Conservation planning in a subdivided world

Vázquez, Luis-Bernardo; Rodríguez, Pilar; Arita, Héctor T.

doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9320-9

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, if conservation planners wish to protect vegetation types across different portions of their range to include varying patterns within the vegetation types, greater total area will be needed. Similar effects of scale in conservation planning have been observed by other authors (Erasmus et al 1999;Vazquez, Rodriguez, and Arita 2008), whose studies found an even greater scale effect (up to an order of magnitude) on conservation targets than was identified in this study. This study, however, shows the effects not just of the number of subunits but of boundary locations as well.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Boundaries Make a Difference: The Effects of Spatial and Temporal Parameters on Conservation Planning*

Huber

Greco

Thorne

2010

The Professional Geographer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Boundaries Make a Difference: The Effects of Spatial and Temporal Parameters on Conservation Planning*

Huber

Greco

Thorne

2010

The Professional Geographer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While several studies have shown that spatial extent can affect conservation plans (7)(8)(9)(10), little is known about the increased effectiveness of coordinated conservation plans across numerous countries. As far as we are aware, most of the previous studies have examined the effect over 2 countries at the most (7)(8)(9)(10).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As far as we are aware, most of the previous studies have examined the effect over 2 countries at the most (7)(8)(9)(10). Regional coordination can be especially important in places where a single biome is split between several geopolitical units that vary not only in their levels of biodiversity, but also in their conservation threats and the cost of conservation action.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin

Kark

Levin

Grantham

et al. 2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

180

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of global and regional coordination in conservation is growing, although currently, the majority of conservation programs are applied at national and subnational scales. Nevertheless, multinational programs incur transaction costs and resources beyond what is required in national programs. Given the need to maximize returns on investment within limited conservation budgets, it is crucial to quantify how much more biodiversity can be protected by coordinating multinational conservation efforts when resources are fungible. Previous studies that compared different scales of conservation decision-making mostly ignored spatial variability in biodiversity threats and the cost of actions. Here, we developed a simple integrating metric, taking into account both the cost of conservation and threats to biodiversity. We examined the Mediterranean Basin biodiversity hotspot, which encompasses over 20 countries. We discovered that for vertebrates to achieve similar conservation benefits, one would need substantially more money and area if each country were to act independently as compared to fully coordinated action across the Basin. A fully coordinated conservation plan is expected to save approximately US$67 billion, 45% of total cost, compared with the uncoordinated plan; and if implemented over a 10-year period, the plan would cost Ϸ0.1% of the gross national income of all European Union (EU) countries annually. The initiative declared in the recent Paris Summit for the Mediterranean provides a political basis for such complex coordination. Surprisingly, because many conservation priority areas selected are located in EU countries, a partly coordinated solution incorporating only EU-Mediterranean countries is almost as efficient as the fully coordinated scenario. biodiversity costs ͉ complementarity ͉ vertebrates

show abstract

“…In order to avoid conflicts in outcomes of conservation planning exercises at different geographical scales (Vazquez et al 2008), targets should be proportionally assigned to the planning region. For example, if 10% of the range/distribution of a species occurs within the planning region, the proportional target would be at least one location (or population or locality) and 1,000 mature individuals.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is debatable whether this goal is achieved by the current approaches to setting species targets for conservation planning purposes, which range from simple approaches of representing each species at least once (Loyola et al 2009) to multiple representation targets (Vazquez et al 2008) where the number of sites to represent a species are often decided arbitrarily, and to percentage targets involving arbitrarily selected proportions or percentages of the distribution areas of species (Rondinini et al 2005;Meynard et al 2009;Sarkar et al 2009). A more complex method of setting targets for species has been devised by Burgman et al (2001), but the method is data intensive requiring knowledge of demographic and environmental uncertainties, disturbance regimes, deterministic trends causing permanent habitat loss and catastrophes.…”

Section: Vu Vulnerable Nt Near Threatened Lc Least Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of the IUCN Red Listing system to setting species targets for conservation planning purposes

Pfab

Victor

Armstrong³

2011

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity targets, or estimates of the quantities of biodiversity features that should be conserved in a region, are fundamental to systematic conservation planning. We propose that targets for species should be based on the quantitative thresholds developed for the Vulnerable category of the IUCN Red List system, thereby avoiding future listings of species in an IUCN Red List threat category or an increase in the extinction risk, or ultimate extinction, of species already listed as threatened. Examples of this approach are presented for case studies from South Africa, including threatened taxa listed under the IUCN Red List criteria of A to D, a species listed as Near Threatened, a species of conservation concern due to its rarity, and one species in need of recovery. The method gives rise to multiple representation targets, an improvement on the often used single representation targets that are inadequate for long term maintenance of biodiversity or the arbitrary multiple representation and percentage targets that are sometimes adopted. Through the implementation of the resulting conservation plan, these targets will ensure that the conservation status of threatened species do not worsen over time by qualifying for higher categories of threat and may actually improve their conservation status by eliminating the threat of habitat loss and stabilizing population declines. The positive attributes ascribed to the IUCN Red List system, and therefore to the species targets arising from this approach, are important when justifying decisions that limit land uses known to be detrimental to biodiversity.

show abstract

Conservation planning in a subdivided world

Cited by 24 publications

References 35 publications

Boundaries Make a Difference: The Effects of Spatial and Temporal Parameters on Conservation Planning*

Boundaries Make a Difference: The Effects of Spatial and Temporal Parameters on Conservation Planning*

Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin

Application of the IUCN Red Listing system to setting species targets for conservation planning purposes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About