Biological Conservation 147 (2012) 3–12

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation
journal homepage:

Determining the ecological value of landscapes beyond protected areas
K.J. Willis a,b,⇑, E.S. Jeffers a, C. Tovar a, P.R. Long a, N. Caithness c, M.G.D. Smit d, R. Hagemann d, C. Collin-Hansen d, J. Weissenberger d

Biodiversity Institute, Oxford Martin School, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Allégaten 41, N-5007 Bergen, Norway c Oxford e-Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QG, UK d Statoil ASA, Forusbeen 50, 4035 Stavanger, Norway

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Whilst there are a number of mapping methods available for determining important areas for conservation within protected areas, there are few tools available for assessing the ecological value of landscapes that are ‘beyond the reserves’. A systematic tool for determining the ecological value of landscapes outside of protected areas could be relevant to any development that results in a parcel of land being transformed from its ‘natural’ state to an alternative state (e.g., industrial, agricultural). Specifically what is needed is a method to determine which landscapes beyond protected areas are important for the ecological processes that they support and the threatened and vulnerable species that they contain. This paper presents the results of a project to develop a method for mapping ecologically important landscapes beyond protected areas; a Local Ecological Footprinting Tool (LEFT). The method uses existing globally available web-based databases and models to provide an ecological score based on five key ecological features (biodiversity, vulnerability, fragmentation, connectivity and resilience) for every 300 m parcel within a given region. The end product is a map indicating ecological value across the landscape. We demonstrate the potential of this method through its application to three study regions in Canada, Algeria and the Russian Federation. The primary audience of this tool are those practitioners involved in planning the location of any landscape scale industrial/business or urban (e.g., new town) facility outside of protected areas. It provides a pre-planning tool, for use before undertaking a more costly field-based environmental impact assessment, and quickly highlights areas of high ecological value to avoid in the location of facilities. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 18 April 2011 Received in revised form 30 October 2011 Accepted 2 November 2011 Available online 28 January 2012 Keywords: Biodiversity valuation Connectivity Ecological footprint Fragmentation Threatened species Resilience

1. Introduction Protected areas have long been the mainstay of biodiversity conservation with 12% of land currently under some form of protection (Jenkins and Joppa, 2009) and a commitment to increase this to 15–20% by 2020 (Stokstad, 2010). There are a number of excellent tools available for mapping conservation priorities within these protected landscapes (e.g., C-Plan, Pressey et al., 2009; Marxan, Ball et al., 2009; and Zonation, Moilanen, 2007). However, users of the outputs of systematic conservation planning tools have traditionally treated land outside of the protected area network as ‘‘scorched earth’’, i.e., as providing no benefit to biodiversity conservation (Edwards et al., 2010). Landscapes beyond protected areas are increasingly being recognised as important for providing ecological and evolutionary processes essential for the long-term persistence of biodiversity
⇑ Corresponding author at: Biodiversity Institute, Oxford Martin School, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK. Tel.: +44 1865 281321. E-mail address: (K.J. Willis).
0006-3207/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.001

both within and beyond protected areas (Bengtsson et al., 2003; Carroll et al., 2010; Chazdon et al., 2009; Mathur and Sinha, 2008). Key biotic and abiotic features of these landscapes include their role in the provision of corridors between reserves (e.g., through waterways, wetlands, Edwards et al., 2010) and as refuges for species given future range-shifts resulting from climate change (e.g., Carroll et al., 2010). It is also recognised that many threatened and protected species have significant populations outside of protected areas (IUCN, 2009) and that the majority of species migration routes occur beyond protected areas (Riede, 2004). Consideration is also needed of the landscape scale features that are important to maintain resilient ecosystems (Bengtsson et al., 2003; Klein et al., 2009). These biotic and abiotic features have numerous different spatial configurations across the landscape. All landscapes outside of the protected areas are not, therefore, equal in terms of ecological value. This point is particularly relevant when considering placement of business facilities, industrial operations and even the building of solar and wind farms; where can they be built that will have least ecological impact? There are currently very few tools available for mapping conservation

