Effectiveness of conservation easements in agricultural regions

Conservation easements are a standard technique for preventing habitat loss, particularly in agricultural regions with extensive cropland cultivation, yet little is known about their effectiveness. I developed a spatial econometric approach to propensity‐score matching and used the approach to estimate the amount of habitat loss prevented by a grassland conservation easement program of the U.S. federal government. I used a spatial autoregressive probit model to predict tract enrollment in the easement program as of 2001 based on tract agricultural suitability, habitat quality, and spatial interactions among neighboring tracts. Using the predicted values from the model, I matched enrolled tracts with similar unenrolled tracts to form a treatment group and a control group. To measure the program's impact on subsequent grassland loss, I estimated cropland cultivation rates for both groups in 2014 with a second spatial probit model. Between 2001 and 2014, approximately 14.9% of control tracts were cultivated and 0.3% of treated tracts were cultivated. Therefore, approximately 14.6% of the protected land would have been cultivated in the absence of the program. My results demonstrate that conservation easements can significantly reduce habitat loss in agricultural regions; however, the enrollment of tracts with low cropland suitability may constrain the amount of habitat loss they prevent. My results also show that spatial econometric models can improve the validity of control groups and thereby strengthen causal inferences about program effectiveness in situations when spatial interactions influence conservation decisions.     

Building robust conservation plans

Systematic conservation planning optimizes trade‐offs between biodiversity conservation and human activities by accounting for socioeconomic costs while aiming to achieve prescribed conservation objectives. However, the most cost‐efficient conservation plan can be very dissimilar to any other plan achieving the set of conservation objectives. This is problematic under conditions of implementation uncertainty (e.g., if all or part of the plan becomes unattainable). We determined through simulations of parallel implementation of conservation plans and habitat loss the conditions under which optimal plans have limited chances of implementation and where implementation attempts would fail to meet objectives. We then devised a new, flexible method for identifying conservation priorities and scheduling conservation actions. This method entails generating a number of alternative plans, calculating the similarity in site composition among all plans, and selecting the plan with the highest density of neighboring plans in similarity space. We compared our method with the classic method that maximizes cost efficiency with synthetic and real data sets. When implementation was uncertain—a common reality—our method provided higher likelihood of achieving conservation targets. We found that χ, a measure of the shortfall in objectives achieved by a conservation plan if the plan could not be implemented entirely, was the main factor determining the relative performance of a flexibility enhanced approach to conservation prioritization. Our findings should help planning authorities prioritize conservation efforts in the face of uncertainty about future condition and availability of sites.     

Using a social–ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans

One of the key determinants of success in biodiversity conservation is how well conservation planning decisions account for the social system in which actions are to be implemented. Understanding elements of how the social and ecological systems interact can help identify opportunities for implementation. Utilizing data from a large‐scale conservation initiative in southwestern of Australia, we explored how a social–ecological system framework can be applied to identify how social and ecological factors interact to influence the opportunities for conservation. Using data from semistructured interviews, an online survey, and publicly available data, we developed a conceptual model of the social–ecological system associated with the conservation of the Fitz‐Stirling region. We used this model to identify the relevant variables (remnants of vegetation, stakeholder presence, collaboration between stakeholders, and their scale of management) that affect the implementation of conservation actions in the region. We combined measures for these variables to ascertain how areas associated with different levels of ecological importance coincided with areas associated with different levels of stakeholder presence, stakeholder collaboration, and scales of management. We identified areas that could benefit from different implementation strategies, from those suitable for immediate conservation action to areas requiring implementation over the long term to increase on‐the‐ground capacity and identify mechanisms to incentivize implementation. The application of a social–ecological framework can help conservation planners and practitioners facilitate the integration of ecological and social data to inform the translation of priorities for action into implementation strategies that account for the complexities of conservation problems in a focused way.     

