Abstract
The growing availability of high-resolution biodiversity data is enhancing our ability to implement biodiversity conservation more effectively. Spatial planning has widely utilized such fine-scale biodiversity data, and proposals of finely-organized protected area networks have been increasing. However, a naive adoption of such fine-scale data for conservation may not only degrade the utility of the data, but may even risk reduction of long-term efficacy of conservation efforts. This is due to inherent tradeoffs between the efficacy of conservation actions over short-term and its persistence over long-term that is characterized by the management scale of spatial planning associated with the resolution of the data used. To demonstrate this argument, the spatiotemporal ecosystem dynamics must be described, but such discussions are limited in the literature. Here, we discuss the potential issues associated with naive uses of fine-scale biodiversity data to establish fine-tuned spatial planning. We then emphasize the importance of matching the data resolution with an appropriate scale of spatial planning that is realized by transforming the data resolution. This method is readily applicable for widely used decision-support tools for spatial planning. A simple worked example is provided to demonstrate its utility with a long-term conservation efficacy in spatial planning. Guided by the recent explosion of biological data, our discussion provides new insights into the ways to maximize the utility of these data, and further improve biodiversity conservation.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Effective conservation measures are urgently needed to reduce and reverse the ongoing global biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation under increasing human pressures [1, 2]. In recent years, we have witnessed an explosion of open biodiversity data (raw observed records), including organism occurrence records (e.g., Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF): https://www.gbif.org/; Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS): https://obis.org/), ecological community data collected at local scales [3, 4], and citizen-science-based observations (e.g., iNaturalist: https://inaturalist.org; eBird) [5]. Accordingly, accumulated data play a central role in biodiversity mapping [6,7,8] and data-driven conservation planning [9,10,11]. This also provides a basis for spatial conservation planning (SCP), in which optimization algorithms are often employed to select an optimal set of protection sites [12, 13]. A number of protected areas, a central measure of area-based conservation [14], have been introduced globally to bend the species extinction curve. Moreover, recent technological improvements allow for mapping biodiversity features at fine resolutions (e.g., 100 m × 100 m) within a large spatial extent [15], which can substantially promote fine-tuned SCP.
Simultaneously, the development of high-resolution biodiversity databases has actively been accelerating and these have been adopted for biodiversity conservation (Fig. 1). Can such high-resolution data actually improve SCP? In this note, we argue that simply promoting SCP with high-resolution data does not necessarily improve its long-term (after a transient period; i.e., years) conservation efficacy. Here, we define ‘conservation efficacy’ as the influence of management actions on focal organisms or ecosystems intended by practitioners to solve a particular conservation problem. On the contrary, it risks leading to a decrease in the conservation efficacy because the impact of temporal change on SCP may increase if the resolution of SCP becomes high (Fig. 1). This occurs because the number of individuals emigrating from a protected area at a given time interval is higher in smaller areas than that in larger areas (Fig. 2).
To demonstrate this claim, we need to scrutinize the inherent tradeoffs between the conservation efficacy over short-term and its persistence over long-term. In order to develop such an argument, it is necessary to consider the temporal dynamics of the ecosystem, but such discussions are largely limited in existing studies. Temporal changes in ecosystems can be short-term, for example, due to population fluctuations via demographic and dispersal processes; intermediate-term, due to land-use changes in the surrounding area; or long-term, due to shifts in the distribution range caused by climate change.
It is worth mentioning here that this paper does not intend to criticize the recent development of biodiversity data, but our key message is that an appropriate data resolution may exist for area-based conservation measures of SCP, which is not necessarily the finest one. Importantly, fine-scale quality data can strengthen our proposed approach though such data should be processed before application.
In this paper, we further point out the benefit of the conversion of data resolution in ecosystem conservation; the data resolution in SCP determines the magnitude of temporal fluctuations in the conservation effect of area-based conservation measures (e.g., establishment of protected areas). This provides useful insights into the scale issue of ecosystem management and time-robust SCP in the era of data explosion of biodiversity data. This does not limit specific taxa but can be applied to any biodiversity feature. Using a simple worked example, we also discuss inherent tradeoffs between the conservation efficacy over short-term and its persistence over long-term, and this provides the rationale for matching the data resolution with ecosystem management.
