As the demands on agricultural lands to produce food, fuel, and fiber continue to expand, effective strategies are urgently needed to balance biodiversity conservation and agricultural production. “Land sparing” and “wildlife‐friendly farming” have been proposed as seemingly opposing strategies to achieve this balance. In land sparing, homogeneous areas of farmland are managed to maximize yields, while separate reserves target biodiversity conservation. Wildlife‐friendly farming, in contrast, integrates conservation and production within more heterogeneous landscapes. Different scientific traditions underpin the two approaches. Land sparing is associated with an island model of modified landscapes, where islands of nature are seen as separate from human activities. This simple dichotomy makes land sparing easily compatible with optimization methods that attempt to allocate land uses in the most efficient way. In contrast, wildlife‐friendly farming emphasizes heterogeneity, resilience, and ecological interactions between farmed and unfarmed areas. Both social and biophysical factors influence which approach is feasible or appropriate in a given landscape. Drawing upon the strengths of each approach, we outline broad policy guidelines for conservation in agricultural landscapes.

No abstract

Ecosystem service approaches to conservation are being championed as a new strategy for conservation, under the hypothesis that they will broaden and deepen support for biodiversity protection. Where traditional approaches focus on setting aside land by purchasing property rights, ecosystem service approaches aim to engage a much wider range of places, people, policies, and financial resources in conservation. This is particularly important given projected intensification of human impacts, with rapid growth in population size and individual aspirations. Here we use field research on 34 ecosystem service (ES) projects and 26 traditional biodiversity (BD) projects from the Western Hemisphere to test whether ecosystem service approaches show signs of realizing their putative potential. We find that the ES projects attract on average more than four times as much funding through greater corporate sponsorship and use of a wider variety of finance tools than BD projects. ES projects are also more likely to encompass working landscapes and the people in them. We also show that, despite previous concern, ES projects not only expand opportunities for conservation, but they are no less likely than BD projects to include or create protected areas. Moreover, they do not draw down limited financial resources for conservation but rather engage a more diverse set of funders. We also found, however, that monitoring of conservation outcomes in both cases is so infrequent that it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of either ES or BD approaches.conservation ͉ conservation organizations ͉ protected area ͉ working landscapes E cosystem service approaches to conservation offer a promising way to align conservation and production, simultaneously enhancing human well being and protecting Earth's biodiversity and life-support systems (1-10). Developing marketbased mechanisms for ecosystem services by ascribing them value, both economic and social, may help diminish poverty and improve human welfare (11-15). These approaches offer hope for making conservation mainstream, by enlisting the support of a greater number and variety of funders and partners, by spanning the continuum of ''wild'' to human-dominated places, and by broadening the financial and institutional approaches used for conservation. At the same time, there is a risk that by straying from a pure focus on nature reserves and biodiversity, conservation projects that address ecosystem services may detract from biodiversity protection (16).Previous research and reviews have demonstrated the use of specific tools for including ecosystem services in conservation (e.g., 11, 17, 18). Here, we provide the first quantitative comparison of conservation projects focused in part on ecosystem services (ES) and those oriented more traditionally around biodiversity (BD) alone. Our aim is to test whether ecosystem service projects attract new and more diverse financial support and to explore other differences between these two project types. In particular, we ask whether ecosystem ser...

Few conservation projects consider climate impacts or have a process for developing adaptation strategies. To advance climate adaptation for biodiversity conservation, we tested a step-by-step approach to developing adaptation strategies with 20 projects from diverse geographies. Project teams assessed likely climate impacts using historical climate data, future climate predictions, expert input, and scientific literature. They then developed adaptation strategies that considered ecosystems and species of concern, project goals, climate impacts, and indicators of progress. Project teams identified 176 likely climate impacts and developed adaptation strategies to address 42 of these impacts. The most common impacts were to habitat quantity or quality, and to hydrologic regimes. Nearly half of expected impacts were temperature-mediated. Twelve projects indicated that the project focus, either focal ecosystems and species or project boundaries, need to change as a result of considering climate impacts. More than half of the adaptation strategies were resistance strategies aimed at preserving the status quo. The rest aimed to make ecosystems and species more resilient in the face of expected changes. All projects altered strategies in some way, either by adding new actions, or by adjusting existing 123Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:185-201 DOI 10.1007 actions. Habitat restoration and enactment of policies and regulations were the most frequently prescribed, though every adaptation strategy required a unique combination of actions. While the effectiveness of these adaptation strategies remains to be evaluated, the application of consistent guidance has yielded important early lessons about how, when, and how often conservation projects may need to be modified to adapt to climate change.

