PVAs, dynamic models, etc.
Zonation: inputs and outputs
24
Zonation: inputs and outputs
Input data
GIS
Experts
Ecologicalknowledge
Features
Weights
Costs
Connectivity
Higher/lowerpriority areas for
conservation
Performance/potential for proctection
Data collection
Data preparation
Data analysis Inference/ Decision
25
A general Zonation workflow
Basic output 1
Basic output 2
Lehtomäki, J., M
oilanen, A., 2013. M
ethods and workflow
for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation. Env. M
odel. & Sof. 47, 128-137.
26
Basic output 1
• Landscape map showing the ranking
2%
2-5%
5-10%
10-25%
25-50%
50-80%
80-100%
Top fraction of the landscape
2%
2-5%
5-10%
10-25%
25-50%
50-80%
80-100%
Top fraction of the landscape
27
Basic output 2
• Performance: curves of representation of features (or groups) at different rank levels
10% top fraction
Rank (proportion of landscape not protected)Prop
ortio
n of
feat
ure
dist
ributi
on p
rote
cted
28
Additional basic output (3): Post-processing analyses
For example:
• Comparison of different solutions
• Connected sets of sites with similar species compositions can be connected into management landscapes
• Tutorial example: do_ppa.bat
29
Zonation - Basic analyses
1. Identification of optimal reserve areas
2. Identification of least valuable areas
3.Evaluation of conservation areas
4.Expansion of conservation areas
30
Major Zonation Features
• Species/feature weighting• Species-specific connectivity • Handles uncertainty and costs• Combined species and community level prioritization• Balancing alternative land uses• Landscape condition and retention analysis• Prioritization across multiple administrative regions
• Direct link: GIS distribution modeling Zonation
31
• Improved detection of errors in setups• Manage and monitor multiple analyses• Post-process and explore output• Explore transformed layers used in computations• Explore all output curves interactively• Import/export publication-quality maps• Simple interface for comparing/merging maps
New Graphical User Interface,much improved for Zv3.1
32
Zonation strategy summarized
Minimize loss of weighted range-size rarity
=
Maximize retention of weighted range-sizenormalized (rarity corrected) featurerichness
33
in other words
Zonation produces a complementarity-based balanced priority ranking through the landscape.
34
Zonation Meta-algorithm
1.Start from full landscape
2.Determine cell that has least marginal value and remove it
3.Update occurrence levels of features (in the remaining landscape)
4.Repeat (2 and 3) until no cells remain
35
0.02 0.05 0.075
0.025 0.115 0.16
0.1 0.2 0.255
0.0510 0.0765
0.0255 0.1174 0.1632
0.102 0.2041 0.2602
0.0523 0.0785
0.1204 0.1675
0.1047 0.2094 0.2670
0.0828
0.1270 0.1767
0.1104 0.2209 0.2817
0.1385 0.1927
0.1204 0.2409 0.3072
0.1575 0.2191
0.2739 0.3493
0.2601
0.3252 0.41460.4395 0.56041.0
4 10 15
5 23 32
20 40 51
Absolute valueNormalized values
&Removal sequence
Cell removal
36
37
1
1111
1
11
1 1
1
11
1 111
11 1 1
1 1 1 1
1111
111
1 1 1
1
11
1
1
1
1111
1 1 1 1 1 1
111
1 1 1
1 1 1
1
1
11
0.042
0.0420.0420.0420.042
0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042
0.0420.0420.042
0.042 0.042 0.042
0.042 0.042 0.042
0.042
0.042
0.0420.042
1 1
111
1 1 1 1
11111
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
11
1 111
1
0.036 0.036
0.0360.0360.036
0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
0.0360.0360.0360.0360.036
0.036 0.036 0.036
0.036 0.036
0.036 0.036
0.0360.036
0.036 0.0360.0360.036
0.036
0.025
0.0250.0250.0250.025
0.025
0.0250.025
0.025 0.025
0.025
0.0250.025
0.025 0.0250.0250.025
0.0250.025 0.025 0.025
0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
0.0250.0250.0250.025
0.0250.0250.025
0.025 0.025 0.025
0.025
0.0250.025
0.025
0.025
38
0.042
0.0420.0420.0420.042
0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042
0.0420.0420.042
0.042 0.042 0.042
0.042 0.042 0.042