Our proposed method further complements the existing framework of SCP and facilitates biodiversity conservation that also promotes the Sustainable Development Goal 15 “protecting, restoring and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and biodiversity loss” [16].
2 Matching data resolution for spatio-temporally robust spatial conservation planning in a dynamic environment
Motivated by the necessity of cost-effective SCP, mathematically grounded decision-support tools, such as Marxan [12] and Zonation [13] have been widely utilized in optimal site selection for protected areas and a number of extensions are ongoing [17, 18]. Our proposed method is compatible with these existing methods; our method can be used to input data for existing decision-support tools. Generally, existing decision-support tools are based on the single-time optimization provided by objective and constraint functions. This is not optimal over longer periods, as it simply approximates the optimal configuration of conservation efforts at a particular moment. However, in the long term, ecosystem dynamics erode the effect of this (snapshot) optimal effort allocation at a past time point. The significance of this erosion of conservation efficacy is expected to be large in the case of SCP developed via high-resolution biodiversity data, suggesting the above-mentioned tradeoff.
Here, we propose a data resolution matching (DRM) method to adjust the data resolution to a (lower) resolution to be suitable for SCP to promote its time-robust conservation efficacy. In particular, the DRM method requires the operation of coarsening of the obtained high-resolution data, if available (Fig. 3).
The essence of the DRM method (recalculation of fine-scale data into coarser scales) in SCP is to reduce the number of possible combinations of spatial conservation actions, suppressing variations in spatiotemporal ecological dynamics at the scale of the input data resolution. Let us imagine a simple situation where an individual randomly moves in a 1 km × 1 km habitat with a 500 m × 500 m resolution map. The probability of finding the individual in one subdivision is 1/4, while with a map of 50 m × 50 m, it becomes 1/400. The chance of accurately defining the location of individuals becomes even smaller when the number of individuals is greater than one. In the latter case (50 m resolution), the probability of correctly determining the locations of two individuals is 1/16000, whereas in the former case (500 m resolution) it is 1/16. The effect of such changes of scale has previously been discussed in the context of ecological sampling, and tradeoffs between fine-scaled occurrence maps and data accuracy have been identified [19, 20].
3 Effect of data resolution matching
3.1 A worked example
Here, we demonstrate a simple worked example of DRM method on long-term efficacy of protected areas by applying stochastic macroecological model developed by Takashina et al. [21] to describe the spatiotemporal dynamics of individuals of multiple species. We introduced a reserve score to characterize the temporal efficacy of protected areas and evaluated how the reserve score varies under spatiotemporal ecosystem dynamics. While the conservation efficiency of a protected area at a given point in time can be evaluated by the reserve score, the long-term variation is evaluated by its coefficient of variation (CV) in order to evaluate the degree of variation of conservation efficiency by considering the effect of the mean value as in Takashina [22].
Figure 4 represents the dynamics of reserve score as well as its frequency under four different data resolutions (2− 4, 2− 2, 20, or 22 km2). In each scenario, the optimal protected area sites (20% of the total area 26 km2) are selected that maximize the reserve score at the beginning of the simulation (t = 0). The scenario with the highest resolution (2− 4 km2) shows the highest reserve score at the beginning, but the reserve score decreases significantly over time and still shows relatively large time variability even after settling to a certain state. The scenario with the lowest resolution (22 km2), on the other hand, does not have a high initial reserve score, but the temporal phenomenon of the reserve score does not occur as in the former case, and the temporal variation of the reserve score remains small. The CV shows that the higher the resolution, the lower the value, indicating that the higher the resolution, the greater the temporal change in conservation efficacy.