Devising Appropriate Policies and Instruments in Support of Private Conservation Areas: Lessons Learned from the Klein Karoo,South Africa

Abstract: The amount of privately conserved land is increasing worldwide. The potential of these areas to contribute to the global conservation of biodiversity is significant, given that statutory protected areas alone will not suffice. Nevertheless, there is still inadequate support for private conservation areas, and further research on appropriate, flexible, and generally applicable incentive measures is necessary. We conducted 25 semistructured interviews with the owners of private conservation areas in the Little Karoo, South Africa, to examine landowner opinions of existing conservation policies and their relationships with the local conservation authority. We also assessed landowner preferences regarding conservation incentive measures. Landowners doubted the conservation authority's capacity to implement its stewardship program and were also discouraged by the bureaucracy of the program. The conservation authority was often viewed negatively, except where landowners had experienced personal contact from conservation staff or where strong social capital had formed among landowners. Landowners did not desire financial rewards for their conservation efforts, but sought recognition of their stewardship role and greater involvement from the conservation authority through personal contact. We conclude that conservation policies for private lands could benefit from the provision of extension services to landowners, promotion of formation of groups of landowners and other stakeholders, and public acknowledgment of the contributions private conservation areas make.     

Local Land‐Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners’ Perspectives on What Works

Abstract: Because habitat loss due to urbanization is a primary threat to biodiversity, and land‐use decisions in urbanizing areas are mainly made at the local level, land‐use planning by municipal planning departments has a potentially important—but largely unrealized—role in conserving biodiversity. To understand planners’ perspectives on the factors that facilitate and impede biodiversity conservation in local planning, we interviewed directors of 17 municipal planning departments in the greater Seattle (Washington, U.S.A.) area and compared responses of planners from similar‐sized jurisdictions that were “high” and “low performing” with respect to incorporation of biodiversity conservation in local planning. Planners from low‐performing jurisdictions regarded mandates from higher governmental levels as the primary drivers of biodiversity conservation, whereas those from high‐performing jurisdictions regarded community values as the main drivers, although they also indicated that mandates were important. Biodiversity conservation was associated with presence of local conservation flagship elements (e.g., salmonids) and human‐centered benefits of biodiversity conservation (e.g., quality of life). Planners from high‐ and low‐performing jurisdictions favored different planning mechanisms for biodiversity conservation, perhaps reflecting differences in funding and staffing. High performers reported more collaborations with other entities on biodiversity issues. Planners’ comments indicated that the term biodiversity may be problematic in the context of local planning. The action most planners recommended to increase biodiversity conservation in local planning was public education. These results suggest that to advance biodiversity conservation in local land‐use planning, conservation biologists should investigate and educate the public about local conservation flagships and human benefits of local biodiversity, work to raise ecological literacy and explain biodiversity more effectively to the public, and promote collaboration on biodiversity conservation among jurisdictions and inclusion of biodiversity specialists in planning departments.     

Knowledge co‐production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans

Knowledge co‐production and boundary work offer planners a new frame for critically designing a social process that fosters collaborative implementation of resulting plans. Knowledge co‐production involves stakeholders from diverse knowledge systems working iteratively toward common vision and action. Boundary work is a means of creating permeable knowledge boundaries that satisfy the needs of multiple social groups while guarding the functional integrity of contributing knowledge systems. Resulting products are boundary objects of mutual interest that maintain coherence across all knowledge boundaries. We examined how knowledge co‐production and boundary work can bridge the gap between planning and implementation and promote cross‐sectoral cooperation. We applied these concepts to well‐established stages in regional conservation planning within a national scale conservation planning project aimed at identifying areas for conserving rivers and wetlands of South Africa and developing an institutional environment for promoting their conservation. Knowledge co‐production occurred iteratively over 4 years in interactive stake‐holder workshops that included co‐development of national freshwater conservation goals and spatial data on freshwater biodiversity and local conservation feasibility; translation of goals into quantitative inputs that were used in Marxan to select draft priority conservation areas; review of draft priority areas; and packaging of resulting map products into an atlas and implementation manual to promote application of the priority area maps in 37 different decision‐making contexts. Knowledge co‐production stimulated dialogue and negotiation and built capacity for multi‐scale implementation beyond the project. The resulting maps and information integrated diverse knowledge types of over 450 stakeholders and represented >1000 years of collective experience. The maps provided a consistent national source of information on priority conservation areas for rivers and wetlands and have been applied in 25 of the 37 use contexts since their launch just over 3 years ago. When framed as a knowledge co‐production process supported by boundary work, regional conservation plans can be developed into valuable boundary objects that offer a tangible tool for multi‐agency cooperation around conservation. Our work provides practical guidance for promoting uptake of conservation science and contributes to an evidence base on how conservation efforts can be improved.     

