An Index of Risk as a Measure of Biodiversity Conservation Achieved through Land Reform

Abstract

We measured the net progress of land reform in achieving a national policy goal for biodiversity conservation in the context of ongoing clearing of native vegetation and additions of land to a highly nonrepresentative (residual) reserve network, interior South Island, New Zealand. We used systematic conservation-planning approaches to develop a spatially explicit index of risk of biodiversity loss (RBL). The index incorporated information from national data sets that describe New Zealand's remaining indigenous land cover, legal protection, and land environments and modeled risk to biodiversity on the basis of stated assumptions about the effects of past habitat loss and legal protection. The index identified irreplaceable and vulnerable native habitats in lowland environments as the most at risk of biodiversity loss, and risk was correlated with the density of threatened plant records. To measure achievement, we used changes in the index that reflected gains made and opportunity costs incurred by legal protection and privatization. Application of the index to measure the difference made by land reform showed it had caused a net increase in the risk of biodiversity loss because most land vulnerable to habitat modification and rich in threatened plant species was privatized and land at least risk of biodiversity loss was protected. The application revealed that new high-elevation reserves did little to mitigate biodiversity decline, that privatization of low-elevation land further jeopardized the most vulnerable biodiversity in lowland native habitats, and that outcomes of land reform for biodiversity deteriorated over time. Further development of robust achievement measures is needed to encourage more accountable biodiversity conservation decisions.

Biodiversity Offsets and the Challenge of Achieving No Net Loss

“…) for at least 3 reasons. First, estimates of biodiversity losses and gains need to ensure comparability in the regional significance of biodiversity on the basis of patterns of irreplaceability and vulnerability and socioeconomic and cultural biodiversity values (Walker et al , ; Gibbons et al ; Underwood ). Second, a landscape understanding of the distribution of biodiversity and development activities is needed to identify opportunities for securing additional and ecologically viable biodiversity gains and hence to determine the most appropriate set of offset activities and locations (Kiesecker et al ; Pouzols et al ) and identify areas where effects should be avoided altogether because they cannot be offset (Kiesecker et al ).…”

Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how?

“…These include indices of abundance such as biomass (Tilman and Downing, 1994), evenness (Pielou, 1969), dominance (Simpson, 1949), rarity (Gaston, 1994), richness (Magurran, 2004), and diversity (Shannon and Weaver, 1949). Spatial indices of ecological risk have also been developed to identify management priorities (Mattson and Angermeier, 2007;Walker et al, 2008). These objectives (e.g.…”

Evaluating Private Land Conservation in the Cape Lowlands, South Africa

“…Cohesion between planning and implementation was thus maintained, in contrast with many other systematic conservation plans (Prendergast et al 1999; Knight et al 2006). Owing to the plan's goal‐driven focus, the CSP's interventions targeted areas for conservation on the basis of systematic conservation planning rather than political motivations or because their conservation was expedient (Walker et al 2008). Thus, conservation investment led to securing top‐priority sites under stewardship agreements.…”

“…Yet, few simple, objective methods of performance evaluation have been developed that estimate net conservation outcomes and conservation progress (McDonald‐Madden et al 2009). It is important to measure conservation gains and outcomes against explicit, target‐driven goals that are designed to achieve long‐term representation and persistence of species and ecosystems (e.g., Walker et al 2008). Objective reporting also requires the consideration of opportunity costs and the assessment of total conservation gains or outputs from a conservation program (i.e., securing or maintaining ecosystem components such as vegetation types, habitats, endemic or threatened species) relative to overall loss of natural features through their degradation or removal (Walker et al 2008; McDonald‐Madden et al 2009).…”