Viewpoint

The Future of Landscape Conservation

ROBERT F. BALDWIN, STEPHEN C. TROMBULAK, PAUL B. LEONARD, REED F. NOSS, JODI A. HILTY,
HUGH P. POSSINGHAM, LYNN SCARLETT, AND MARK G. ANDERSON

T he future of biodiversity  
conservation depends on efforts
applied across large landscapes, the
created through an order by the then
secretary of the interior Ken Salazar
(Order no. 3289), which also invested
The field of systematic conservation
planning has matured to the point
at which it can be applied effectively
scale at which many key ecological in the US Geological Survey climate at continental scales. Influenced by a
and evolutionary processes take place. science centers (CSCs). The LCCs variety of fields from computer science

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/2/60/4791429 by guest on 03 July 2021

Because the seeds of the National were meant to complement the CSCs to conservation biology, it uses quan-
Park system were sown in the United and were formed under the Science titative geospatial methods to spa-
States over 130 years ago, conserva- Applications initiative of the US Fish tially prioritize conservation decisions
tion practitioners have increasingly and Wildlife Service. (Ball et al. 2009). The essential charac-
demonstrated that critical conserva- Unfortunately, the current US presi- teristic is representation of ecosystems,
tion goals—including responsiveness dential administration has “zeroed species, and processes in a reserve net-
to climate change and representation out” Science Applications in its budget work that is connected and resilient to
of species, ecosystems, and habitats— request, and there are signals that the environmental change (Anderson et al.
can be achieved only if protected elimination of the system of LCCs 2014). The LCC system is spatially
areas are functionally connected and is imminent. We argue that the LCC extensive and lends itself well to apply-
embedded within larger, permeable system is the most promising govern- ing science to achieve these outcomes:
landscapes (Trombulak and Baldwin ment-sponsored system of conserva- (a) placement of core conservation
2010). tion planning based on ecoregional areas, (b) creation of network con-
The scope of such efforts in terms patterns in existence, has not yet had nectivity responsive to the changing
of the number of species, ecosys- time to mature as a scientific organiza- climate, (c) assessment of vulnerability
tems, geophysical features, landown- tion, and deserves the opportunity to to land-use change, (d) integration
ers, and jurisdictions is so large that improve on its initial work to achieve of social constraints with biodiversity
landscape-scale conservation cannot its crucial mission. and ecosystem-service goals, and (e)
succeed without coordinated planning Although The Nature Conservancy comparison of alternative scenarios.
(Aycrigg et al. 2016). It cannot succeed and other nongovernmental organi- Although systematic conserva-
on a continental scale without coor- zations (NGOs) have long practiced tion planning requires extensive data
dination by the federal government. ecoregion-based planning (Groves sets on conservation targets, the LCC
Jurisdictional boundaries and narrow et al. 2002, Dinerstein et al. 2017), structure facilitates acquisition of
site-specific foci must be transcended the LCCs represent the first time any these data, saving money as coop-
if conservation efforts are to fully pro- federal government has instituted a erators share data and expertise. LCC
tect biological diversity in the face wildlife conservation program that science is conducted by conservation
of climate change, expanding urban promotes connectivity and persistence scientists in academic institutions, pri-
areas, wildfires, and other ecological at the continental scale. A significant vate companies, and NGOs. Because
developments. Planning must occur at strength of the LCCs is their inte- the science of systematic conservation
a regional scale because for protected- gration of decision-makers with the planning is improved by stakeholder
area systems, the whole is more than decision-support system of conserva- involvement, this collective “bottom-
the sum of the parts. tion science. Each LCC is governed by up” approach provides a source of
Recognition of this led in 2010 to a voluntary steering committee, with expertise for modelers, crucial for
the creation of landscape conserva- members representing conservation establishing conservation targets,
tion cooperatives (LCCs), an important and resource management partners setting goals, and reviewing results.
step in the application of systematic from a variety of government agencies, Finally, the LCC structure is perfectly
conservation planning (Margules tribal governments, NGOs, and others aligned to disseminate results, because
and Pressey 2000), to build robust located within the LCC geographic cooperators form a conduit back to
conservation strategies with a large- region. Staffing is minimal and gener- their agencies, organizations, institu-
scale regional framing that account ally only includes a coordinator and tions, and the public. The 22 LCCs
for future climate change. They were science coordinator. (figure 1) are further connected into

60 BioScience • February 2018 / Vol. 68 No. 2 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience

 Viewpoint

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/2/60/4791429 by guest on 03 July 2021

Figure 1. The geography of transboundary planning cooperatives established by the United States in 2010 to aid in wildlife
adaptation to changing climate.