that effective planning for ecological processes requires a multi-criteria assessment approach that incorporates all of these important measures of ecological integrity (Regan et al.. models and algorithms to produce mapped output at a spatial scale relevant to most landscape scale planning decisions (<0. which is also designated as a World Heritage Site and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (UNEP-WCMC. 2°280 44. Canada (55°490 5. rather the EIA often gives an indication of necessary mitigation measures to minimise the damage that will be caused by the development. However. has less ecological value than a large undisturbed patch (for recent review see Tjørve. and/or require a high level of data knowledge and input. 2. 90 avian and 100 reptilian species known to reside within the Saharan Desert eco-region (http://www.319400 W).businessandbiodiversity. Underlying assumptions associated with this method include: (1) that it should be based on multiple valuation factors. There are many different metrics to consider at varying spatial and temporal scales.g. yet effective method for determination of important ecological features and processes on landscapes beyond protected areas. They also tend to occur once a decision has been made regarding where to develop.200 E). Many studies indicate that a more fragmented patch of landscape. Whilst these assessments yield an estimate of the species present in an area proposed for development. they do not consider the overall footprint of the development upon important ecological processes on the landscape. 1986). There is also often a consideration of the contiguous nature of the habitat supporting the species. has minimal perennial vegetation cover and low species richness and endemism. Typically. namely: biodiversity. flyways.html).html). The Alberta site is located within the mid-continental Canadian forest eco-region..html).worldwildlife. The Algeria site is located within the Saharan Desert eco-region which is hyper-arid. 2010). it contains a relatively large number of species that are adapted to this high stress environment (http://www. rarity (Smith and Theberge. 1994). Identification of data sources and models to determine ecological criteria Through a series of workshops with practitioners and a detailed literature review. five criteria were determined as being of primary importance to the ecological valuation of a landscape. 72°260 58.. where perennial vegetation and agriculture is present. 2009). Current land uses in the eco-region include forestry and oil and gas development. There are 70 mammalian. which is 40 km to the west of the study area (UNEP-WCMC. Oases are also present in the landscape. which is a lowland tundra situated upon a thick layer of permafrost (http://www.519400 N. Beyond the oases.. The Yamal’skiy marine protected area (UNEPWCMC.2400 N. fragmentation. for example. The options to relocate a facility due to impact on ecological processes at this point in the decision making process are also extremely limited.1600 N. large mammal migration paths and/or methods to incorporate areas that appear to be more resilient to environmental perturbations because of the combination of biotic/abiotic features that they contain (Klein et al.. 2010). Despite the extreme conditions. taxonomic uniqueness (Vane Wright et al. this park is about 300 km to the southeast of the study area.worldwildlife. one in central Algeria (27°190 33. It then describes results from testing this methodology for three case study regions in Canada. several studies that have attempted to include additional factors in conservation planning that prioritise according to the ‘dynamic’ features of the landscape including wetlands. Recently. ideally < 2010). there exist tools such as iBat for business (iBatforbusiness. these measures are based on observed biological patterns of conservation ‘assets’ or ‘actors’ but lack information on the ecological processes that support ecosystem functioning (Bennett et al. Currently the mainstays of ecological assessment by businesses for landscapes beyond protected areas are site Biodiversity Action Plans and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) (Slootweg. Vegetation cover in the northern part of the peninsula is dominated by mosses and lichens with a few shrubs and grasses that support larger herds of reindeer during the summer Willis et al. we set out to devise a method that would have a simple user input.naturserve.4 ecoregions/item1847. 3. these plans are based on detailed site surveys carried out by a team of consultants. 2009). 1991) and irreplaceability (Pressey et al.worldwildlife.1. Algeria and Russia. (2) make use of free spatial data available for almost any location worldwide. These provide the framework by which companies endeavour to minimise the impacts of their activities on ecosystems and habitats and ensure that planned development activities are in line with regional and national Biodiversity Action Plans (http:// www. The focus here was to determine what freely available spatial data from the internet.worldwildlife. combined with well-established models and algorithms could be used to provide a baseline of ecological information for any site in the world.. Crow Lake. At the landscape scale probably the most common measures adopted to date are indices of species 2009. and (3) be at a scale that is relevant to the extent of most development concessions. Edwards et al.5 https://www. The Yamal Peninsula Russia study area is located within the Yamal-Gydan Tundra ecoregion. There is one protected area. Additionally. Study areas Three study areas were chosen to determine an ecological valuation of the landscape: one in Alberta.759400 E) and one on the Yamal Peninsula in Russia (72°180 47. would use existing globally available databases.html). Those that are available tend to be region or country-specific (e. 2010). Methods 3. This paper describes the multi-criteria metrics and databases that we analysed and the algorithms developed to create a methodology to assess the ecological value of parcels of land across a landscape for any location in the world. 2010). Current land use is dominated by nomadic pastoralism. / Biological Conservation 147 (2012) 3–12 priorities outside of which facilitate access to accurate and up-to-date biodiversity information but this again focuses on key biodiversity areas and legally protected areas and produces mapped output at a spatial scale ($20 km) that is often too coarse for most landscape planning decisions.html).. 111°270 13. How to measure ecological value is complex. 2010) overlays the study area and extends to the south for 300 km. NatureServe www. which is characterised by continuous mid-boreal mixed coniferous and deciduous forest across a variable topography with discontinuous permafrost cover (http://www. Current land use is dominated by nomadic pastoralism. In addition. however. The aim of this project therefore was to devise a simple and quick. These areas were selected to represent a wide variety of eco-regions at different geographical locations and varying data availabilities. These criteria represent both the current ecological properties of . connectivity and science/ecoregions/item1847. All these studies agree. 2007) in order to secure both the arenas and the actors (Beier and Brost. the sparse vegetation is highly adapted to the hyper-arid climate via the persistence of the seed bank that allows for masting during high rainfall years.5 km).J. rivers. The nearest protected area to the study area is the Tassilin’Ajjer National Park.