0.042
0.042
0.0420.042
0.036 0.078
0.0780.0780.078
0.078 0.078 0.078 0.078
0.0780.0780.0780.0360.036
0.036 0.036 0.078
0.036 0.036
0.036 0.078
0.0360.036
0.036 0.0360.0360.036
0.036
0.025
0.0250.1030.1030.067
0.067
0.0610.061
0.061 0.061
0.061
0.0610.061
0.061 0.0610.0610.061
0.0250.025 0.025 0.025
0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
0.0250.0250.0250.025
0.0250.0250.025
0.025 0.025 0.025
0.025
0.0250.025
0.025
0.061
39
1
1111
1 1 1 1 1 1
111
1 1 1
1 1 1
1
1
11
0.042
0.0420.0420.0420.042
0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042
0.0420.0420.042
0.042 0.042 0.042
0.042 0.042 0.042
0.042
0.042
0.0420.042
0.036 0.036
0.0360.0360.036
0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
0.0360.0360.0360.0360.036
0.036 0.036 0.036
0.036 0.036
0.036 0.036
0.0360.036
0.036 0.0360.0360.036
0.036
0.025
0.0250.0250.0250.025
0.025
0.0250.025
0.025 0.025
0.025
0.0250.025
0.025 0.0250.0250.025
0.0250.025 0.025 0.025
0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
0.0250.0250.0250.025
0.0250.0250.025
0.025 0.025
0.025
0.0250.025
0.025
0.025
1
1111
1
11
1 1
1
11
1 111
11 1 1
1 1 1 1
1111
111
1 1
1
11
1
1
0.026
0.0260.0260.0260.026
0.026
0.0260.026
0.026 0.026
0.026
0.0260.026
0.026 0.0260.0260.026
0.0260.026 0.026 0.026
0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026
0.0260.0260.0260.026
0.0260.0260.026
0.026 0.026
0.026
0.0260.026
0.026
0.026
40
= definition of marginal loss in conservation value
= different rules implement different conceptions of conservation value, how is it aggregated across space, time and features?
Cell removal rule
41
• Determines how marginal loss is aggregated when a cell is lost
• Four alternatives• Core-area Zonation (CAZ)• Additive benefit function (ABF)• Targeting benefit function (TBF)• Generalized benefit function (GBF)
• These alternatives• Have different aims• Value representation differently
Cell removal rule
42
Cell removal rules
• Core-area Zonation• Cell value is the maximum biological value within
the cell, across all features/species• Cell with the smallest (max) value will be removed
• Additive benefit function• Cell value is the sum of value across species within
the cell• Cell with the smallest sum value will be removed
43
Cell removal rules
0.600.05
0.100.30
0.050.15
0.250.50
0.60 0.30
0.15 0.50
0.65 0.40
0.20 0.75
Core-area Zonation
Additive benefit function
0.63160.0588
0.10530.3529
0.26320.5882
0.6316 0.3529
0.5882
0.6904 0.4582
0.8514
0.70590.0909
0.29410.9091
0.7059
0.9091
0.7968
1.2032
1.01.0
1.0
2.0
Species 2
Species 1
44
Zonation: Cell removal principles
“More rare”“More important”
“less prop.remains”
45
i
jij
ji c
wSqi
)(maxmin for which cell remove
over cells i over spp j
weight of sp j
proportion of remaining distribution of sp j in cell i in remaining landscape S
cost of site i
Core-Area Zonation (CAZ) emphasizes the most valuable feature in the cell
CAZ valuationof site i
46
• ABF uses a power function, which has a smooth shape, and can replicate, for example, the species-area curve
• loss of representation => loss of value
• GBF has a more flexible shape (incl. sigmoids)
Cell removal rules:
Additive benefit function & Generalized BF
proportion of distribution remaining
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
valu
e V
j
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Rj
Vj
Sum over species-specific loss ΔVj; free trade between spp;implicitly emphasizes locations with many species (richness)
47
Cell removal rules:
Finnish breeding birds – CAZ vs. ABF
Number of species< 3030 - 6060 - 9090 - 120> 120
Additive benefit functionCore-area Zonation
Cell Ranking0 - 50 %50 - 75 %75 - 90 %90 - 100 %No Data
som
ewha
t
emph
asizes
rar
ity
som
ewha
t
emph
asizes
richn
ess
48
Other cell removal rules
Target-based planning
•Below target: 0 value•Above target: power function
Generalized benefit functions
49
What can be done using Zonation?