a nationwide network serviced by a less obvious. But as a recent review and ecosystems, ecological processes,
network coordinator and small staff. of the LCC program by the National human influences and benefits, and
Academy of Sciences noted, “Given prioritization of actions in time and
Success of the landscape the youth of this program … it is too space, they produced plans that, if
conservation cooperatives soon to expect ‘measureable improve- implemented, could provide for the
How does one measure the success ments in the health of fish, wildlife, conservation of the nation’s biological
of a scientific organization dedicated and their habitats’” (NAS 2016). We diversity (cf. figure 2).
to landscape-scale conservation? know that when applied in the real
Typical measures of science success, world, landscape-scale conservation Landscape conservation
as in publications and grants, can be planning works. For example, one of cooperatives at risk
applied to conservation organiza- the first large landscape conservation However, the future of the LCCs is
tions, but how science is put into initiatives, Yellowstone to Yukon, used uncertain. In May 2017, Department
practice also needs to be recognized. systematic conservation planning to of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Zinke
Since their inception, the LCCs have achieve numerous conservation goals received a letter from the House
organized themselves internally; (Y2Y 2014). Committee on Natural Resources that
sponsored hundreds of research and Multistate and NGO initiatives for challenged the existence of the CSCs
planning projects; engaged in public wildlife conservation existed prior to and LCCs, stating that these initiatives
outreach; and disseminated reports, the LCCs. However, these are chal- had little to show for the $149 million
data, and new methodologies (NAS lenging to maintain because no fed- they had received. In fact, even before
2016). Over 40 peer-reviewed papers erally managed cooperative exists to the 2019 budget goes to Congress,
have been published, and more are in fund and collate the spatially explicit the DOI has targeted the Science
the publication pipeline. Actual on- data needed to help prioritize regional Applications initiative that houses the
the-ground applications resulting in conservation spending. When LCCs LCCs for elimination. In May, LCC
real conservation progress are, so far, focused on whole landscapes, species staff received a letter from the acting

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience February 2018 / Vol. 68 No. 2 • BioScience 61

Viewpoint

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/2/60/4791429 by guest on 03 July 2021

Figure 2. A landscape conservation design project for the Appalachian LCC: (a) a supercomputer-enabled habitat
connectivity model estimating the probability of gene flow for focal species; (b) near-optimization of terrestrial, aquatic,
and ecosystem-service targets; (c) functional conservation design elements; and (d) prioritization based on measured
threats (Leonard et al. 2017).

assistant director for science applica- challenges that cross jurisdictional change on land, water, fish, wildlife,
tions indicating that federal funding boundaries. The potential for achiev- and cultural resources (Salazar 2010),
would end for the LCCs, with some ing more given additional time is the mission of the LCCs now needs to
hope that “through other programs, great. And its $26 million annual price focus specifically on landscape-scale
the Service will continue to work with tag is a tiny fraction of the administra- conservation planning rather than
external stakeholders to support con- tion’s $79 billion budget request for on ad hoc projects. Myriad region-
servation efforts, share information, science (Science News Staff 2017). ally focused “science needs” were ini-
and help natural communities thrive.” tially proposed as projects when a
However, there is no indication that Improving the landscape landscape-level biodiversity mission
this would involve anything other than conservation cooperatives had yet to emerge. In retrospect, LCCs
traditional site-specific projects that Certainly, the work of the LCCs that focused on landscape-scale plan-
stand little chance of promoting eco- could improve, as it was hampered ning (e.g., Pickens et al. 2017) have
logical resilience. in its early years by organizational made the biggest impact. Those that
If the goal of conservation in the and methodological inefficiencies. funneled resources into supporting
face of climate change has merit, then Changes in three particular areas regional planning, such as develop-
the LCC program must continue. No would help overcome the concerns ing measures of ecological integrity
other initiative has the scope or poten- raised by Secretary Zinke and the (e.g., Theobald 2013), also moved the
tial to bring together the diverse set of House Natural Resources Committee. science forward. Furthermore, the
participants required to succeed. So LCCs should articulate more clearly
far, it has accomplished its preliminary Focus the mission.  Although the enabling how they provide information that
goal of creating a framework to allow mission of the LCCs was broadly will help avoid land-use conflicts that
multiple levels of governance to coop- directed toward coordinating an effec- arise from biodiversity conservation,
erate in addressing landscape-level tive response to the impacts of climate energy, food, and timber.

62 BioScience • February 2018 / Vol. 68 No. 2 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience

 Viewpoint

Aim for consistency and applicability.  Too Wildlife and flora underpin Leonard PB, Baldwin RF, Hanks D. 2017.
much effort has been expended within national identity and have enormous Landscape-scale conservation design across
biotic realms: Sequential integration of
each region developing new planning economic value. Planning to con- aquatic and terrestrial landscapes. Scientific
methodologies. Instead, methodolo- serve these resources at multiple spa- Reports 7 (art. 14556). doi:10.1038/
gies should be chosen from among tial scales should not be left solely s41598-017-15304-w
those already peer reviewed and tested to the states, NGOs, and the pri- Margules CR, Pressey RL 2000. Systematic con-
and applied uniformly across all LCC vate sector. The challenge transcends servation planning. Nature 405: 243–253.
[NAS] National Academies of Sciences,
regions to allow for their eventual state boundaries and must be taken Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. A
integration. Funding for basic research up by the federal government. As Review of the Landscape Conservation
that develops new analytics should be Secretary Zinke has said, “We’ve got Cooperatives. National Academies Press.
avoided; instead, research should be to start looking at our lands in terms Pickens BA, Mordecai RS, Ashton Drew C,
directed toward filling critical data of complete watersheds and ecosys- Alexander-Vaughn LB, Keister AS, Morris
HLC, Collazo JA 2017. Indicator-driven
gaps and supplement existing meth- tems, rather than isolated assets. We conservation planning across terrestrial,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/2/60/4791429 by guest on 03 July 2021