and resilience. Output from this model highlights areas that are more different to their neighbours than other areas within the landscape in terms of their species assemblage and thus provides a measure of heterogeneity per unit area. 2002.. precipitation seasonality Annual mean temperature. In order to determine a measure of species occurrence in the study area. we used the data contained in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility database (GBIF. Lehner and Döll (2004) Lehner et al. This method predicts habitat suitability for individual species based on occurrence records and environmental covariates. corridors). plants. Species richness is then estimated as the sum of species for which habitat suitability exceeds a given threshold. It is therefore necessary to model predictive diversity across the landscape using a combination of point species occurrences and environmental variables to predict diversity on landscape (Hirzel et al. / Biological Conservation 147 (2012) 3–12 5 the landscape (e. temperature seasonality.. GDM predictions of compositional dissimilarity for every possible pair of sites within the study area were made in the statistical software package R using the Table 1 Factors to be included in a local ecological footprint tool for assessing ecological integrity across a landscape and the available data source. Biodiversity For most regions in the world there will rarely be enough detailed species data to obtain a clear picture of the biodiversity. lake and wetland features. Ferrier and Guisan. there is no minimum requirement for the number of species occurrences. therefore. birds. We found that there are very few regions in the world that have appropriate densities of GBIF records to allow this approach. led by MEDIAS-France) as the base layer for the LEFT.. 2006). we set a minimum number of species per biological group (e. Table 2 Environmental covariates used in generalised dissimilarity modelling per biological group. however. Since GDMs evaluate assemblages of species.) at 10 for inclusion of each group in the modelling in order to be able to robustly parameterise a GDM for that group.. 2009.b total annual precipitation. Data and models (described below) were then assimilated to calculate these criteria and an algorithm developed to sum the criteria into an overall dimensionless indicator of ecological value to enable a mapped output (see Table 1).. Ferrier et al. birds. and it was these data which were used to generate predicted compositional dissimilarity for our study area. To determine the finest spatial resolution possible for determining an ecological value of a landscape we examined the range of readily The biodiversity data were filtered to retain only those occurrences recorded in locations within the same eco-regions (Olson et al.c soil water holding capacity Global Lakes and Wetlands Database and HYDROSHEDS.K. habitat integrity.2. (2005). . Riede et to estimate species richness using such models requires more than around 30 records per species (Zaniewski et al. These data were then used in a Generalised Dissimilarity Model to determine the compositional turnover in the study area which is the rate of change in species composition with respect to the environmental variables (Ferrier et al. resilience). (2001). It also contains fossil records but these were removed from the analyses. 700 km  700 km) around our study areas for constructing the GDM. Ó ESA GlobCover Project. soils. 3. connectivity (migration routes. we selected vegetation cover at 300 m pixel size resolution (GLOBCOVER. 2002). BIOCLIM..a annual mean temperature. 2002). fragmentation. hydrosheds) were obtained from other global databases (see Table 2). etc. http://data... global data were available at every 90 m sized pixel (i.g. Zhao et al. The number of migratory species present The ability to sustain high rates of net primary productivity in areas of low precipitation Data source GBIFa. Data for the abiotic variables in study area (climate.e. IUCN. Willis et al.J. (2009). one picture element in a raster or remotely sensed image) for elevation (topography) to 10 km sized pixels for soil characteristics. led by MEDIAS-France.g.gbif. biodiversity. Biodiversity data were obtained for a larger area (i. mammals and reptiles Plants a b c Predictor variables Distance to water bodies. However.. 2004) as contained in the study area and to remove any duplicate records of species occurrence in one location. spatially continuous geographic data.. the study area is divided into 300 m sized pixels and the other data layers are superimposed upon this in order to calculate values for each of the ecological indicators. HYDROSHEDSc and Global Registry of Migratory Speciesg MODIS/TERRA NPP Yearly L4 Global 1 km SIN Grid V004h and BIOCLIM Global Biodiversity Information Facility (http://www.e. Given how important a knowledge of the vegetation cover is for calculation of many of the variables (biodiversity. precipitation seasonality. 2002. The GBIF Data Portal currently provides access to more than 300 million records of species occurrence worldwide. threatened species) and the key features important for supporting ecosystem functions (e. Ó ESA GlobCover Project. % nitrogen in soil. Harmonized World Soil Database. BIOCLIMd IUCN Red Liste GLOBCOVERf Global Lakes and Wetlands Databaseb. total annual precipitation. Biological group Amphibians. (2008) Hijmans et al. Factor Biodiversity Vulnerability Fragmentation Connectivity Resilience a b c d e f g h Definition Compositional turnover with respect to environmental covariates The number of threatened species present The size of the vegetation patch River. temperature seasonality. Ideally we would use species richness as well as compositional turnover to estimate diversity across a landscape using a approach such as ecological niche factor analysis (Hirzel et al. 2002). wetlands.g.

as yet no global datasets are yet available that can be harnessed to produce a relative measure of resilience to such environmental disturbances across space. of which about 28. EN.e. Summary ecological value In order to ascribe a dimensionless ecological value to each 300 m pixel that incorporates all five measures described above. more It therefore provides a large number of polygons of migratory ranges and distributions of species that migrate across national boundaries (Riede and Kunz. lakes and agricultural areas were assigned a value of zero.iucnredlist. The output was transferred back into a GIS platform for visualisation. Willis et al. connectivity (rivers.5. then applied the following rules for assessing the resilience value of each pixel: a value of 1 (i.. The software FRAGSTATS (McGarigal et al..groms. To determine the pixels that supported river corridors and/or wetlands (and the pixels immediately adjacent to these) we used data available in the HYDROSHEDS 15-arc-second river network database (hydrosheds. A key feature to try and retain on any landscape.. or NT) terrestrial vertebrate within each study area (birds. mammals. Areas characterised by human activities.wwf) (Lehner et al. 2001).. / Biological Conservation 147 (2012) 3–12 GDM package (Ferrier et al. however. The biodiversity. 2007) and the results were imported into MATLAB where a distance weighted average (using the inverse square distance measure) of all pair-wise combinations was calculated per site. the higher its functionality (greater diversity. we retained the highest value of compositional dissimilarity per pixel in order to report the highest potential value of compositional dissimilarity which could occur in that pixel.6 K. Pixels with more globally threatened species potentially present were treated here as having a higher ecological value. The maximum ecological value for any pixel was therefore six given that there are two complementary measures of connectivity.J. Vulnerability In order to assess vulnerability of an area in terms of the potential loss of important species if the area was damaged. we standardised the values of each factor to an index between zero and one. To ensure that NPP data were consistent with the vegetation cover data. lakes and wetlands) and resilience measures were already in binary integer values and thus required no conversion. All bare areas. 3. 2002) was used to define a patch using the rule of eight pixels (orthogonal and diagonal adjacency) and to estimate the natural logarithm of the area of each patch (ha). greater complexity in food webs etc. . Prior to running FRAGSTATS. Resilience Ecological resilience is the capacity of a system to undergo disturbance and maintain its functions and controls (Holling. open forest. Folke et al. We calculated patch size according to similar vegetation type based on the classes in the GLOBCOVER dataset. Fragmentation There is a vast ecological literature demonstrating the ecological importance of habitat integrity and ‘intactness’ and the impact of fragmentation on biodiversity (see Fahrig (2003) for review). soil erosion) should also be calculated. We therefore include a calculation to prioritize pixels that support migratory processes. We used the GROMS maps in the same way as the IUCN polygons: we calculated the number of migratory species ranges which intersect each pixel and those pixels that had the highest number of migration routes occurring across them were deemed to be of higher ecological value. Ideally a measure of resilience to environmental disturbances ( and (ii) waterways and wetlands. therefore. similar vegetation cover were assumed to have a higher ecological value. In general the greater the patch size. 2009) per vegetation type (determined by GLOBCOVER) were overlaid with data of the typical precipitation of the driest quarter (WORLDCLIM bio17. We calculated quartiles for the precipitation and NPP data per vegetation type within the study area.000 species globally. 3. This was achieved by setting the minimum value to zero and dividing the individual values per pixel by the maximum value of each measure. VU. we summed the value of each factor together to provide an overall indication of ecological value per pixel according to the formula: Summary ecological value = Biodiversity + Vulnerability + Fragmentation + Connectivity + Resilience. (2009) that focuses on the ability of a parcel of land to maintain productivity – a fundamental aspect of ecosystem functioning – despite relatively high water stress. Larger areas of continuous. Hijmans et al.g. a value of 0.5 was assigned to pixels that were in the upper quartile of productivity and the second lowest quartile of rainfall. Resilience is therefore an important ecological feature of any landscape and areas that can maintain resilience despite climate/environmental disturbance are of high ecological significance. Zhao et al.7.. The 2010 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species has assessments for $56. the highest resilience) was assigned to pixels that were in both the upper quartile of NPP and the lower quartile of rainfall. lakes. While it is possible to filter or weight species by their threat category. 3. we retained all globally threatened species to maintain the breadth of species potentially present in our study areas. non-natural and bare areas were automatically set a value of zero for patch size. After standardisation. 2004). we reclassified the GLOBCOVER vegetation categories into the following groups: closed forest.. 3. is habitat integrity. bare areas. the lowest value) for resilience. Range polygons of globally threatened (CR. reptiles and amphibians) were obtained and overlain in order to count the number of globally threatened terrestrial vertebrates potentially present in each pixel. we used total NPP in the year 2005 since this was the year in which the GLOBCOVER data was created. we used the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN. 2005) to identify patterns across space in the level of productivity of each vegetation type given spatial variations in rainfall.3. Two complimentary factors that represent migration processes across the landscape were included namely (i) migration routes as identified in the Global Register of Migratory Species GROMS (www. Connectivity Connectivity across a landscape either through riverine corridors and/or other migratory routes is essential to any ecologically functioning landscape. 1973.6. Pixels demonstrating higher levels of compositional dissimilarity were treated as having a higher ecological value. water/snow/ice..). forest/shrub/grass mosaic.. 3. 2009).. Pixels which were situated within a riverine corridor or wetland were given a higher ecological score. The resulting index highlights the pixels containing the most resilient patches of vegetation based on the ability to retain productivity despite low rainfall. Where multiple biological groups were modelled. However.000 have spatial data (http:// www.4. 2008) and the Global Lakes and Wetlands database GLWD3 wetland classification (Lehner and Döll.e. all other pixels were given a value of zero (i. To determine climatic resilience we adopted the approach used by Klein et al. the actual maximum value is dependent on the availability of the data for each study site. burning. 2004). Values of annualized net primary productivity (NPP. GROMS currently contains a list of 2880 migratory vertebrate species in digital format and digital maps for 545 of these species.