Example of the effect of the data resolution conversion on the conservation efficacy (presented by reserve score) of spatial planning over time where different colors represent the different data resolutions being used (2− 4, 2− 2, 20, or 22 km2). The reserve score is defined in the range between 0 and 1, where the lowest and highest scores are realized when no individuals are protected and all individuals are protected, respectively. In each simulation, an optimal reserve selection was made at the beginning of the simulation (at t = 0) that occupies 20% of the concerned region with the area 26 km2. We measure the persistence of conservation efficacy using the coefficient of variation (CV; Takashina 2021) of the reserve score over 1.5 × 105 time steps. The CV of each optimal selection is 0.02116, 0.00833, 0.00309, and 0.00231 for the data resolution being used 2− 4, 2− 2, 20, and 22 km2, respectively, demonstrating that using a coarser data resolution increases the persistence of the conservation effectiveness. In this example, five species were drawn randomly from the model
This simple worked example demonstrates that the time-robust conservation efficacy of SCP can be achieved by coarsening the data resolution, but it reduces temporal reserve score, i.e., there is a tradeoff between the efficacy of conservation actions over short-term and its persistence over long-term.
3.2 Summary of the methods
The initial spatial pattern of individuals was generated based on the stochastic macroecological model presented by Takashina et al. [21], in which all individual locations in the ecosystem are described by the spatial point processes. The model has the capacity to recover multiple well-known macroecological patterns across scales such as the species-area relationship and the relative species abundance. See Appendix B in Takashina et al. [21] for details regarding point generations. Key parameters used in the worked example were the species and individual intensities (\({\lambda }_{s}\), \({\lambda }_{i}\)) that characterize the average density of species and individuals, respectively. We set the species intensity as \({\lambda }_{s}= 0.00064~(=5\times {10}^{4}/{\left(5\times {10}^{3}\right)}^{2}{\uppi })\) and individual intensity as \({\lambda }_{i}=100, \text{r}\text{e}\text{s}\text{p}\text{e}\text{c}\text{t}\text{i}\text{v}\text{e}\text{l}\text{y}.\) We chose each species to have a circular geographic range with a radius of 30 km and individual locations were determined randomly within this range. At each simulation time step, the spatial dynamics were described by randomly moving the position of a randomly selected individual within a circular (not mutually exclusive) region unique to each individual chosen from \(N\left(0.01, 0.1\right)\).
The reserve score at time t is defined as \(\text{R}\text{S}\left(t\right)={\sum }_{s,i}{w}_{s,i}{I}_{s,i }\left(t\right)\), where \({w}_{s,i}\) is the weight of the \(i\)th individual of species \(s\) and \({I}_{s,i}\left(t\right)\) is an indicator variable that takes a value of 1 if the \(i\)th individual of species \(s\) is within the reserve at time t, and 0 otherwise. We used the simplest situation \({w}_{s,i}=1/{\sum }_{s}{n}_{s}\), where \({n}_{s}\) is the population size of species \(s\) in the concerned region. Hence, in this example, reserve score measures the individual coverage by protected areas.
4 Toward robust SCP in the era of biodiversity big data
The increasing availability of biodiversity databases enables us to conduct SCP analyses at finer spatial resolutions. Refined input data would widen the applicability of SCP to conservation practices, including invasive species management [23, 24], management of successional statuses within a landscape [25], and urban green space planning [26, 27], as well as addressing the classic reserve design problems [28]. However, as we showed here, there is a tradeoff between the data resolution and the persistence of conservation efficacy over time. This implies that finer input data would not always be the best in SCP analyses, and analysts need to tune the data resolution depending on one’s specific purpose. For example, a long term persistence of efficacy would be particularly important when transaction and relocation costs are prohibitively expensive, such as in the case of establishment of protected areas [29].
Our simple worked example showed that conservation efficacy was vulnerable to temporal fluctuations of species distribution status if optimal protected areas are selected using high-resolution data (Fig. 4). To some extent, this can be viewed as spatial overfitting based on a snapshot of biodiversity status. The impact of overfitting becomes more significant as the spatial resolution becomes finer [30], suggesting an inherent scale issue of ecosystem management. In most cases, the existing optimization algorithms for SCP are based on snapshot data and potentially involve this problem. However, species distribution status fluctuates due to inherent stochasticity in nature, and hence conservation efficacy also varies over time [22]. Previous studies have argued the importance of dynamics mainly from the viewpoint of future predictions focusing on climatic and land-use changes. Researchers have built snapshots of future biodiversity state by projecting predictive models on future environmental scenarios, and examined the congruence with the current snapshots eg. [31, 32]. Our idea of the time robustness of conservation efficacy is conceptually different from these studies in the sense that our approach does not involve future predictions.
