Assessing the shelf life of cost‐efficient conservation plans for species at risk across gradients of agricultural land use. Issue 4 (August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Robillard, Cassandra M.; Kerr, Jeremy T.
• Is Part Of: Conservation biology. Volume 31:Issue 4(2017:Aug.)
• Page Start: 837
• Page End: 847
• Publication Date: 2017-08
• Subjects: conservation planning -- habitat -- implementation -- land‐use change -- private lands -- resilience -- restoration -- return on investment -- cambio de uso de suelo -- hábitat -- implementación -- planeación de la conservación -- rentabilidad de inversión -- resiliencia -- restauración -- tierras privadas; Conservation biology -- Periodicals; 333.9516
• DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12886
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0888-8892

Abstract

Abstract: High costs of land in agricultural regions warrant spatial prioritization approaches to conservation that explicitly consider land prices to produce protected‐area networks that accomplish targets efficiently. However, land‐use changes in such regions and delays between plan design and implementation may render optimized plans obsolete before implementation occurs. To measure the shelf life of cost‐efficient conservation plans, we simulated a land‐acquisition and restoration initiative aimed at conserving species at risk in Canada's farmlands. We accounted for observed changes in land‐acquisition costs and in agricultural intensity based on censuses of agriculture taken from 1986 to 2011. For each year of data, we mapped costs and areas of conservation priority designated using Marxan. We compared plans to test for changes through time in the arrangement of high‐priority sites and in the total cost of each plan. For acquisition costs, we measured the savings from accounting for prices during site selection. Land‐acquisition costs and land‐use intensity generally rose over time independent of inflation (24–78%), although rates of change were heterogeneous through space and decreased in some areas. Accounting for spatial variation in land price lowered the cost of conservation plans by 1.73–13.9%, decreased the range of costs by 19–82%, and created unique solutions from which to choose. Despite the rise in plan costs over time, the high conservation priority of particular areas remained consistent. Delaying conservation in these critical areas may compromise what optimized conservation plans can achieve. In the case of Canadian farmland, rapid conservation action is cost‐effective, even with moderate levels of uncertainty in how to implement restoration goals.