Estimating the Value of Non‐Use Benefits from Small Changes in the Provision of Ecosystem Services

Abstract: The unit of trade in ecosystem services is usually the use of a proportion of the parcels of land associated with a given service. Valuing small changes in the provision of an ecosystem service presents obstacles, particularly when the service provides non‐use benefits, as is the case with conservation of most plants and animals. Quantifying non‐use values requires stated‐preference valuations. Stated‐preference valuations can provide estimates of the public's willingness to pay for a broad conservation goal. Nevertheless, stated‐preference valuations can be expensive and do not produce consistent measures for varying levels of provision of a service. Additionally, the unit of trade, land use, is not always linearly related to the level of ecosystem services the land might provide. To overcome these obstacles, we developed a method to estimate the value of a marginal change in the provision of a non‐use ecosystem service—in this case conservation of plants or animals associated with a given land‐cover type. Our method serves as a tool for calculating transferable valuations of small changes in the provision of ecosystem services relative to the existing provision. Valuation is achieved through stated‐preference investigations, calculation of a unit value for a parcel of land, and the weighting of this parcel by its ability to provide the desired ecosystem service and its effect on the ability of the surrounding land parcels to provide the desired service. We used the water vole (Arvicola terrestris) as a case study to illustrate the method. The average present value of a meter of water vole habitat was estimated at UK£12, but the marginal value of a meter (based on our methods) could range between £0 and £40 or more.     

Constraints of philanthropy on determining the distribution of biodiversity conservation funding

Caught between ongoing habitat destruction and funding shortfalls, conservation organizations are using systematic planning approaches to identify places that offer the highest biodiversity return per dollar invested. However, available tools do not account for the landscape of funding for conservation or quantify the constraints this landscape imposes on conservation outcomes. Using state‐level data on philanthropic giving to and investments in land conservation by a large nonprofit organization, we applied linear regression to evaluate whether the spatial distribution of conservation philanthropy better explained expenditures on conservation than maps of biodiversity priorities, which were derived from a planning process internal to the organization and return on investment (ROI) analyses based on data on species richness, land costs, and existing protected areas. Philanthropic fund raising accounted for considerably more spatial variation in conservation spending (r² = 0.64) than either of the 2 systematic conservation planning approaches (r² = 0.08–0.21). We used results of one of the ROI analyses to evaluate whether increases in flexibility to reallocate funding across space provides conservation gains. Small but plausible “tax” increments of 1–10% on states redistributed to the optimal funding allocation from the ROI analysis could result in gains in endemic species protected of 8.5–80.2%. When such increases in spatial flexibility are not possible, conservation organizations should seek to cultivate increased support for conservation in priority locations. We used lagged correlations of giving to and spending by the organization to evaluate whether investments in habitat protection stimulate future giving to conservation. The most common outcome at the state level was that conservation spending quarters correlated significantly and positively with lagged fund raising quarters. In effect, periods of high fund raising for biodiversity followed (rather than preceded) periods of high expenditure on land conservation projects, identifying one mechanism conservation organizations could explore to seed greater activity in priority locations. Our results demonstrate how limitations on the ability of conservation organizations to reallocate their funding across space can impede organizational effectiveness and elucidate ways conservation planning tools could be more useful if they quantified and incorporated these constraints.     