The choice of the data resolution is a classic issue in conservation science that has been discussed in two separate contexts, i.e., mathematical suboptimality and cost-efficiency issues resulting from spatial biases [33, 34], and spatial aggregation of conservation areas to improve long-term conservation efficacy [35]. Biodiversity data are spatially, temporally, and taxonomically biased [36,37,38,39] due to shortages of survey efforts [40] and a lack of mobilization of potentially usable information, including undigitized records [37, 41]. Such incomplete and biased information can degrade the performance of conservation planning [42]. Previous studies have concluded that finer spatial resolution would be preferable in terms of cost-efficiency [34] or representation of important micro habitats [43]. In contrast, it has been pointed out that spatial aggregation of conservation areas could be an effective way to keep the connectivity among habitats which contributes to ensuring the long-term persistence of biodiversity [35]. Moilanen et al. [35] proposed a smoothing approach in which fine-scale input data (e.g., species distribution maps) is smoothed using a two-dimensional kernel. The data resolution matching introduced in this study can reconcile the two alternative viewpoints by balancing better fitting to the current state (cost-efficient and representative) and the long-term persistence of conservation efficacy.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, we argued that a naive integration of high-resolution biological data into spatial conservation planning (SCP) to recommend fine-tuned spatial actions does not necessarily improve the efficacy of the SCP. This is based on the fact that high-resolution data generates a fine-tuned optimal protected area network at establishment while highly-resolved spatial actions produced are largely vulnerable to temporal changes of ecosystems due to the situation we term as “spatial overfitting”. To overcome this challenge, we suggest the conversion of data resolution to a coarser scale to utilize the high-resolution data while reducing the temporal vulnerability of SCP.
While we present our argument in an intuitive manner in this short paper, a formal analysis will be necessary. For example, since we demonstrated tradeoffs between the conservation efficacy over short-term and its persistence over long-term with regard to the scale of data resolution, there may exist an ideal spatial scale to balance the time-robust conservation effect and data resolution. The optimal scale may also vary with target ecosystems. We anticipate that species’ migration ability within the concerned ecosystem affects such optimal size; hence, understanding the interplay between management scale and biological scale would be required to achieve an ideal data conversion.
Finally, while decision-support tools for SCP have been utilized to understand an optimal scenario in practice, explicit considerations for socioeconomic, political, and cultural realms in implementation issues, such as those related to ownership and land use options [44, 45], would be necessary. The recognition and the integration of practical issues into our framework will further improve the concept’s utility.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Butchart SH, Walpole M, Collen B, Van Strien A, Scharlemann JP, Almond RE, Baillie JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J, Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC, Dentener F, Foster M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P, Gregory RD, Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque J-F, Leverington F, Loh J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Morcillo MH, Oldfield TEE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR, Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vie J-C, Watson R. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science. 2010;328:1164–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512.
Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, Beher J, Jones KR, Possingham HP, Laurance WF, Wood P, Fekete BM, Levy MA, Watson JE. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12558. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12558.
Gentry AH. Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and geographical gradients. Ann Missouri Bot Gard. 1988;75:1.
