Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning

Abstract

Systematic conservation planning ( SCP ) is a field of conservation biology concerned with delivering on‐the‐ground actions that achieve conservation goals. It describes a set of operational models that cover both design and implementation of conservation, with a strong focus on mobilising the collective action typically required to implement conservation. SCP , as it was originally described, was composed of six different stages: collection of data, identification of conservation goals, evaluation of the existing protected area network, design of expansions, implementation of conservation action, and long‐term maintenance of biodiversity in the network. Since then, the operational model has been expanded into several different variants. Conservation actions applied inside SCP include establishment and expansion of reserve networks and allocation of habitat restoration and management. Within the broader context of SCP , there is a fundamental biogeographic‐economic analysis frequently called spatial conservation prioritisation or conservation assessment, which is used for identifying where important areas for biodiversity are and how conservation goals might be achieved efficiently. Here, we review the usage and meaning of the 12 biogeographic‐economic core concepts of SCP : adequacy, complementarity, comprehensiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, flexibility, irreplaceability, replacement cost, representation, representativeness, threat, and vulnerability. Some of the concepts have clear definitions whereas others may have alternative and possibly conflicting definitions. With a comprehensive literature review literature, we elucidate the historical backgrounds of these concepts, the first definitions and usages, alternative later definitions, key applications, and prior reviews. This review reduces linguistic uncertainty in the application of SCP . Since SCP is a global activity with a multitude of different stakeholders involved, it is vital that those involved can speak the same language. Through these concepts, this review serves as a source of information about the historical development of SCP . It provides a comprehensive review for anyone wishing to understand the key concepts of spatial prioritisation within SCP .

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 221

1. 1.

   Ackery PR, Vane-wright RI. Milkweed butterflies: their cladistics and biology. 1984.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Adams VM, Pressey RL, Naidoo R. Opportunity costs: who really pays for conservation? Biological Conservation. 2010;143:439-448.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S, Solow A. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science. 1998;279:2126-2128.

   Not in our library10.1126/science.279.5359.2126

4. 4.

   Araujo MB, Cabeza M, Thuiller W, Hannah L, Williams PH. Would climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve-selection methods. Global Change Biology. 2004;10:1618-1626.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   Arponen A, Heikkinen R, Thomas CD, Moilanen A. The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: representation, species weighting and benefit functions. Conservation Biology. 2005;19:2009-2014.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Austin MP, Margules CR. The Concept of Representativeness in Conservation Evaluation with Particular Relevance to Australia. 1984.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   Austin MP, Margules CR, Usher MB. Assessing representativeness. Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. 1986;45-67.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Austin MA, Miller DJ, Austin MP, Cooks KD, Fleming PM, Stokes J. Conservation. Land Use on the South Coast of New South WalesA Study in Acquiring and Using Information to Analyze Regional Land use Options. 1978;169-95.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Awimbo JA, Norton DA, Overmars FB. An evaluation of representativeness for nature conservation, Hokitika ecological district, New Zealand. Biological Conservation. 1996;75:177-186.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    Ball IR, Possingham H. MARXAN. 2000.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts ME, Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP. Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritization. Spatial Conservation Prioritization. 2009;185-195.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    Bedward M, Pressey RL, Keith DA. A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks: addressing efficiency, reserve designs and land suitability with an iterative analysis. Biological Conservation. 1992;62:115-125.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Beger M, Possingham HP. Environmental factors that influence the distribution of coral reef fishes: modeling occurrence data for broad-scale conservation and management. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2008;361:1-13.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    Belbin L. Environmental representativeness: regional partitioning and reserve selection. Biological Conservation. 1993;66:223-230.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Belbin L. A multivariate approach to the selection of biological reserves. Biodiversity and Conservation. 1995;4:951-963.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Bonn A, Gaston KJ. Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2005;14:1083-1100.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    Bonn A, Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ. Threatened and endemic species: are they good indicators of patterns of biodiversity on a national scale? Ecology Letters. 2002;5:733-741.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Da Fonseca GAB, Gerlach J, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF, Mittermeier CG, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues ASL. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science. 2006;313:58-61.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1127609

19. 19.