Understanding the effects of different social data on selecting priority conservation areas

Conservation success is contingent on assessing social and environmental factors so that cost‐effective implementation of strategies and actions can be placed in a broad social–ecological context. Until now, the focus has been on how to include spatially explicit social data in conservation planning, whereas the value of different kinds of social data has received limited attention. In a regional systematic conservation planning case study in Australia, we examined the spatial concurrence of a range of spatially explicit social values and land‐use preferences collected using a public participation geographic information system and biological data. We used Zonation to integrate the social data with the biological data in a series of spatial‐prioritization scenarios to determine the effect of the different types of social data on spatial prioritization compared with biological data alone. The type of social data (i.e., conservation opportunities or constraints) significantly affected spatial prioritization outcomes. The integration of social values and land‐use preferences under different scenarios was highly variable and generated spatial prioritizations 1.2–51% different from those based on biological data alone. The inclusion of conservation‐compatible values and preferences added relatively few new areas to conservation priorities, whereas including noncompatible economic values and development preferences as costs significantly changed conservation priority areas (48.2% and 47.4%, respectively). Based on our results, a multifaceted conservation prioritization approach that combines spatially explicit social data with biological data can help conservation planners identify the type of social data to collect for more effective and feasible conservation actions.     

A review of selection‐based tests of abiotic surrogates for species representation

Because conservation planners typically lack data on where species occur, environmental surrogates—including geophysical settings and climate types—have been used to prioritize sites within a planning area. We reviewed 622 evaluations of the effectiveness of abiotic surrogates in representing species in 19 study areas. Sites selected using abiotic surrogates represented more species than an equal number of randomly selected sites in 43% of tests (55% for plants) and on average improved on random selection of sites by about 8% (21% for plants). Environmental diversity (ED) (42% median improvement on random selection) and biotically informed clusters showed promising results and merit additional testing. We suggest 4 ways to improve performance of abiotic surrogates. First, analysts should consider a broad spectrum of candidate variables to define surrogates, including rarely used variables related to geographic separation, distance from coast, hydrology, and within‐site abiotic diversity. Second, abiotic surrogates should be defined at fine thematic resolution. Third, sites (the landscape units prioritized within a planning area) should be small enough to ensure that surrogates reflect species’ environments and to produce prioritizations that match the spatial resolution of conservation decisions. Fourth, if species inventories are available for some planning units, planners should define surrogates based on the abiotic variables that most influence species turnover in the planning area. Although species inventories increase the cost of using abiotic surrogates, a modest number of inventories could provide the data needed to select variables and evaluate surrogates. Additional tests of nonclimate abiotic surrogates are needed to evaluate the utility of conserving nature's stage as a strategy for conservation planning in the face of climate change.     

Toward quantification of the impact of 21st‐century deforestation on the extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates

Conservation actions need to be prioritized, often taking into account species’ extinction risk. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List provides an accepted, objective framework for the assessment of extinction risk. Assessments based on data collected in the field are the best option, but the field data to base these on are often limited. Information collected through remote sensing can be used in place of field data to inform assessments. Forests are perhaps the best‐studied land‐cover type for use of remote‐sensing data. Using an open‐access 30‐m resolution map of tree cover and its change between 2000 and 2012, we assessed the extent of forest cover and loss within the distributions of 11,186 forest‐dependent amphibians, birds, and mammals worldwide. For 16 species, forest loss resulted in an elevated extinction risk under red‐list criterion A, owing to inferred rapid population declines. This number increased to 23 when data‐deficient species (i.e., those with insufficient information for evaluation) were included. Under red‐list criterion B2, 484 species (855 when data‐deficient species were included) were considered at elevated extinction risk, owing to restricted areas of occupancy resulting from little forest cover remaining within their ranges. The proportion of species of conservation concern would increase by 32.8% for amphibians, 15.1% for birds, and 24.7% for mammals if our suggested uplistings are accepted. Central America, the Northern Andes, Madagascar, the Eastern Arc forests in Africa, and the islands of Southeast Asia are hotspots for these species. Our results illustrate the utility of satellite imagery for global extinction‐risk assessment and measurement of progress toward international environmental agreement targets.     