Alfaro B, Purschke O, Hennekens SM, Chytrý M, Pillar VD, Jansen F, Kattge J, Sandel B, Aubin I, Biurrun I, Field R, Haider S, Jandt U, Lenoir J, Peet RK, Peyre G, Sabatini FM, Schmidt M, Schrodt F, Winter M, Aćić S, Agrillo E, Alvarez M, Ambarlı D, Angelini P, Apostolova I, Khan MASA, Arnst E, Attorre F, Baraloto C, Beckmann M, Berg C, Bergeron Y, Bergmeier E, Bjorkman AD, Bondareva V, Borchardt P, Botta-Dukát Z, Boyle B, Breen A, Brisse H, Byun C, Cabido MR, Casella L, Cayuela L, Černý T, Chepinoga V, Csiky J, Curran M, Ćušterevska R, Stevanović ZD, De Bie E, de Ruffray P, De Sanctis M, Dimopoulos P, Dressler S, Ejrnæs R, El-Sheikh MAERM, Enquist B, Ewald J, Fagúndez J, Finckh M, Font X, Forey E, Fotiadis G, García-Mijangos I, de Gasper AL, Golub V, Gutierrez AG, Hatim MZ, He T, Higuchi P, Holubová D, Hölzel N, Homeier J, Indreica A, Gürsoy DI, Jansen S, Janssen J, Jedrzejek B, Jiroušek M, Jürgens N, Kącki Z, Kavgacı A, Kearsley E, Kessler M, Knollová I, Kolomiychuk V, Korolyuk A, Kozhevnikova M, Kozub Ł, Krstonošić D, Kühl H, Kühn I, Kuzemko A, Küzmič F, Landucci F, Lee MT, Levesley A, Li C-F, Liu H, Lopez-Gonzalez G, Lysenko T, Macanović A, Mahdavi P, Manning P, Marcenò C, Martynenko V, Mencuccini M, Minden V, Moeslund JEMM, Moretti M, Müller JV, Munzinger J, Niinemets Ü, Nobis M, Noroozi J, Nowak A, Onyshchenko V, Overbeck GE, Ozinga WA, Pauchard A, Pedashenko H, Peñuelas J, Pérez-Haase A, Peterka T, Petřík P, Phillips OL, Prokhorov V, Rašomavičius V, Revermann R, Rodwell J, Ruprecht E, Rūsiņa S, Samimi C, Schaminée JHJ, Schmiedel U, Šibík J, Šilc U, Škvorc Ž, Smyth A, Sop T, Sopotlieva S, Sparrow B, Stančić Z, Svenning J-C, Swacha G, Tang Z, Tsiripidis I, Turtureanu PD, Uğurlu E, Uogintas D, Valachovič M, Vanselow KA, Vashenyak Y, Vassilev K, Vélez-Martin E, Venanzoni R, Vibrans AC, Violle C, Virtanen R, von Wehrden H, Wagner V, Walker DA, Wana D, Weiher E, Wesche K, Whitfeld T, Willner W, Wiser S, Wohlgemuth T, Yamalov S, Zizka G, Zverev A. sPlot —a new tool for global vegetation analyses. Veg Sci. 2019;30:161–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12710.
Sullivan BL, Wood CL, Iliff MJ, Bonney RE, Fink D, Kelling S. eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biol Conserv. 2009;142:2282–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.006.
Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature. 2012;491:444–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11631.
Tittensor DP, Mora C, Jetz W, Lotze HK, Ricard D, Berghe EV, Worm B. Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature. 2010;466:1098–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0949-6.
Jung M, Arnell A, De Lamo X, García-Rangel S, Lewis M, Mark J, Merow C, Miles L, Ondo I, Pironon S, Ravilious C, Rivers M, Schepaschenko D, Tallowin O, van Soesbergen A, Govaerts R, Boyle L, Enquist BL, Feng BJ, Gallagher X, Maitner R, Meiri B, Mulligan S, Ofer M, Roll G, Hanson U, Jetz JO, Di Marco W, McGowan M, Rinnan J, Sachs DS, Lesiv JD, Adams M, Andrew VM, Burger SC, Hannah JR, Marquet L, McCarthy PA, Morueta-Holme JK, Newman N, Park EA, Roehrdanz DS, Svenning PR, Violle J-C, Wieringa C, Wynne JJ, Fritz G, Strassburg S, Obersteiner BBN, Kapos M, Burgess V, Schmidt-Traub N, Visconti G. P. Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;5:1499–509. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7.