    Brooks TM, Wright SJ, Sheil D. Evaluating the success of conservation actions in safeguarding tropical forest biodiversity. Conservation Biology. 2009;23:1448-1457.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01334.x

20. 20.

    Burgman MA, Lindenmayer DL. Conservation Biology for the Australian Environment. 1998.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    Burgman MA, Lindenmayer DB, Elith J. Managing landscapes for conservation under uncertainty. Ecology. 2005;86:2007-2017.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    Cabeza M, Arponen A, Jäättelä L, Kujala H, Van Teeffelen A, Hanski I. Conservation planning with insects at three different spatial scales. Ecography. 2010;33:54-63.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    Cabeza M, Moilanen A. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2001;16:242-248.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02125-5

24. 24.

    Cabeza M, Moilanen A. Replacement cost: a practical measure of site value for cost-effective reserve planning. Biological Conservation. 2006;132:336-342.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    Cameron SE, Williams KJ, Mitchell DK. Efficiency and concordance of alternative methods for minimizing opportunity costs in conservation planning. Conservation Biology. 2008;22:886-896.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00982.x

26. 26.

    Camm JD, Polasky S, Solow A, Csuti B. A note on optimal algorithms for reserve site selection. Biological Conservation. 1996;78:353-355.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    Cantu-Salazar L, Gaston KJ. Very large protected areas and their contribution to terrestrial biological conservation. Bioscience. 2010;60:808-818.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    Carey JM, Burgman M. Linguistic uncertainty in qualitative risk analysis and how to minimize it. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2008;1128:13-17.

    Not in our library10.1196/annals.1399.003

29. 29.

    Carwardine J, Klein CJ, Wilson KA, Pressey RL, Possingham HP. Hitting the target and missing the point: target-based conservation planning in context. Conservation Letters. 2009;2:3-10.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    Carwardine J, Rochester JWA, Richardson KS, Williams KJ, Pressey RL, Possingham HP. Conservation planning with irreplaceability: does the method matter? Biodiversity and Conservation. 2007;16:245-258.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I. Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences. 2005;360:443-455.

    Not in our library10.1098/rstb.2004.1592

32. 32.

    Church RL, Stoms DM, Davis FW. Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem. Biological Conservation. 1996;76:105-112.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    Ciarleglio M, Barnes JW, Sarkar S. ConsNet: new software for the selection of conservation area networks with spatial and multi-criteria analyses. Ecography. 2009;32:205-209.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    Colwell RK, Coddington JA. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences. 1994;345:101-118.

    Not in our library10.1098/rstb.1994.0091

35. 35.

    National Forest Policy Statement: A New Focus for Australia's Forests. 1992.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    Connor EF, McCoy ED. The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. American Naturalist. 1979;113:791-833.

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    2007.

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    Cowling RM, Pressey RL. Rapid plant diversification: planning for an evolutionary future. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2001;98:5452-5457.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.101093498

39. 39.

    Cowling RM, Pressey RL. Introduction to systematic conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservation. 2003;112:1-13.

    Not in our library

40. 40.

    Cowling R, Pressey R, Lombard A, Desmet P, Ellis A. From representation to persistence: requirements for a sustainable reserve system in the species-rich mediterranean climate deserts of southern Africa. Diversity and Distributions. 1999;5:51-71.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 3

• Strong isolation by distance among local populations of an endangered butterfly species (Euphydryas aurinia) · 2021
  Not checked
• Using remotely sensed indicators of primary productivity to improve prioritization of conservation areas for top predators · 2021
  Not checked
• Systematic Conservation Planning approach based on viewshed analysis for the definition of strategic points on a visitor trail · 2020
  Not checked

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.