Recreation 12w ww ww w. .f fr ro on nt ti ie er rs si in ne ec co ol lo og gy y. .o or rg g

Human modifications of the environment are growing in number and geographic extent, expanding to all of the Earth's surfaces and affecting the vast majority of the Earth's natural resources. Increases in demand for resources, growing levels of poverty, and more extensive urbanization, among other changes, lead to a need to move beyond parks and classic conservation approaches to incorporate humans and working landscapes more directly in conservation efforts. One approach to do this is to focus on ecosystem services, the benefits ecosystems provide to humans. Here conservation projects that focus only on biodiversity are analytically compared with those that include ecosystem-service goals to dispel myths and explore promises. Projects conducted by The Nature Conservancy, the world's largest conservation organization, are used, and it is demonstrated that not only do ecosystem-service approaches engage new landscapes, stakeholders, and funding sources, but that they do so without neglecting traditional biodiversity goals and the traditional approaches of protection and preservation. Seven case studies that uniquely create a broker-type structure to determine how to distribute money for the provision of particular services to the satisfaction of a wide range of stakeholder interests are focused on. It is found that all use local, independent leadership to initiate partnership formation, which then leads to the creation of a separate institutional entity that has legal rights to determine fund provision. The activities encouraged by these entities, and which therefore appear to satisfy a wide array of interests, are supporting education, rewarding best management practice, creating jobs, and monitoring outcomes.

Working across knowledge-based research programmes, rather than institutional structures, should be central to interdisciplinary research. In this paper, a novel framework is proposed to facilitate interdisciplinary research, with the goals of promoting communication, understanding and collaborative work. Three core elements need to be addressed to improve interdisciplinary research: the types (forms and functions) of theories, the underlying philosophies of knowledge and the combination of research styles; these three elements combine to form the research programme. Case studies from sustainability science and environmental security illustrate the application of this research programmebased framework. This framework may be helpful in overcoming often oversimplified distinctions, such as qualitative/quantitative, deductive/inductive, normative/descriptive, subjective/objective and theory/practice. Applying this conceptual framework to interdisciplinary research should foster theoretical advances, more effective communication and better problem-solving in increasingly interdisciplinary environmental fields.

The conversion of native habitats to pasture and other working lands, unbuilt lands modified by humans for production, is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity. While some human-dominated landscapes on continents support relatively high native biodiversity, this capacity is little studied in oceanic island systems characterized by high endemism and vulnerability to invasion. Using Hawaii as a case study, we assessed the conservation value of working landscapes on an oceanic island by surveying native and non-native plant diversity in mature native forest and in the three dominant land covers/ uses to which it has been converted: native, Acacia koa timber plantations, wooded pasture, and open pasture. As expected, native plant diversity (richness and abundance) was significantly higher and non-native abundance significantly lower in mature native forests than any other site type. A. koa plantations and wooded pasture supported four and three times greater, respectively, species richness of native understory plants than open pasture. Also, A. koa plantations and wooded pasture supported similar species communities with about 75% species in common. Conservation and restoration of mature native forest in Hawaii is essential for the protection of native, rare species and limiting the spread of nonnative species. A. koa plantations and wooded pasture, however, may help harmonize production and conservation by supporting livelihoods, more biodiversity than open pasture, and some connectivity between native forest remnants important for sustaining landscape-level conservation value into the future.