Sinclair SP, Milner-Gulland EJ, Smith RJ, McIntosh EJ, Possingham HP, Vercammen A, Knight AT. The use, and usefulness, of spatial conservation prioritizations. Conserv Lett. 2018;11:e12459. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12459.
Margules CR, Pressey RL. Systematic conservation planning. Nature. 2000;405:243–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012251.
Eken G, Bennun L, Brooks TM, Darwall W, Fishpool LD, Foster M, Tordoff A. Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. Biosci. 2004;54:1110.
Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts ME. Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritization. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP, editors. Spatial conservation prioritisation: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. pp. 185–95.
Moilanen A, Pouzols F, Meller L, Arponen A, Lppanen J, Kujala H. Zonation spatial conservation planning methods and software v. 4, user manual. Helsinki. 2014.
Maxwell SL, Cazalis V, Dudley N, Hoffmann M, Rodrigues AS, Stolton S, Visconti P, Woodley S, Kingston N, Lewis E, Maron M, Strassburg BBN, Wenger A, Jonas HD, Venter O, Watson JEM. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature. 2020;586:217–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2773-z.
Virkkala R, Leikola N, Kujala H, Kivinen S, Hurskainen P, Kuusela S, Valkama J, Heikkinen RK. Developing fine-grained nationwide predictions of valuable forests using biodiversity indicator bird species. Ecol Appl. 2022;32:e2505. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2505.
ICSU/ISSC. Review of the Sustainable Development Goals: the science perspective. International Council for Science (ICSU), Paris. Technical Report. 2015.
Marxan | Conservation Solutions https://marxansolutions.org/ Accessed on November 1, 2021.
Moilanen A, Lehtinen P, Kohonen I, Jalkanen J, Virtanen EA, Kujala H. Novel methods for spatial prioritization with applications in conservation, land use planning and ecological impact avoidance. Method Ecol Evol. 2022;13:1062–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13819.
Takashina N, Beger M, Kusumoto B, Rathnayake S, Possingham H. A theory for ecological survey methods to map individual distributions. Theor Ecol. 2018;11:213–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-017-0359-7.
Takashina N, Economo EP. Developing generalized sampling schemes with known error properties: the case of a moving observer. Ecography. 2021;44:293–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05198.
Takashina N, Kusumoto B, Kubota Y, Economo EP. A geometric approach to scaling individual distributions to macroecological patterns. J Theor Biol. 2019;461:170–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.10.030.
Takashina N. Long-term conservation effects of protected areas in stochastic population dynamics. Front Ecol Evol. 2021;9:672608. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.672608.
Adams VM, Setterfield SA. Optimal dynamic control of invasions: applying a systematic conservation approach. Ecol Appl. 2015;25:1131–41. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1062.1.
Eppinga MB, Baudena M, Haber EA, Rietkerk M, Wassen MJ, Santos MJ. Spatially explicit removal strategies increase the efficiency of invasive plant species control. Ecol Appl. 2021;31:e02257. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2257.
Abelson ES, Reynolds KM, Manley P, Paplanus S. Strategic decision support for long-term conservation management planning. For Ecol Manag. 2021;497:119533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119533.
Davies ZG, Fuller RA, Loram A, Irvine KN, Sims V, Gaston KJ. A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biol Conserv. 2009;142:761–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.016.
Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trend Ecol Evol. 2010;25:90–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016.
Kirkpatrick JB. An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: an example from Tasmania. Biol Conserv. 1983;25:127–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(83)90056-3.
Tanaka T, Wakamatsu N. Analysis of the governance structures in Japan’s biosphere reserves: perspectives from bottom–up and multilevel characteristics. Environ Manag. 2018;61:155–70.
Tulloch VJ, Klein CJ, Jupiter SD, Tulloch AI, Roelfsema C, Possingham HP. Trade-offs between data resolution, accuracy, and cost when choosing information to plan reserves for coral reef ecosystems. J Environ Manag. 2017;188:108–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.070.
Groves CR, Game ET, Anderson MG, Cross M, Enquist C, Ferdaña Z, Girvetz E, Gondor A, Hall KR, Higgins J, Marshall R, Popper K, Schill S, Shafer SL. Incorporating climate change into systematic conservation planning. Biodivers Conserv. 2012;21:1651–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0269-3.
Scridel D, Brambilla M, de Zwaan DR, Froese N, Wilson S, Pedrini P, Martin K. A genus at risk: predicted current and future distribution of all three Lagopus species reveal sensitivity to climate change and efficacy of protected areas. Divers Distrib. 2021;27:1759–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13366.
Rondinini C, Wilson KA, Boitani L, Grantham H, Possingham HP. Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecol Lett. 2006;9:1136–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00970.x.
Di Marco M, Watson JEM, Possingham HP, Venter O. Limitations and trade-offs in the use of species distribution maps for protected area planning. J Appl Ecol. 2017;54:402–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12771.
Moilanen A, Franco AM, Early RI, Fox R, Wintle B, Thomas CD. Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2005;272:1885–91. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3164.
Maldonado C, Molina CI, Zizka A, Persson C, Taylor CM, Albán J, Chilquillo E, Rønsted N, Antonelli A. Estimating species diversity and distribution in the era of Big Data: to what extent can we trust public databases? Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2015;24:973–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12326.
Meyer C, Kreft H, Guralnick R, Jetz W. Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions. Nat Commun. 2015;6:8221. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9221.
Meyer C, Jetz W, Guralnick RP, Fritz SA, Kreft H. Range geometry and socio-economics dominate species-level biases in occurrence information. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2016;25:1181–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12483.
Grattarola F, Martínez-Lanfranco JA, Botto G, Naya DE, Maneyro R, Mai P, Hernández D, Laufer G, Ziegler L, González EM, da Rosa I, Gobel N, González A, González J, Rodales AL, Pincheira-Donoso D. Multiple forms of hotspots of tetrapod biodiversity and the challenges of open-access data scarcity. Sci Rep. 2020;10:22045. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79074-8.
Lobo JM, Hortal J, Yela JL, Millán A, Sánchez-Fernández D, García-Roselló E, González-Dacosta J, Heine J, González-Vilas L, Guisande C, Guisande C. KnowBR: an application to map the geographical variation of survey effort and identify well-surveyed areas from biodiversity databases. Ecol Indic. 2018;91:241–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.03.077.
Marcer A, Haston E, Groom Q, Ariño AH, Chapman AD, Bakken T, Braun P, Dillen M, Ernst M, Escobar A, Fichtmüller D, Livermore L, Nicolson N, Paragamian K, Paul D, Pettersson LB, Phillips S, Plummer J, Rainer H, Rey I, Robertson T, Röpert D, Santos J, Uribe F, Waller J, Wieczorek JR. Quality issues in georeferencing: from physical collections to digital data repositories for ecological research. Divers Distrib. 2021;27:564–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13208.
Grand J, Cummings MP, Rebelo TG, Ricketts TH, Neel MC. Biased data reduce efficiency and effectiveness of conservation reserve networks. Ecol Lett. 2007;10:364–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01025.x.
Wintle BA, Kujala H, Whitehead A, Cameron A, Veloz S, Kukkala A, Moilanen A, Gordon A, Lentini PE, Cadenhead NCR, Bekessy SA. Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116:909–14. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1813051115.
West P, Igoe J, Brockington D. Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2006;35:251–77.
Watson JE, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature. 2014;515:67–73.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank M. Nakaoka for suggesting that we write the original version of the manuscript. We are also very grateful to N. Friedman and S. Ross for their valuable comments on the original version of the manuscript.
Funding
NT was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 21K17913. NT and BK are supported by MEXT “Advancement of Technologies for Utilizing Big Data of Marine Life” Grant Number JPMXD1521469887.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
NT conceived the original idea and NT and BK developed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
We have no competing interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Takashina, N., Kusumoto, B. A perspective on biodiversity data and applications for spatio-temporally robust spatial planning for area-based conservation. Discov Sustain 4, 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00116-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00116-4