Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan 27;13(1):e1002052.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002052. eCollection 2015 Jan.

Optimal conservation outcomes require both restoration and protection

Hugh P Possingham  1 , Michael Bode  2 , Carissa J Klein  3
Affiliations

Optimal conservation outcomes require both restoration and protection

Hugh P Possingham et al. PLoS Biol. .

Abstract

Conservation outcomes are principally achieved through the protection of intact habitat or the restoration of degraded habitat. Restoration is generally considered a lower priority action than protection because protection is thought to provide superior outcomes, at lower costs, without the time delay required for restoration. Yet while it is broadly accepted that protected intact habitat safeguards more biodiversity and generates greater ecosystem services per unit area than restored habitat, conservation lacks a theory that can coherently compare the relative outcomes of the two actions. We use a dynamic landscape model to integrate these two actions into a unified conservation theory of protection and restoration. Using nonlinear benefit functions, we show that both actions are crucial components of a conservation strategy that seeks to optimise either biodiversity conservation or ecosystem services provision. In contrast to conservation orthodoxy, in some circumstances, restoration should be strongly preferred to protection. The relative priority of protection and restoration depends on their costs and also on the different time lags that are inherent to both protection and restoration. We derive a simple and easy-to-interpret heuristic that integrates these factors into a single equation that applies equally to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service objectives. We use two examples to illustrate the theory: bird conservation in tropical rainforests and coastal defence provided by mangrove forests.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Allocation schedules for mangrove ecosystem service provision.
Proportion of landscape in each land state over a 30-year mangrove conservation project in Sabah. Results show (A) the optimal allocation decision to only restore, and (B) the standard approach of pursuing protection while intact habitat remains unprotected. Prioritising restoration results in fewer protected areas (green) and a greater amount of unprotected intact habitat (grey), but has greater success limiting the amount of degraded land (red), therefore maximising the provision of ecosystem services (see Fig. 2A). The data used in this figure is given in S1 Data, and the Matlab code that generated it can be found in S2 Text.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Performance of alternative allocation schedules.
The conservation outcomes delivered by different allocation schedules, both measured relative to a null model of no management investment. (A) Annual provision of additional ecosystem services from mangrove conservation in Sabah under the optimal allocation (restoration-only, blue line), and the standard, protection-only approach (green line). Performance is measured relative to the amount of coastal defence that would be expected in the absence of management intervention. (B) Extinctions averted by the optimal allocation schedule, which switches from protection to restoration after 20 years (dashed black line). Results are also shown for the standard, protection-only approach (green line), and a restoration-only approach (blue line). The number of observed extinctions is reported in comparison to the number of extinctions we would expect in the absence of management intervention. The data used in this figure is given in S2 Data, and the Matlab code that generated it can be found in S2 Text and S3 Text.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Allocation schedules for rainforest biodiversity conservation.
Proportion of landscape in each land state through time over 43 years of rainforest conservation in Paraguay’s Atlantic Forest (1970–2013). Results show (A) the optimal allocation schedule of protection for 20 years, followed by 23 years of restoration, and (B) the standard approach of protection while intact habitat remains unprotected. An early switch from protection to restoration results in fewer protected areas (green) and more unprotected habitat (grey), but less degraded land (red). The result is fewer species extinctions (see Fig. 2B). The data used in this figure is given in S3 Data, and the Matlab code that generated it can be found in S3 Text.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Dynamics of the unified restoration and protection model.
Schematic representation of the landscape dynamics described by Eq (7). Arrows show the direction of state changes between the four land states, with the mathematical terms indicating the magnitude of the flux. For example, the blue arrow extending from restoring land (R) to degraded land (C) indicates that the process of restoration moves land from the “degraded” state to the “restoring” state.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

  • The role of incentive mechanisms in promoting forest restoration.
    Tedesco AM, Brancalion PHS, Hepburn MLH, Walji K, Wilson KA, Possingham HP, Dean AJ, Nugent N, Elias-Trostmann K, Perez-Hammerle KV, Rhodes JR. Tedesco AM, et al. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2023 Jan 2;378(1867):20210088. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0088. Epub 2022 Nov 14. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2023. PMID: 36373914 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Benthic Biodiversity, Carbon Storage and the Potential for Increasing Negative Feedbacks on Climate Change in Shallow Waters of the Antarctic Peninsula.
    Morley SA, Souster TA, Vause BJ, Gerrish L, Peck LS, Barnes DKA. Morley SA, et al. Biology (Basel). 2022 Feb 17;11(2):320. doi: 10.3390/biology11020320. Biology (Basel). 2022. PMID: 35205187 Free PMC article.
  • Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water.
    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 BL, Enquist BJ, Feng X, Gallagher R, Maitner B, Meiri S, Mulligan M, Ofer G, Roll U, Hanson JO, Jetz W, Di Marco M, McGowan J, Rinnan DS, Sachs JD, Lesiv M, Adams VM, Andrew SC, Burger JR, Hannah L, Marquet PA, McCarthy JK, Morueta-Holme N, Newman EA, Park DS, Roehrdanz PR, Svenning JC, Violle C, Wieringa JJ, Wynne G, Fritz S, Strassburg BBN, Obersteiner M, Kapos V, Burgess N, Schmidt-Traub G, Visconti P. Jung M, et al. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021 Nov;5(11):1499-1509. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7. Epub 2021 Aug 23. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021. PMID: 34429536
  • Prioritizing actions: spatial action maps for conservation.
    Tallis H, Fargione J, Game E, McDonald R, Baumgarten L, Bhagabati N, Cortez R, Griscom B, Higgins J, Kennedy CM, Kiesecker J, Kroeger T, Leberer T, McGowan J, Mandle L, Masuda YJ, Morrison SA, Palmer S, Shirer R, Shyamsundar P, Wolff NH, Possingham HP. Tallis H, et al. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2021 Dec;1505(1):118-141. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14651. Epub 2021 Jun 27. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2021. PMID: 34176148 Free PMC article.
  • A novel system for intensive Diadema antillarum propagation as a step towards population enhancement.
    Pilnick AR, O'Neil KL, Moe M, Patterson JT. Pilnick AR, et al. Sci Rep. 2021 May 27;11(1):11244. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90564-1. Sci Rep. 2021. PMID: 34045538 Free PMC article.
See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Convention on Biological Diversity (2011) Conference of the Parties Decision X/2: Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 United Nations; 10.1080/17437199.2011.587961 - DOI
    1. European Union (2011) The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 European Union; 10.1080/17437199.2011.587961 - DOI
    1. Benayas JMR, Newton AC, Diaz A, Bullock JM (2009) Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Ecological Restoration: A Meta-Analysis. Science 325: 1121–1124. 10.1126/science.1172460 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dodds WK, Wilson KC, Rehmeier RL, Knight GL, Wiggam S, et al. (2008) Comparing ecosystem goods and services provided by restored and native lands. BioScience 58: 837–845.
    1. Hobbs RJ, Harris JA (2001) Restoration ecology: repairing the Earth's ecosystems in the new millennium. Restoration Ecology 9: 239–246.

Publication types

Grants and funding

HPP, MB, and CJK were funded by the Australian Research Council (http://www.arc.gov.au/). MB was funded by a DECRA Fellowship; CJK was funded by an Australian Research Council Postdoctoral Fellowship; HPP was funded by an ARC Laureate Fellowship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

LinkOut - more resources