plants (n = 1). connectivity (due to migratory species plus the landscape features that support migration) and resilience. We set the study area at 100 km  100 km and each 300 m pixel within this area was evaluated for its ecological value using the algorithm described above. data from the IUCN Red Data list of Threatened species indicates that there three different globally threatened species predicted to occur within the study Fig. The greatest number of international migratory species appears to be concentrated in the north central part of the large continuous patch of closed needle-leaved forest.2. 1f). Once calculated.K. Algeria The Globcover map for the study region is presented in Fig. Data handling and display For the study areas described above. The resilience measure indicated that the areas of highest resilience are in the north-west corner of the landscape (Supplementary data Fig. Other areas of high resilience are scattered around the study area. within the study area there are predicted to be atleast 59 internationally migratory species and the number in any location ranges from 52–59 (Supplementary data Fig. reptiles (n = 3) or amphibians (n = 0). This area is marked by a dense river network and both small and large wetlands are associated with these rivers (Supplementary data Fig. Using this data in combination with the environmental co-variates (Table 2) the GDM output demonstrates that predicted biodiversity is the highest in the northwestern portion of the study area. 1a).1. Willis et al. 1. especially in the east where there are numerous wetlands. The IUCN threatened species list indicates that the study area contains two globally threatened species both of which potentially occur across the whole study area (Supplementary data Fig. Output from GBIF indicates that in this region there are point occurrences for birds (n = 282 species). The summary ecological valuation map is presented in Fig. we manually downloaded all of the spatial data and projected it into the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system. which is associated in space with the boundary between unconsolidated bare areas (i. mammals (n = 18 species) amphibians (n = 10 species) and plants (n = 545 species). 1b).e. / Biological Conservation 147 (2012) 3–12 7 4. This large patch is surrounded by much smaller patches of a mosaic of forest. shrubland and grasslands.J. . the summary ecological value for each pixel was plotted on a final map layer ArcGIS 10 to display differences in value across the landscape. In terms of the vulnerability measure. fragmentation. Results 5. 3. in pixels that contain closed needle-leaved evergreen forest and lakes (Supplementary data Fig. sand dunes) and consolidated bare areas (Supplementary data Fig. 1d). vulnerability. This demonstrates that the highest possible ecological value for this study area is 6 (values assigned for biodiversity. 2. In terms of connectivity. with large areas of continuous boreal forest and with some smaller areas of wetland along the western edge of the study area. results from FRAGSTATS reveals that there is a wide range in vegetation patch size in this study area from less than 1 ha to over 1000 ha (Supplementary data Fig. Canada The Globcover map for the study region is presented in Fig. Canada study area. The highest values (darkest grey-scale) appear to be consistent with the river boundaries. Output from the GDM modelling using the bird data combined with environmental covariates (Table 2) indicated highest beta diversity in the central and southwestern portions of the study region.. 1c). 1. GBIF species occurrences for the Algeria site indicate that only bird species can be used in the GDM modelling (n = 27) since there were not enough data for mammals (n = 7). Alberta. A desert region with sparse vegetation cover except for that present on intermittent wetlands (oases) in the centre of the area. 5. 2a). The largest continuous patch consisting of closed needle-leaved deciduous and evergreen forest occupies the central region of the study area. 1e). 5. In terms of habitat fragmentation.