The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners’ management decisions

A major justification of environmental management research is that it helps practitioners, yet previous studies show it is rarely used to inform their decisions. We tested whether conservation practitioners focusing on bird management were willing to use a synopsis of relevant scientific literature to inform their management decisions. This allowed us to examine whether the limited use of scientific information in management is due to a lack of access to the scientific literature or whether it is because practitioners are either not interested or unable to incorporate the research into their decisions. In on‐line surveys, we asked 92 conservation managers, predominantly from Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, to provide opinions on 28 management techniques that could be applied to reduce predation on birds. We asked their opinions before and after giving them a summary of the literature about the interventions’ effectiveness. We scored the overall effectiveness and certainty of evidence for each intervention through an expert elicitation process—the Delphi method. We used the effectiveness scores to assess the practitioners’ level of understanding and awareness of the literature. On average, each survey participant changed their likelihood of using 45.7% of the interventions after reading the synopsis of the evidence. They were more likely to implement effective interventions and avoid ineffective actions, suggesting that their intended future management strategies may be more successful than current practice. More experienced practitioners were less likely to change their management practices than those with less experience, even though they were not more aware of the existing scientific information than less experienced practitioners. The practitioners’ willingness to change their management choices when provided with summarized scientific evidence suggests that improved accessibility to scientific information would benefit conservation management outcomes. El Efecto de la Evidencia Científica sobre las Decisiones de Manejo de Quienes Practican la Conservación     

Microtargeting for conservation

Widespread human action and behavior change is needed to achieve many conservation goals. Doing so at the requisite scale and pace will require the efficient delivery of outreach campaigns. Conservation gains will be greatest when efforts are directed toward places of high conservation value (or need) and tailored to critical actors. Recent strategic conservation planning has relied primarily on spatial assessments of biophysical attributes, largely ignoring the human dimensions. Elsewhere, marketers, political campaigns, and others use microtargeting—predictive analytics of big data—to identify people most likely to respond positively to particular messages or interventions. Conservationists have not yet widely capitalized on these techniques. To investigate the effectiveness of microtargeting to improve conservation, we developed a propensity model to predict restoration behavior among 203,645 private landowners in a 5,200,000 ha study area in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (U.S.A.). To isolate the additional value microtargeting may offer beyond geospatial prioritization, we analyzed a new high-resolution land-cover data set and cadastral data to identify private owners of riparian areas needing restoration. Subsequently, we developed and evaluated a restoration propensity model based on a database of landowners who had conducted restoration in the past and those who had not (n = 4978). Model validation in a parallel database (n = 4989) showed owners with the highest scorers for propensity to conduct restoration (i.e., top decile) were over twice as likely as average landowners to have conducted restoration (135%). These results demonstrate that microtargeting techniques can dramatically increase the efficiency and efficacy of conservation programs, above and beyond the advances offered by biophysical prioritizations alone, as well as facilitate more robust research of many social–ecological systems.     

Evaluating complementary networks of restoration plantings for landscape‐scale occurrence of temporally dynamic species

Multibillion dollar investments in land restoration make it critical that conservation goals are achieved cost‐effectively. Approaches developed for systematic conservation planning offer opportunities to evaluate landscape‐scale, temporally dynamic biodiversity outcomes from restoration and improve on traditional approaches that focus on the most species‐rich plantings. We investigated whether it is possible to apply a complementarity‐based approach to evaluate the extent to which an existing network of restoration plantings meets representation targets. Using a case study of woodland birds of conservation concern in southeastern Australia, we compared complementarity‐based selections of plantings based on temporally dynamic species occurrences with selections based on static species occurrences and selections based on ranking plantings by species richness. The dynamic complementarity approach, which incorporated species occurrences over 5 years, resulted in higher species occurrences and proportion of targets met compared with the static complementarity approach, in which species occurrences were taken at a single point in time. For equivalent cost, the dynamic complementarity approach also always resulted in higher average minimum percent occurrence of species maintained through time and a higher proportion of the bird community meeting representation targets compared with the species‐richness approach. Plantings selected under the complementarity approaches represented the full range of planting attributes, whereas those selected under the species‐richness approach were larger in size. Our results suggest that future restoration policy should not attempt to achieve all conservation goals within individual plantings, but should instead capitalize on restoration opportunities as they arise to achieve collective value of multiple plantings across the landscape. Networks of restoration plantings with complementary attributes of age, size, vegetation structure, and landscape context lead to considerably better outcomes than conventional restoration objectives of site‐scale species richness and are crucial for allocating restoration investment wisely to reach desired conservation goals.     