odologies. LCCs should use optimal need to think about wildlife cor- freshwater aquatic, and marine ecosystems
existing science and not default to the ridors, because it turns out wildlife of the South Atlantic, USA. Journal of Fish
most expedient. And LCCs should doesn’t just stay on federal lands” and Wildlife Management 8: 219–233.
take the opportunity to raise the (Strassel 2017). LCCs provide the Science News Staff. 2017. What’s in
Trump’s 2018 budget request for sci-
bar for scientific literacy within the geographic framework, cooperative ence? Science. (22 November 2017;
conservation community and invest venue, and ability to fund, coordi- www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/what-
effort in explaining the methods of nate, and disseminate relevant sci- s-trump-s-2018-budget-request-science)
systematic conservation planning to ence that is unmatched by any other Strassel KA. 2017. A return to the conservation
cooperators. system. ethic. Wall Street Journal. (22 November
2017; www.wsj.com/articles/a-return-to-the-
conservation-ethic-1506723867)
Promote scalability.  Most land-use deci- Acknowledgments Theobald DM. 2013. A general model to
sions are made locally. However, con- The authors have received funding for quantify ecological integrity for landscape
servation plans are typically developed research from the landscape conserva- assessments and US application. Landscape
for larger areas and have the potential tion cooperative system (RFB, PL, MA) Ecology 10: 1859–1874.
Trombulak SC, Baldwin RF, eds. 2010.
to guide resource allocation to prior- or have served on its governing body Landscape-Scale Conservation Planning.
ity localities and promote cooperation (LS). PL is currently employed by the Springer.
and sharing resources. Consequently, US Fish and Widllife Service. All of [Y2Y] Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation
planning methods should readily scale the authors participated in writing the Initiative. 2014. The Yellowstone to Yukon
across local and regional levels. A plan manuscript and/or preparing the figures Vision, Progress and Possibility: Making
Connections Naturally 20 Years. Y2Y.
based on LCC efforts should be able to (PL). (22 November 2017; https://y2y.net/publica-
address relevant questions at each level tions/y2y_vision_20_years_of_progress.pdf)
of the spatial hierarchy.
Any new scientific endeavor can References cited
Anderson MG, Clark M, Olivero-Sheldon A. Robert F. Baldwin ([email protected])
be improved after its start, especially
2014. Estimating climate resilience for and Paul B. Leonard are affiliated with the
if (a) it involves a goal as complex as conservation across geophysical settings. Department of Forestry and Environmental
conservation in the face of climate Conservation Biology 28: 959–970. Conservation, at Clemson University, in South
change and (b) human participation is Aycrigg JL, et al. 2016. Completing the system: Carolina. Stephen C. Trombulak is affiliated
crucial to its success. In its initial years, Opportunities and challenges for a national with the Department of Biology at Middlebury
habitat conservation system. BioScience 66: College, in Vermont. Reed F. Noss is affiliated
the LCC network was not focused on a
774–784. with the Florida Institute for Conservation
clear, science-based mission, nor did Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts M. 2009. Marxan and Science, in Chuluota, and with the Nicholas
it consistently implement consistent relatives: Software for spatial conservation prior- School of the Environment at Duke University,
principles and methods. Regardless, itization. Pages 185–195 in Moilanen A, Wilson in Durham, North Carolina. Jodi A. Hilty is
LCCs have made significant progress KA, Possingham HP, eds. Spatial Conservation with the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation
Prioritisation: Quantitative Methods and Initiative, in Canmore, Alberta, Canada. Hugh P.
toward their goal. Defunding them
Computational Tools. Oxford University Press. Possingham and Lynn Scarlett are affiliated with
now squanders this opportunity to Dinerstein E, et al. 2017. An ecoregion-based The Nature Conservancy, in Arlington, Virginia;
develop comprehensive conservation approach to protecting half the terrestrial HPP is also affiliated with the ARC Centre of
action plans that are responsive to cli- realm. BioScience 67: 534–545. Excellence for Environmental Decisions at The
mate change, wasting the investment Groves CR, Jensen DB, Valutis LL, Redford University of Queensland, in Australia. Mark G.
KH, Shaffer ML, Scott JM, Baumgartner JV, Anderson is with The Nature Conservancy, in
already made and making it harder for
Higgins JV, Beck MW, Anderson MG. 2002. Boston, Massachusetts.
a future administration sympathetic to Planning for biodiversity conservation:
climate-based conservation to restart Putting conservation science into practice.
such an effort. BioScience 52: 499–512. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix142

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience February 2018 / Vol. 68 No. 2 • BioScience 63