vulnerability. therefore. oases) within the study area that may provide support for the migratory bird species that are known to occur in the Tasslin’Ajjer National Park and these pixels are detected in the connectivity layer (Supplementary data Fig. This area is surrounded by largely continuous desert land cover. 3b).8 K. two connectivity measures and resilience (i. The predicted range of these species appears to be concentrated in the northwestern region of the study area.e. (Supplementary data Figs. The resulting map indicates that the majority of the study area has low relative ecological value (Fig. 6). 2e). .e. / Biological Conservation 147 (2012) 3–12 Fig. 5. Results from GBIF indicate a serious data gap of species occurrences for this region with only four mammal species and eight plant species recorded (Biodiversity Data from GBIF). which is consistent with the highest values of connectivity and vulnerability. fragmentation. This vegetation cover is so sparse that the maximum patch size is about 0.. the IUCN Red data list for Threatened Species indicates that there are two globally threatened terrestrial vertebrates that are predicted to occur in the study area (Supplementary data Fig. (e) connectivity from rivers. Willis et al. Russia The Globcover map for the Yamal peninsula study region is presented in Fig. The summary ecological value map (Fig. 1a–f. 3d and 3e) The resilience measure (Supplementary data Fig. A measure of connectivity was also possible for this site. there are intermittent wetlands (i. (f) vegetation resilience. 2f). where the land cover is primarily consolidated bare areas (Supplementary data Fig. Measures of ecological value for the Canadian study area including: (a) beta-diversity. lakes and wetlands. The summary ecological value for the Algerian study area is presented in Fig.3. Another region of high ecological value is the northern boundary of the study area. 3f) indicated a patchy distribution of resilient vegetation across the landscape. 4) while there are small patches of higher ecological value at the sites of the intermittent wetlands (in the northeast and southwest) and around the few patches of vegetation cover (central area). 2. 5. Despite the hyper-aridity of the area. It was not possible to assess the differences in resilience of vegetation across space for this area (Supplementary data Fig. In terms of a vulnerability calculation. the maximum value of the summary ecological value for this site is 5. 2b). It was not therefore possible to calculate a measure of betadiversity for this region. (b) vulnerability. These layers are overlaid to determine the (g) summary value of each pixel within the Canadian study area (see also Supplementary data Fig. In the northern part of the study area there are also numerous patches of regularly flooded vegetation and open forest. a landscape that is predominantly covered by grasslands and shrublands and interspersed with small water bodies. 4 and is based on biodiversity. including both deciduous and evergreen forest.. fragmentation and both indicators of connectivity. the maximum value is five). 3c). which is desert habitat and far away from human settlements that tend to concentrate around the wetland areas. The largest patch is found in the southern part of the study area. there was little spatial difference in their migratory ranges. (d) connectivity due to migratory species.) region. (c) fragmentation.J. Results from the fragmentation calculation using FRAGSTATS was good and indicated variation in patch sizes ranging from <1 ha to 3200 ha (Supplementary data Fig. As this region is part of the Saharan desert. there is little to no vegetation cover within the study area. All three occur in the northern portion of the study area. This is due to the extreme aridity of the Saharan Desert and the resulting high variability in vegetation cover over each year resulting in no consistency between the NPP data and vegetation cover.03 ha. 2c). 6) for the Russian study area is therefore based on 5 of the possible 6 layers: vulnerability. 2d). thus the only areas subject to the fragmentation assessment is the tiny patch of vegetation in the centre of the study area (Supplementary data Fig. Output from GROMS indicates that there are at least eight internationally migrating species that are expected to utilise the habitat around the Algerian study area (Supplementary data Fig. Results from this map indicate the areas of highest ecological value are along the coastline and along the river and wetland networks (Fig. GROMs indicates that there are at least 21 migratory animals predicted to occur in the study area.

/ Biological Conservation 147 (2012) 3–12 9 Fig. The poorest data-region from our . 4. 2a–f. (f) vegetation resilience. Algeria study area. some data gaps are inevitable.K. there is now sufficient information available in global databases to make some estimation of ecological value. Fig. (e) connectivity from rivers. Discussion For all three study areas examined. 3. it would appear that even for data poor regions. this study demonstrates that it is possible to obtain an estimation of the spatial distribution of some important ecological features across a landscape and at a relatively fine spatial resolution (here at a 300 m pixel resolution).) 6. (c) fragmentation. (b) vulnerability.J. Measures of ecological value for the Algerian study area including: (a) beta-diversity. Willis et al. (d) connectivity due to migratory species. lakes and wetlands. These layers are overlaid to determine the (g) summary ecological value of each pixel within the Algerian study area (see also Supplementary data Fig. On a global scale. using globally available databases and existing models and algorithms. but using a multi-criteria metric approach such as described here.

lakes and wetlands. Fig. 3a–f). three case-studies was northern Russia – but it was still possible to obtain spatial information sufficient to map vulnerability. Russia study area. 5. These layers are overlaid to determine and (g) summary ecological value of each pixel within the Russian study area (see also Supplementary data Fig. information that could have relevance to sighting of industrial facilities and highlight areas of high ecological risk. Measures of ecological value for the Russian study area including: (a) beta-diversity. (d) connectivity due to migratory species. there are also sources of uncertainty associated with these global databases which need to be acknowledged from the outset. 6. fragmentation and connectivity across this landscape. / Biological Conservation 147 (2012) 3–12 Fig. (f) vegetation resilience. 2011). Willis et al. (c) fragmentation. The main limitation is the coarse resolution of some of the input data.. especially from the species distribution ranges (Palminteri et al.10 K. (e) connectivity from rivers. In addition to the data gaps however. The difference .J. (b) vulnerability.

