A review of applications of the six-step method of systematic conservation planning

Wiersma, Yolanda F.; SleepDarren, J H

doi:10.5558/tfc2016-059

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 112 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to a recent review on the same topic [61], albeit more limited in scope, our results suggest there is insufficient evidence to claim whether systematic conservation plans are or are not achieving conservation goals. Through application of rigorous systematic mapping methodology, we identified two relevant terrestrial studies which the authors of that review did not appear to locate.…”

Section: Comparison With Related Reviews Of Systematic Conservation Pcontrasting

confidence: 99%

Absence of evidence for the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe: a systematic map

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Systematic conservation planning is a discipline concerned with the prioritisation of resources for biodiversity conservation and is often used in the design or assessment of terrestrial and marine protected area networks. Despite being an evidence-based discipline, to date there has been no comprehensive review of the outcomes of systematic conservation plans and assessments of the relative effectiveness of applications in different contexts. To address this fundamental gap in knowledge, our primary research question was: what is the extent, distribution and robustness of evidence on conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe?Methods: A systematic mapping exercise was undertaken using standardised search terms across 29 sources, including publication databases, online repositories and a wide range of grey literature sources. The review team screened articles recursively, first by title only, then abstract and finally by full-text, using inclusion criteria related to systematic conservation plans conducted at sub-global scales and reported on since 1983. We sought studies that reported outcomes relating to natural, human, social, financial or institutional outcomes and which employed robust evaluation study designs. The following information was extracted from included studies: bibliographic details, background information including location of study and broad objectives of the plan, study design, reported outcomes and context. Results:Of the approximately 10,000 unique articles returned through our searches, 1209 were included for full-text screening and 43 studies reported outcomes of conservation planning interventions. However, only three studies involved the use of evaluation study designs which are suitably rigorous for inclusion, according to best-practice guidelines. The three included studies were undertaken in the Gulf of California (Mexico), Réunion Island, and The Nature Conservancy's landholdings across the USA. The studies varied widely in context, purpose and outcomes. Study designs were non-experimental or qualitative, and involved use of spatial landholdings over time, stakeholder surveys and modelling of alternative planning scenarios. Conclusion:Rigorous evaluations of systematic conservation plans are currently not published in academic journals or made publicly available elsewhere. Despite frequent claims relating to positive implications and outcomes of these planning activities, we show that evaluations are probably rarely conducted. This finding does not imply systematic conservation planning is not effective but highlights a significant gap in our understanding of how, when and why it may or may not be effective. Our results also corroborate claims that the literature on systematic conservation planning is dominated by methodological studies, rather than those that focus on implementation and outcomes, and support the case that this is a problematic imbalance in the literature. We emphasise the need for academics and practitioners to publish the...

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Related Reviews Of Systematic Conservation Pcontrasting

confidence: 99%

Absence of evidence for the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe: a systematic map

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Spatial conservation prioritization relies on the quality of species distribution data ( Wiersma & Sleep, 2016 ). Studies typically opt to limit planning exercises to the best available species data set (e.g., Kukkala et al, 2016 ; D’Amen et al, 2013 ); however, drawing conclusions on data-rich taxa likely limits the application of systematic conservation planning at a continental level that consider species across all taxonomic groups (see Jung et al., 2020 for a comprehensive global analysis).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments

Miu

Rozyłowicz

Popescu

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The European Union strives to increase protected areas of the EU terrestrial surface to 30% by year 2030, of which one third should be strictly protected. Designation of the Natura 2000 network, the backbone of nature protection in the EU, was mostly an expert-opinion process with little systematic conservation planning. The designation of the Natura 2000 network in Romania followed the same non-systematic approach, resulting in a suboptimal representation of invertebrates and plants. To help identify areas with very high biodiversity without repeating past planning missteps, we present a reproducible example of spatial prioritization using Romania’s current terrestrial Natura 2000 network and coarse-scale terrestrial species occurrence. Methods We used 371 terrestrial Natura 2000 Sites of Community Importance (Natura 2000 SCI), designated to protect 164 terrestrial species listed under Annex II of Habitats Directive in Romania in our spatial prioritization analyses (marine Natura 2000 sites and species were excluded). Species occurrences in terrestrial Natura 2000 sites were aggregated at a Universal Traverse Mercator spatial resolution of 1 km2. To identify priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites for species conservation, and to explore if the Romanian Natura 2000 network sufficiently represents species included in Annex II of Habitats Directive, we used Zonation v4, a decision support software tool for spatial conservation planning. We carried out the analyses nationwide (all Natura 2000 sites) as well as separately for each biogeographic region (i.e., Alpine, Continental, Pannonian, Steppic and Black Sea). Results The results of spatial prioritization of terrestrial Natura 2000 vary greatly by planning scenario. The performance of national-level planning of top priorities is minimal. On average, when 33% of the landscape of Natura 2000 sites is protected, only 20% of the distribution of species listed in Annex II of Habitats Directive are protected. As a consequence, the representation of species by priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites is lessened when compared to the initial set of species. When planning by taxonomic group, the top-priority areas include only 10% of invertebrate distribution in Natura 2000. When selecting top-priority areas by biogeographical region, there are significantly fewer gap species than in the national level and by taxa scenarios; thusly, the scenario outperforms the national-level prioritization. The designation of strictly protected areas as required by the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 should be followed by setting clear objectives, including a good representation of species and habitats at the biogeographical region level.

show abstract

“…Spatial conservation prioritization relies on the quality of species distribution data (Wiersma and Sleep, 2016). Studies typically opt to limit planning exercises to the best available species data set (e.g., Kukkala et al 2016;D'Amen M et al 2013); however, drawing conclusions on datarich taxa likely limits the application of systematic conservation planning at a continental level that consider species across all taxonomic groups (see Jung et.…”

Section: Manuscript To Be Reviewedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #1 of "Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments (v0.1)"

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The European Union strives to increase protected areas of the EU terrestrial surface to 30% by year 2030, of which one third should be strictly protected. Designation of the Natura 2000 network, the backbone of nature protection in the EU, was mostly an expert-opinion process with little systematic conservation planning. The designation of the Natura 2000 network in Romania followed the same nonsystematic approach, resulting in a suboptimal representation of invertebrates and plants. To help identify areas with very high biodiversity without repeating past planning missteps, we present a reproducible example of spatial prioritization using Romania's current terrestrial Natura 2000 network and coarse-scale terrestrial species occurrence. Methods We used 371 terrestrial Natura 2000 Sites of Community Importance (Natura 2000 SCI), designated to protect 164 terrestrial species listed under Annex II of Habitats Directive in Romania in our spatial prioritization analyses (marine Natura 2000 sites and species were excluded). Species occurrences in terrestrial Natura 2000 sites were aggregated at a Universal Traverse Mercator spatial resolution of 1 km 2. To identify priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites for species conservation, and to explore if the Romanian Natura 2000 network sufficiently represents species included in Annex II of Habitats Directive, we used Zonation v4, a decision support software tool for spatial conservation planning. We carried out the analyses nationwide (all Natura 2000 sites) as well as separately for each biogeographic region (i.e., Alpine, Continental, Pannonian, Steppic and Black Sea). Results The results of spatial prioritization of terrestrial Natura 2000 vary greatly by planning scenario. The performance of national-level planning of top priorities is minimal. On average, when 33% of the landscape of Natura 2000 sites is protected, only 20% of the distribution of species listed in Annex II of Habitats Directive are protected. As a consequence, the representation of species by priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites is lessened when compared to the initial set of species. When planning by taxonomic group, the top-priority areas include only 10% of invertebrate distribution in Natura 2000. When selecting top-priority areas by biogeographical region, there are significantly fewer gap species than in the national

show abstract

A review of applications of the six-step method of systematic conservation planning

Cited by 15 publications

References 112 publications

Absence of evidence for the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe: a systematic map

Absence of evidence for the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe: a systematic map

Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments

Peer Review #1 of "Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments (v0.1)"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About