Using individual‐condition measures to predict the long‐term importance of habitat extent for population persistence

Habitat loss and fragmentation are causing widespread population declines, but identifying how and when to intervene remains challenging. Predicting where extirpations are likely to occur and implementing management actions before losses result may be more cost‐effective than trying to reestablish lost populations. Early indicators of pressure on populations could be used to make such predictions. Previous work conducted in 2009 and 2010 identified that the presence of Eastern Yellow Robins (Eopsaltria australis) in 42 sites in a fragmented region of eastern Australia was unrelated to woodland extent within 500 m of a site, but the robins’ heterophil:lymphocyte (H:L) ratios (an indicator of chronic stress) were elevated at sites with low levels of surrounding woodland. We resurveyed these 42 sites in 2013 and 2014 for robin presence to determine whether the H:L ratios obtained in 2009 and 2010 predicted the locations of extirpations and whether the previous pattern in H:L ratios was an early sign that woodland extent would become an important predictor of occupancy. We also surveyed for robins at 43 additional sites to determine whether current occupancy could be better predicted by landscape context at a larger scale, relevant to dispersal movements. At the original 42 sites, H:L ratios and extirpations were not related, although only 4 extirpations were observed. Woodland extent within 500 m had become a strong predictor of occupancy. Taken together, these results provide mixed evidence as to whether patterns of individual condition can reveal habitat relationships that become evident as local shifts in occupancy occur but that are not revealed by a single snapshot of species distribution. Across all 85 sites, woodland extent at scales relevant to dispersal (5 km) was not related to occurrence. We recommend that conservation actions focus on regenerating areas of habitat large enough to support robin territories rather than increasing connectivity within the landscape.     

Predicting Risk of Habitat Conversion in Native Temperate Grasslands

Abstract: Native grasslands that support diverse populations of birds are being converted to cropland at an increasing rate in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America. Although limited funding is currently available to mitigate losses, accurate predictions of probability of conversion would increase the efficiency of conservation measures. We studied conversion of native grassland to cropland in the Missouri Coteau region of North and South Dakota (U.S.A.) during 1989–2003. We estimated the probability of conversion of native grassland to cropland with satellite imagery and logistic regression models that predicted risk of conversion and by comparing the overlap between areas of high biological value and areas most vulnerable to conversion. Annualized probability of conversion was 0.004, and 36,540 ha of native grassland were converted to cropland during the period of our study. Our predictive models fit the data and correctly predicted 70% of observed conversions of grassland. Probability of conversion varied spatially and was correlated with landscape features like amount of surrounding grassland, slope, and soil productivity. Tracts of high biological value were not always at high risk of conversion. We concluded the most biologically valuable areas that are most vulnerable to conversion should be prioritized for conservation. This approach can be applied broadly to other systems and offers great utility for implementing conservation in areas with spatially variable biological value and probability of conversion.     

Facilitating climate‐change‐induced range shifts across continental land‐use barriers

Climate changes impose requirements for many species to shift their ranges to remain within environmentally tolerable areas, but near‐continuous regions of intense human land use stretching across continental extents diminish dispersal prospects for many species. We reviewed the impact of habitat loss and fragmentation on species’ abilities to track changing climates and existing plans to facilitate species dispersal in response to climate change through regions of intensive land uses, drawing on examples from North America and elsewhere. We identified an emerging analytical framework that accounts for variation in species' dispersal capacities relative to both the pace of climate change and habitat availability. Habitat loss and fragmentation hinder climate change tracking, particularly for specialists, by impeding both propagule dispersal and population growth. This framework can be used to identify prospective modern‐era climatic refugia, where the pace of climate change has been slower than surrounding areas, that are defined relative to individual species' needs. The framework also underscores the importance of identifying and managing dispersal pathways or corridors through semi‐continental land use barriers that can benefit many species simultaneously. These emerging strategies to facilitate range shifts must account for uncertainties around population adaptation to local environmental conditions. Accounting for uncertainties in climate change and dispersal capabilities among species and expanding biological monitoring programs within an adaptive management paradigm are vital strategies that will improve species' capacities to track rapidly shifting climatic conditions across landscapes dominated by intensive human land use.     