A. Bennett. 2010) and evolutionary. The GLOBCOVER information has a known accuracy level of 79. 7.. Robinson. 3... What this methodology has also demonstrated is that there is a vast amount of global data available on the web to provide enough information to demonstrate differences in ecological value across the landscape for even the remotest of study areas. References Ball.N.. anywhere in the world. As mentioned in the introduction. F. in the online version. spatial decision support tools are now being developed to inform landscape-scale forest restoration such that multiple landscape functions (ecological and economic) are maximised (Gimona & van der Horst.P. Pressey et al. As recently stated in a review on the state of Biodiversity markets (Madsen et al. van Haaren and Fthenakis (2011) have developed a GIS-based site selection tool for locating windturbines on the landscape such that important bird areas are avoided.. Cheal. and often for landscapes where detailed data on species is far from complete. Conclusions Using the approach described.11. To provide the first stage of assessment in the determination of areas for Biodiversity Offsetting projects (Business and Biodiversity Offsets programme (BBOP. The next steps in the LEFT development are to automate the methods described herein.. for J.. Watts. As a pre-planning tool to be used before any site locations are determined to highlight the most ecologically sensitive regions. migratory. Jones. I. To assess long-term ecological impact of a development: therefore to assess ecological value of the landscape before. something that is of much higher consideration outside of protected areas. T. it is inevitable that economic/ecological trade-offs will need to be considered more often (de Groot et al.g. Lunt. Possingham. Reserves. 4. R.. 2009.. Marxan. Haslem. 389–396. 2009)).e. which are available for a variety of costs but can provide high-resolution data.2011. A... Clarke. Ambio 32.. much less compiled in a comprehensive way’’.J. J. It is also widely acknowledged that before this can happen. Nystrom.. However. 2011) ’’a gap in market infrastructure that persists is lack of landscape-scale ecological monitoring – while site-level ecological monitoring is not uncommon.. U.. The uncertainty associated with the GBIF points is related to the correct estimation of coordinates from the original source. A. Spatial Conservation Prioritization Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Marxan and relatives Software for spatial conservation optimization. 2009) therefore ground-truthing can also verify the classification of vegetation and whether vegetation change has occurred since the MERIS data used in the GLOBCOVER classification were acquired (i. In particular there was a general lack of freely available remotely sensed environmental data in high latitude regions such as in the Yamal Peninsula..F.D. D.. http://bbop. M. Brost. Recently several methodologies have also been proposed for the conservation of landscape features important to maintaining ecosystem processes (i. Furthermore. Oxford University Press. R. H. T. Oxford. M..W. during and post-development to determine ecological improvement or loss over time when combined with field-based. M. P. therefore. Yen. However. T. Bengtsson.R. In addition. K. Angelstam. this methodology is such that additional data can be incorporated if and when they are available.biocon.. We envisage that this methodology has potential for use in four stages of planning and facility location in landscapes beyond protected areas as follows: 1. Additionally. Possingham.Q.. (Eds.. J. Moilanen. Lumsden. at doi:10.. Ball et al. Radford.G. B. B.. there is an extensive literature and an excellent number of tools now available to measure ecological value for the selection of priority areas for conservation (e..C. Wilson.1016/j. 2009. Beier. 2009. 2005). D.. and Zonation. the important ecological properties and functions of landscapes..R..F. In: Moilanen. L. Ihse.. The tool would therefore be run before the EIA and be used as a guide to appropriate areas for more detailed on-ground surveys. Use of this methodology to analyse the three study areas inevitably highlighted significant differences in data availability across the globe despite our use of globally available datasets. Use of land facets to plan for climate change: conserving the arenas. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found. H. it is essential to ground-truth these species data where possible (Chapman. Koehn. since 2005). In order to obtain a quantitative measure of uncertainty. Mac Nally. their requirement for very high quality species/environmental data often means that they are of extremely limited use in data poor regions. 2007). these measures and tools have been developed almost exclusively for use in strategic conservation planning exercises. Appendix A.. Quinn. C. Conservation Biology 24. The approach we have presented in this paper is a first attempt at providing a framework to do this – and by its use of a range of ecological indicators.forest-trends. 2.. M. future work plans to include a comparative analysis of the output from the approach described herein with the output from high-resolution.. Elmqvist. we are undertaking a ground-truthing and uncertainty estimation exercise by comparing the results of our LEFT methodology with those obtained from high-resolution field datasets. it can both compensate for the data gaps in some layers and also be used to support a wider variety of land-use decisions.R.D. Newell. ground-truthed datasets. To provide additional information for the Environmental Impact Assessment. Emanuelsson. is provides a way of visualising the ecological value of the whole EIA study area. A.. (Klein et al.... P. Willis et al. Similarly in restoration projects. P. I.P. G. not the actors. A. less attention is given to the ecological versus economic tradeoffs. 2010). / Biological Conservation 147 (2012) 3–12 11 between predicted distributions and actual occurrences of the species can only be properly detected by ground-truthing the data. of the landscapes under investigation even if for some regions it was only possible to measure a few indicators. The other question that needs to be addressed is how this new approach aligns with the other methodologies currently available. 2010..). Folke.P. Russia.E. Some of the information obtained by this tool will not be routinely collected as part of the EIA and can therefore be used to provide additional sources of ecological information for a chosen development area.. (Edwards et al. resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ecological Management & Restoration 10..K. O’Hara. 2007). Whilst they can (and in a few cases. G. the data is not easily available..25% (Bicheron et al. we found that for all three case studies it was possible to obtain a measure of the ecological value .M.. have) been used for systematic planning outside of protected areas. which will perform the analysis for any location in the world within a web-based tool and end-user platform. Ecological processes: a key element in strategies for nature conservation. New. P.. since the focus of such approaches is on finding the best location for conservation. Mackey. To make full use of this approach for such regions may require accessing additional sources of remotely sensed data.001. Lake..e. J. 2003. while preliminary checks are routinely conducted on GBIF data.. Watson. With an increasing requirement to map and value landscapes according to their ecosystem service provision.. ground-truthed data. 2009.L. CPlan. 701–710.F. Menkhorst. there is a urgent need to devise methodologies that can map at a landscape scale.S. Such a trade-off approach is starting to be considered for some site facility location projects. Moberg. 192–199.

