The impact of protected area network expansion on the conservation status of Finnish breeding birds

Presentation cancelled by author

The impact of protected area network expansion on the conservation status of Finnish breeding birds

(Poster)

Susanna Rokkanen
susanna.rokkanen@helsinki.fi

Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland, Finland
,
Andrea Santangeli
The Helsinki Lab of Ornithology, Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, Finland
,
Anni Arponen
Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland, Finland

DOI: 10.17011/conference/eccb2018/108146

SEE PEER REVIEW

Species extinction risk, often measured by the IUCN Red List status, is a widely used indicator for the state of biodiversity. Changes in the Red List status have shown alarming and rapid declines of biodiversity, both globally and in Finland. As an example, 45% of the 249 breeding bird species in Finland have been considered threatened (Red-listed) in 2015, compared to a significantly lower proportion 36,9% in 2010. Even though protected areas are considered to be a key strategy in halting biodiversity decline, there is limited evidence on the link between the establishment of protected areas and a reduction in extinction risk. The designation and management of protected areas represents a measurable financial cost, and this investment is often covered using public funds. As resources for nature conservation are limited, it is important to know if the investment in species protection truly yields the intended conservation results.
The aim of this study is to quantify the impact of protected area cover and spending in maintaining the conservation status of Finnish breeding birds. To do this, I use the Finnish Red List Assessments for birds in years 2000, 2010 and 2015. I have calculated the change in status for each species between assessments in years 2000-2010 and in 2010-2015. I have then calculated the increase in protected area coverage for each bird species’ distribution since 1996 until 2010. For the public spending, I estimate how much money has been used to establish more protected areas per each species on a regional level. This information is based on data on regional protected area establishment spending provided by the Ministry of Environment. The expanded protected area coverage and the increased monetary investment in protection are then compared to the improvement or deterioration in the Red List status. Since species’ extinction risk is explained both by species’ average body mass and migration ecology, these will also be included in the analyses. Phylogenetic relatedness among species will also be considered.
Currently all the data has been gathered and the analysis on the increase of protected area coverage and monetary investment will be finished during spring 2018. My results will shed light on how the increased investment in protected areas might be linked to the conservation status of species.

SEE PEER REVIEW

INTRO:
The abstract outlines the aims and methods of a country-scale examination of the links between the creation and maintenance of protected areas and the changes in species IUCN status. The work addresses an important question about the cost-effectiveness of protected areas in Finland.
MERITS:
The work addresses an important question - are protected areas delivering the conservation outcomes for which they were created. I think the integration of bird population data and information on public spending on protected areas is particularly valuable.
CRITIQUE:
The manuscript can be improved by being more specific in your writing style and by addressing whether or not a few years of data is enough time to capture changes in extinction risk.

I also think the abstract can be shorter - I wish the aim of the study appeared earlier on, and some of the information in the first paragraph is common knowledge to conservation biologists (your audience).
DISCUSSION:
I think it's worth specifying which IUCN categories you mean by "threatened", as near threatened is a category in itself as well.

Do you think the time frame of your IUCN classifications is the timeframe at which extinction rates operate? A few years of data might not be long enough to capture changes in extinction risk, but will capture some of the population changes, which is a fine question on its own as well.

- - -
INTRO:
The authors present a very interesting research aiming to directly assess the efficacy of increased investment in protected areas for bird conservation.
MERITS:
This study is based on large datasets, considering both economic and spatial aspects of conservation interventions, along with conservation status and biological characteristics of birds.
CRITIQUE:
Although the authors present a very interesting and promising study, they do not present any result, even preliminary ones. This is clearly missing and makes it difficult to assess the relevance of the manuscript for the conference. Adding preliminary results that would show for example that there are at least some trends would make the manuscript a lot more relevant.
DISCUSSION:
Ultimately, their results could help prioritize conservation interventions, with costs/benefits assessments.

- - -
INTRO:
The IUCN Red List of threatened species and the algorithm used to calculate conservation status is a valuable tool for tracking species' risks of extinction through time. The authors present the worrying statistic that the proportion of threatened bird species in Finland has substantially increased from 2010 to 2015. By correlating the change in each species' conservation status with the change in protected reserves and government spending on bird conservation, this study will be a valuable insight into the impact of conservation effeorts in Finland.
MERITS:
This is an important study to provide empirical evidence of the effect of protected areas on conservation status. Using a broad range of species (the entire bird assmeblage of Finland) is an excellent approach to detect general patterns that can be used to predict outcomes of conservation management. The strong management focus will be useful for managers, providing direct, clear targets and outcomes. In addition, the abstract was well-written and clear.
CRITIQUE:
Due to the limitations of an abstract, the authors were unable to provide much methodological detail, so I am unable to determine whether two time points will be sufficient for rigorous quantitative analysis.
DISCUSSION:
While it is widely assumed that protecting habitat reduces extinction risk, empirical evidence is scarce and difficult to gather. Perhaps alone, protecting habitat is not enough for some species, and a critical covariate must be considered. Whatever the findings, this study will provide a valuable assessment of the effect of protected areas on Finnish birds to date. Importantly, the findings can also be used to predict the impact of protected areas on extinction risk, which will be useful in the efficient allocation of limited conservation funds. Should this novel method prove successful, it paves the way for future studies of management strategies with the potential to improve conservation outcomes.

- - -
INTRO:
The work proposed in this manuscript aims at evaluating (i) the impact of increasing the protected are cover of several Finnish birds species' distibution areas on mitigating the extinction risk for these species, and (ii) the economic efficiency of this increase in protection cover.
MERITS:
Within conservations sciences, there is a very important debate on the relative efficiency of land sparing and land sharing approaches for conservation, especially regarding species with large home ranges. In this context, the topic of this study that aims at investigating the link between the establishment of protected areas and a reduction in extinction risk is relevant and important.

The manuscript is, clear, well structured and overall well written.
CRITIQUE:
To me, the manuscript at this stage presents a few points that require some clarifications from the authors. First, if the cost of establishing and managing protected areas is indeed measurable, the associated benefits are diverse and hard to disentangle from one another and consequently hard to measure. Protected areas do not solely aim at mitigating the extinction risk for bird species, they target several species at a time that have various needs and might also aim at landscape conservation, increasing quantitiy and quality of citizens' experiences of nature, provide environmental eduation, etc. In this context, I feel that the authors should specify more precisely which costs are taken into account in their calculations. How do they disentangles costs that can be attributed to the reduction in extinction risk from costs to be attributed to other purposes ?

Then, I would like to raise another point about using the species' Red List status as a criterion to evaluate the efficiency of Finnish conservation areas. I am not a Finnish bird specialist, but authors mention that some species involved are migratory, so I suppose that the evolution of their Red List status depends also on conservation actions outside Finland. More information is needeed on how the migration ecology will be included in the analyses. Overall, methods are a bit vague and could be more

Finally, the results are not yet available, so this part cannot be reviewed.

DISCUSSION:
I cannot comment on the importance and implications of the research as the results are work in progress.