Motivations Influencing the Adoption of Conservation Easements

Abstract: The use of conservation easements as a conservation mechanism for private land has increased greatly in the past decade; conservation easements now protect over 15 million ha across the United States from residential and commercial development. We used a mailed survey and in‐depth telephone interviews to determine factors that motivate private landowners in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin (U.S.A.) to place conservation easements on their properties. The mailed survey asked about characteristics of landowners, their properties, and their opinions on 9 factors related to the decision to place an easement. A follow‐up telephone interview was completed with 19 mail‐survey participants to gain an in‐depth understanding of the action and to triangulate the results with the questionnaire. Place attachment, which is a measure of personal connection to a location or property, was the greatest motivation for implementation of an easement. Results of a principal components analysis suggested contributing to the public good underlaid several of the strong motivational factors for participation. Financial reasons were the lowest ranked motivational factor; however, financial concerns may facilitate placement of an easement that would otherwise not be realized. We believe that our results may be transferable to places where land protected by easements is not dominated by traditional farming (row crops, pastures, and hay), timber harvesting, or nonextractive uses (e.g., habitat for wild animals, recreation, and protection of ecosystem services).     

Current practices in the identification of critical habitat for threatened species

The term critical habitat is used to describe the subset of habitat that is essential to the survival and recovery of species. Some countries legally require that critical habitat of listed threatened and endangered species be identified and protected. However, there is little evidence to suggest that the identification of critical habitat has had much impact on species recovery. We hypothesized that this may be due at least partly to a mismatch between the intent of critical habitat identification, which is to protect sufficient habitat for species persistence and recovery, and its practice. We used content analysis to systematically review critical habitat documents from the United States, Canada, and Australia. In particular, we identified the major trends in type of information used to identify critical habitat and in occupancy of habitat identified as critical. Information about population viability was used to identify critical habitat for only 1% of the species reviewed, and for most species, designated critical habitat did not include unoccupied habitat. Without reference to population viability, it is difficult to determine how much of a species’ occupied and unoccupied habitat will be required for persistence. We therefore conclude that the identification of critical habitat remains inconsistent with the goal of protecting sufficient habitat to support persistence and recovery of the species. Ensuring that critical habitat identification aligns more closely with its intent will improve the accuracy of the designations and may therefore help improve the benefits to species recovery when combined with adequate implementation and enforcement of legal protections.     

Assessing the components of adaptive capacity to improve conservation and management efforts under global change

Natural‐resource managers and other conservation practitioners are under unprecedented pressure to categorize and quantify the vulnerability of natural systems based on assessment of the exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of species to climate change. Despite the urgent need for these assessments, neither the theoretical basis of adaptive capacity nor the practical issues underlying its quantification has been articulated in a manner that is directly applicable to natural‐resource management. Both are critical for researchers, managers, and other conservation practitioners to develop reliable strategies for assessing adaptive capacity. Drawing from principles of classical and contemporary research and examples from terrestrial, marine, plant, and animal systems, we examined broadly the theory behind the concept of adaptive capacity. We then considered how interdisciplinary, trait‐ and triage‐based approaches encompassing the oft‐overlooked interactions among components of adaptive capacity can be used to identify species and populations likely to have higher (or lower) adaptive capacity. We identified the challenges and value of such endeavors and argue for a concerted interdisciplinary research approach that combines ecology, ecological genetics, and eco‐physiology to reflect the interacting components of adaptive capacity. We aimed to provide a basis for constructive discussion between natural‐resource managers and researchers, discussions urgently needed to identify research directions that will deliver answers to real‐world questions facing resource managers, other conservation practitioners, and policy makers. Directing research to both seek general patterns and identify ways to facilitate adaptive capacity of key species and populations within species, will enable conservation ecologists and resource managers to maximize returns on research and management investment and arrive at novel and dynamic management and policy decisions.