A.K. eBird. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature.. Joppa. 393–404.. S. DC: Forest Trends. Terrestrialecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth.. Paleobiology Database. C. P. Olson. Achard. 2002. C. Powell. D. D. Burgess. 2010.C. . L. 2007. biodiversity declines.10).. The Collection of Lichenicolous Fungi at the Botanische Staatssammlung München. 260–272. 2027–2036.. Pressey. FMNH Mammals Collections. SABIF Resource. 2009. Soto-Pinto.. Renewable &Sustainable Energy Reviews 15.. 1994.C. Norbert Kondla Collection. K. UAM Mammals Specimens. Bicheron. 2166–2174. Department of Environmental Biology. S.. Annual Review of O. I.. A. 1965–1978. Harvey. Vascular Plant Collection – University of Washington Herbarium (WTU). NBM birds. Santa Barbara Musem of Natural History. ftp:// ftp. Phragmites of Canada. 2009.. Arizona State University Lichen Collection. Arizona State University Lichen Collection. Journal of Theoretical Biology 264. van Haaren. 53–61. Zoology (Museum of Evolution – Uppsala). Ranera. Endo. Annual Review Ecology. H. MAL. Wettengel. Jones. GIS Maps and Threat Analysis.... Watson.umt.. 1991. Mathur.D. Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns. H. Hooper Butterfly collection.. Morales. 1255–1264. <http:// www. C.C. Herbarium GZU.. L. Royal British Columbia Museum. Biological Conservation 143.F. L. Canada. Biological Conservation 142. (accessed 10. Fthenakis.. Watts. J. M. E. Bergen (BG).. M. Wikramanayake. Palminteri. K. G.. Diversity and Distributions 13. Sinha. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden Virtual Herbarium Darwin Core format. MCZ Ornithology Collection. Biodiversity and Conservation 11. Lichen herbarium.. N. Red List of Threatened Species. Walker. Manion. E. Western Palearctic migrants in continental Africa. EUNIS. Bird specimens. Elliott. van Breugel. 2007.N. Ridges. K... 891–904. Ichtyologie.. P.. van der Horst. A. H.. Hirzel. Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart. applications and possible futures. Wilson. A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas. Peres. Smith. DBL Life. P. Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Jardi Botanic de Valencia: VAL. N.. H. 487–515.. Evolution and Systematics 4.J. GLOBCOVER: A 300 m global land cover product for 2005 using ENVISAT/MERIS time series.F.B.R. Peter Hall Observations.G. The European Genetic Resources Search Catalogue. Kassem. G. H. Evolution and Systematics 35.J. 305–314. Cushman. A. Gunderson. MSB Mammals Specimens. Kura.305/ Improved_MOD17A3_C5. Global Register of Migratory Species: Database.. E. Jarvis. D. M. MVZ Mammals Specimens. Ecological Complexity 7.E. P. Oxford University Press.. Dinerstein.... Project FeederWatch. benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biotropica 41.. Jarvis. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Bioscience 51. pp. R. GIS-based wind farm site selection using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SMCA): evaluating the case for New York State. S. Ene... Vascular Plant Herbarium (MA).L. Botany (UPS). K. (accessed 24. Real Jardin Botanico (Madrid). What to protect – systematics and the agony of choice. Herbarium WU. New global hydrography derived from spaceborne elevation data. 2011. Hein.. Australian National Herbarium (CANB).N. McGarigal. Edmonton. L.J. Science 329. A. Edwards. CONN GBIF data. Biological Conservation 134. Huc. University of Alberta Ornithology Collection.. Fahrig. J. Nova Scotia Museum of Natural History.ntsg. M.. Berry. 557–581. 2010. (downloaded 21.. Gollop Collection. Ecological Modelling 157. Biodiversity in Environmental Assessment : Enhancing Ecosystem Services for Human Well-being.D. Canadian Museum of Nature Amphibian and Reptile Collection Anura. Regime shifts.. Nigh.. Canadian Lakes Loon Survey. Hedao.1. Shades of irreplaceability – towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Willemen. Chazdon. 604–612. E. Animal Sound Archive Berlin.H. 235–254. Gimona. www..J. F. Chessel. CSU Herbarium. A.. Madsen.>. H. Gerald Hilchie Collection. Slootweg. J. Illinois Natural History Survey.. Parra. Ross A. 2007. Looking beyond protected area networks: a paradigm shift in approach for biodiversity conservation. Beyond reserves: a research agenda for conserving biodiversity in humanmodified Ttopicallandscapes.L. J... K.0083 resolution. F.I. ZFMK Orthopteroidea collection. Botany Vascular Plant Collection. Klein. Pressey.. Powell.. Global Register of Migratory Species – from Global to Regional Scales. ecological processes and conservation zoning into reserve design.J. S. Carwardine.D... Computer Software Program Produced by the Authors at the University of Massachusetts. Landscape Zonation. Mammals (NRM).gbif. B... 206– 217. 403. Lehner.S.M.V. Theberge. CBS fungi strains.. 2007. Despite progress. A. management and decision making. Schouten.. C.. Kunz. Braat. Stein. K.. B. Jenkins. Usefulness of species range polygons for predicting local primate occurrences in southeastern Peru.ecosystemmarketplace. Canadian Museum of Nature – Fish Collection (OBIS Canada). Carpenter..L.. Defourny. Atlantic Reference Centre (OBIS Canada).. Folke.1_GEOTIFF_1km/. Strand. GBIF: Museum of Zoology. Elmqvist. Regan. 457–470. USU-UTC Specimen Database. de Groot. Humphries.03. Amherst. 2008.. 2002. W. D. Vane Wright. Widyanata.. Lund Botanical Museum (LD).P. M.J. M.. T. Loucks. L. Germany. Elith. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. 2009... 2011. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiveristy. Lichen Herbarium Berlin. African Rodentia. / Biological Conservation 147 (2012) 3–12 Phanerogamic Botanical Collections (S)... R. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales II. A. I.. The C-Plan conservation planning system: origins. Williams. Leroy. Zoological Museum Amsterdam. MEXU/Colección de Briofitas. xviii. Ferrier. Evolution and Systematics 34. Accessed through GBIF Data Portal.. 933–938. 2011. Allnutt. 1973. Lamoreux. J... R. P. C.J. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. Barnett. P. Running.07. S. 2009. 2008. Holling. 2010... Kirkby. Underwood. Lehner..W.G. Possingham. 1–23.).protectedplanet. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. Davis.. S. NSW herbarium collection.. Arino. 2010. C. International Journal of Climatology 25.10). Vancutsem.R. Bontemps. A. Yu..Primary species and species occurrence data. Provincial Museum of Alberta.. J. A.W. Neel.E.. 1272–1273. D. NMNH Botany Collections. Moilanen.0. Hausser. Bundesamt fèur Naturschutz. NS. C. K.. 2009..S. 142–153. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Guisan. Journal of Hydrology 296. Senckenberg – CeDAMar Resource. R.D.12 K. C. F. Using generalized dissimilarity modelling to analyse and predict patterns of beta diversity in regional biodiversity assessment. 2002. M. 93–94. University of Guelph. Ferguson. Biodiversity and Conservation 3. Itoua. Riede. 2715–2728. Perrin. Hijmans. Donald F. J. Nemani. Morandin PhD Thesis/La Crete. Valencia. 2001. Invertebrates (GBIF-SE:SMNH). Kandy. C.. W. Johnson..M. L. R. Holling. 2009. G.. University of New Brunswick Collection. Watts. Oxford.... D. CGN-PGR.. Cameron. Annual Reviews of Ecology. University of Saskatchewan. Therevid PEET Project. 2004. Oslo (O). Copenhagen.. D’Amico. Birds (Aves). M.R.E.A. R. Incorporating ontogenetic dispersal... Stokstad. C. In: Proceedings of the Recent Advances in Quantitative Remote Sensing Symposium. 2005.E... USA. Bonn. P. Principles and methods of data cleaning . Mumby. 3332–3340. Bennett. L. Scheffer. K.09.>. IUCN. Great Backyard Bird Count.. Tjørve. Protected Area Data were Obtained from UNEP-WCMC World Database on Protected Areas... I.. The Collection of Lichenicolous Fungi at the Botanische Staatssammlung München.. A.... Version 2009. Zhao. NMNH Vertebrate Zoology Mammals Collections.. C.. p. V...A. S.R.umass.. M. International Forestry Review 10. 2004. (Eds. 2003. Carroll... B. Biologiezentrum Linz. Richardson. T. Herold. Willis et al. Zaniewski. MartinezRamos. SysTax. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning. Layberry Observations. NMNH Invertebrate Zoology Collections. AGU 89.. L. S. 437. S. Peabody Paleoportal DiGIR Service (IP). 261–280. 2004. Ecological-niche factor analysis: how to compute habitat-suitability maps without absence data? Ecology 83. reservoirs and wetlands..L. EURISCO.. HMAP-History pf Marine Animal Populations (CoML). G.. 2009. AB.. E. Final Report of the R&D-Projekt. T. Morrison. Lehmann.A.A. United States National Plant Germplasm System Collection.. S. Manion. Missouri Botanical Garden. MOD17A3.. J. 2002. M... Chapman.W. Ferrier. A. Cambridge. UAM Botany Specimens.. Lichen herbarium. Freese. 2010–7-25. 715–734. American Journal of Primatology 73.. Biological Conservation 55. University of Western Ontario Collection.. Philpott. J.. Cambridge University Press.. Global Change Biology 16. Alkemade.H.. Harvard University Herbaria. Canadian Museum of Nature Bird Collection. Dunk. Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. resilience and biodiversity in ecosystem management.M. Wilson. Incorporating ecological and evolutionary processes into continental-scale conservation planning.05 MODIS Annual Net Primary Productivity at 0. Spatial modelling of biodiversity at the community level.. 2005. T. Moilanen. Community-level modelling. 242–262. B. NSW herbarium collection.G. M.S. 252–264.W. EOS Transactions.html>..C.R. Döll.11). 2011.. R. Overton. Acquired for year 2005. University of Alberta Mammalogy Collection. R.S.. J. Update: State of Biodiversity Markets.. 1986. R.. Royal Saskatchewan Museum Collection. Environmental Management 10. P.. G.A. P. 403... Komar. Lund Botanical Museum (LD). In: Moilanen.. <http:// www. N. M.. How to resolve the SLOSS debate: lessons from species-diversity models.. Peabody Invertebrate Paleontology DiGIR Service.J. Halifax.H. Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning. <http://www. Verdin. 1–22. Development and validation of a global database of lakes. Canadian Museum of Nature Herbarium. Smith. C.. Mammal Collection Catalog.. New Brunswick Museum Collection. Biodiversity and Conservation 16.A.M. 2006. R. Journal of Applied Ecology 43. Provincial Museum of Alberta. Optimizing resiliency of reserve networks to climate change: multispecies conservation planning in the Pacific Northwest.. Ecological Applications 19. M. University of Navarra.. Australian Antarctic Division Herbarium. S.. S. Saskatoon.M. FrogWatch Canada. NBM Unionoids. Wilson. M. 2004. 2309–2338. version 1.. Washington. C. R... Y. Botanic Garden of Finnish Museum of Natural History.L. Bonn. B. B. 2009. Caroll. Canada. E. J. Herbarium (UNA).... p.. Andelman.. R. Peabody Mammalogy DiGIR Service. 2010.. O. Ferrier. Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. K. Pressey.. P. University of Amsterdam (NL) – Aves. University of Alberta Herpetology Collection. North West Territories and Nunavut Bird Checklist. Drielsma. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. P. 571–579. M. Ricketts. Riede. Herbarium of Oskarshamn (OHN). Landscape Ecology 22. Griffith. Canada. Brockmann..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful