Integrating multiple landscape management strategies to optimise conservation under climate and planning scenarios: a case study in the Iberian Peninsula
-
Autor(es)Miguel Cánibe Iglesias, Virgílio Hermoso, João C. Azevedo, João C. Campos, José Salgado-Rojas, Ângelo Sil, Adrián Regos
-
Instituição do Autor correspondenteDepartamento de Biología de la Conservación y Cambio Global, Estación Biológica de Doñana EBD-CSIC, Spain
-
ContactoEste endereço de email está protegido contra piratas. Necessita ativar o JavaScript para o visualizar.
-
Revista e nºEcosystem Services Volume 74, August 2025, 101742
-
Ano2025
-
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101742
Global change demands dynamic landscape management that integrates different strategies (e.g. promoting rewilding or traditional farming practices) to address the impact of climate and land use change.Global change demands dynamic landscape management that integrates different strategies (e.g. promoting rewilding or traditional farming practices) to address the impact of climate and land use change. Planning for management strategies individually can lead to severe trade-offs between objectives, high opportunity costs and challenging implementation. Integrated management plans are needed to optimise the combination of multiple management strategies. We used the multi-action planning tool ‘Prioriactions’ to prioritise the spatial allocation of four management strategies (Afforestation, Rewilding, Farmland Return and Agroforestry Return) in the Meseta Ib´erica transboundary Biosphere Reserve. We aimed to achieve targets for conservation of species suitable area and ecosystem services supply while minimising fire hazard under different climate scenarios. We tested this approach under contrasting planning scenarios depicting different management priorities (Equally Weighted, Forest Maximising and Open Maximising). By integrating multiple management strategies, we could achieve management goals for biodiversity and ecosystem services under different planning scenarios, minimising trade-offs and deriving recommendations easier to uptake. The spatial allocation and extent of management strategies varied according to climate change and planning scenarios. Afforestation was needed when putting more priority on forest species and carbon sequestration, while more Farmland Return was allocated when preserving open habitat species and agriculture. Fire hazard was higher in Rewilding areas and lower in Farmland Return and Agroforestry Return areas. The novelty of our approach lies in its capacity to combine different management strategies and provide an optimised spatial arrangement based on management features, making it suitable for planning in dynamic and complex environments where multiple pressures and objectives must be considered.