Some Zonation study summaries
50
Aligning conservation priorities in Madagascar
51
Plan of extension of Madagascar protected areas to 10%
• Most extensive example of conservation prioritization at the time
• + Extensive surrogacy analysis
Kremen, Cameron, Moilanen, Phillips, Thomas et al. 2008 Science 320: 222-226.
52
Bird habitat restorationVictoria, Australia
• Multiple time steps• Maturation of
restored habitat• Suitability for birds• Connectivity
Thomson et al. 2009. Ecol. Appl.
53
Urban analysis around Melbourne
Extending reserves Guiding placement of green areas
Gordon et al. 2009. Landscape & Urban Planning
54
Ecological interactions in Zonation, phase 1Inter- and intraspecies connectivities
Conservation for the Marten in Canada
Rayfield et al. 2009. Ecological Modelling
55
Core-area Zonation
Freshwater planning accounting for hydrological connectivity of catchments
Rivers in New Zealand
Moilanen, Leathwick & Elith. Freshwater Biology 2008.Leathwick et al. Biological Conservation 2010.
+ condition
+ connectivity
56Balancing between competing land-uses
biodiversity (+)
agri (-)
urban (-)
carbon (+)
57
... all can be put in the same analysis
Moilanen, A., B.J. Anderson, F. Eigenbrod, A. Heinemeyer, D. B. Roy, S. Gillings, P. R. Armsworth, K. J. Gaston, and C.D. Thomas. 2011. Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. Ecological Applications, 21: 1419-1426.
58
Administrative units analysis
• Admin. areas have different priorities• Balancing national & global priorities• Local, global or compromise analyses• Striking edge artifacts!• Need for ”Collaboration in conservation”
Moilanen, A., and Arponen A. 2011b. Administrative regions in conservation: balancing local priorities with regional to global preferences in spatial planning. Biological Conservation, 144: 1719-1725. Moilanen, A., Anderson, B.J., Arponen, A., Pouzols, F.M., and C.D. Thomas. 2012. Edge artefacts and lost performance in national versus continental conservation priority areas. Diversity and Distributions, 19: 171-183.
59
Administrative units analysisWestern hemisphere mammals, birds and amphibians
60
Largest landscape (at the time...):
Arponen, A., J. Lehtomäki, J. Leppänen, E. Tomppo, and A. Moilanen. 2012. Effects of connectivity and spatial resolution of analyses on conservation prioritization across large extents. Conservation Biology, 26: 294–304.
• Spatial planning and connectivity in Finnish forests• Entire country up to 1ha resolution• Up to 28 million grid cells with data
The Academy of Finland, EU FP7 SCALES,
the European Research Council ERC, Finnish
Ministry of Environment;
the Finnish Natural Heritage Services
Univ. York: Chris Thomas, Aldina Franco, Regan Early
Barbara Anderson
Univ. Melbourne: Mark Burgman, Brendan Wintle, Jane Elith
Finnish Environment Institute Risto Heikkinen, Raimo Heikkilä
NIWA & DOC, New-Zealand John Leathwick
Berkeley/Princeton Alison Cameron, Claire Kremen
Israel Univ. Techn. Yakov Ben-Haim
Royal Melbourne Univ. Techn. Sarah Bekessy, Ascelin Gordon
CSIRO, Australia Simon Ferrier
Univ. Queensland, Australia Hugh Possingham, Kerrie Wilson
Klamath conservation Carlos Carroll
Special thanks to