Effects of Errors and Gaps in Spatial Data Sets on Assessment of Conservation Progress

Visconti, Piero; Marco, Moreno Di; Álvarez‐Romero, Jorge G.; Januchowski‐Hartley, Stephanie R.; Pressey, Robert L.; Weeks, Rebecca; Rondinini, Carlo

doi:10.1111/cobi.12095

Cited by 70 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the shortfall in PA coverage we found could be reduced simply through countries better documenting existing PAs (some lack spatial boundaries, and details of recently designated sites are often omitted), and improving their reporting of privately owned PAs (Lopoukhine & Dias ; Visconti et al . ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Shortfalls and Solutions for Meeting National and Global Conservation Area Targets

Butchart

Clarke

Smith

et al. 2015

CONSERVATION LETTERS

424

426

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments have committed to conserving ≥17% of terrestrial and ≥10% of marine environments globally, especially “areas of particular importance for biodiversity” through “ecologically representative” Protected Area (PA) systems or other “area‐based conservation measures”, while individual countries have committed to conserve 3–50% of their land area. We estimate that PAs currently cover 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but 59–68% of ecoregions, 77–78% of important sites for biodiversity, and 57% of 25,380 species have inadequate coverage. The existing 19.7 million km2 terrestrial PA network needs only 3.3 million km2 to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, it would require nearly doubling to achieve, cost‐efficiently, coverage targets for all countries, ecoregions, important sites, and species. Poorer countries have the largest relative shortfalls. Such extensive and rapid expansion of formal PAs is unlikely to be achievable. Greater focus is therefore needed on alternative approaches, including community‐ and privately managed sites and other effective area‐based conservation measures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Shortfalls and Solutions for Meeting National and Global Conservation Area Targets

Butchart

Clarke

Smith

et al. 2015

CONSERVATION LETTERS

424

426

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As not all PAs meet these requirements, it is clear that even this most reputa-ble database on PAs does not encompass all PAs worldwide (Rodrigues et al 2004a). According to Visconti et al (2013), only those areas which are listed in the WDPA, have a clearly defined management and therefore a clearly assigned IUCN category should be considered PAs. In this paper, the concept of SACs, corresponding with the IUCN categories 1−4, is followed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Natura 2000 system for habitat types protection: A case study from the Czech Republic

Pechanec¹,

Machar²,

Pohanka³

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In conservation biology, there is a general consensus that protected areas (PAs) are one of the most effective tools for biodiversity protection. Worldwide, the area of PAs is continually increasing. But is the effectiveness of biodiversity protection improving with it? Since many PAs only exist as "paper parks" (i.e. they exist on maps and in legislation but offer little actual protection), the answer is uncertain. Moreover, it has long been known that, not only an increase in the extent of PAs, but also the efficiency of their management is fundamentally important for effective nature conservation. Therefore, there is a wide-ranging discussion about the actual effectiveness of PAs and factors that influence it.In the course of the EU pre-accession phase, a comprehensive field mapping of natural habitats took place in the Czech Republic in years 2001−2004. The mapping results were used to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) as part of the Natura 2000 network.In this study, the aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of this newly created system of SACs for protection of biodiversity represented by the mapped natural habitats. The NCEI index (Nature Conservation Effectiveness Index) was applied, calculated as the total area of a particular habitat type in all SACs RESEARCH ARTICLE Launched to accelerate biodiversity conservation A peer-reviewed open-access journalVilém Pechanec et al. / Nature Conservation 24: 21-41 (2018) 22 in the Czech Republic divided by the total area of that same natural habitat in the entire Czech Republic. Habitat protection in the Czech Republic is focused primarily on the smallest types of rare habitats, many of which are classified as critically endangered. The Czech national system of SACs provides protection to a total of 4,491.68 km 2 of natural habitats. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the overall effectiveness of the SAC system in the Czech Republic, which is specifically aimed at protecting natural habitats, is low (NCEI = 0.36). Nevertheless, the critically endangered habitats receive maximum protection (NCEI = 1).

show abstract

“…Prior work suggests that there are limits to the amount of species data needed for successful planning (Grantham et al., ; Kujala, Moilanen, & Gordon, ), but these studies do not discuss the relative roles of different data types. Some have explored the impact of different data gaps on conservation plans (e.g., Carwardine et al., ; Visconti et al., ; Wilson & , ) but only within the context of a specific conservation case, making it difficult to separate the influence of data uncertainty from other factors, such as conservation objectives, targets, data characteristics and correlations (Armsworth, ; Ferraro, ), and prioritisation methods. In all such analyses, it is useful to differentiate between site value and the priority of a site .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not all data are equal: Influence of data type and amount in spatial conservation prioritisation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decisions about land use significantly influence biodiversity globally. The field of spatial conservation prioritisation explores allocation of conservation effort, including for reserve network expansion, targeting habitat restoration, or minimising ecological impacts of development. Inevitably, the utility of such planning depends on the quantity and quality input data, including spatial information on biodiversity, threats, and cost of action. In this work we systematically develop understanding about the significance of these different data types in spatial conservation prioritisation. We clarify the common ways different data types enter an analysis, develop mathematical models to understand the effects of data in spatial prioritisation, and survey literature to establish typical quantities of different types of data used. We use Jackknife analysis to derive the expected change in site values, when a single new data layer is added to a prioritisation. We validate mathematical formulae for expected impacts using simulations. A survey of scientific literature reveals that typical spatial prioritisation analyses include hundreds of biodiversity feature layers (species, habitat types, ecosystem services), but the count of cost, threat or habitat condition layers is typically 0–5. Due to these differences, and the mathematical formulations commonly used to combine data types, the influence of a single cost, threat, or habitat condition data layer can be an order or two higher than the influence of a single biodiversity feature layer. In a classical cost‐effectiveness formulation (benefits divided by costs, B/C) the influence of a single cost layer can even be as large as the joint influence of thousands of species distributions. We also clarify how changes in data impact site values and spatial priority rankings differently, with the latter being further influenced by data correlations, the spread of numeric values inside data layers and other data characteristics. For example, costs influence priorities significantly if cost is positively correlated with biodiversity, but the correlation is the other way around for biodiversity and habitat condition. This work helps conservation practitioners to direct efforts when collating data for spatial conservation planning. It also helps decision makers understand where to focus attention when interpreting conservation plans and their uncertainties.

show abstract

Effects of Errors and Gaps in Spatial Data Sets on Assessment of Conservation Progress

Cited by 70 publications

References 30 publications

Shortfalls and Solutions for Meeting National and Global Conservation Area Targets

Shortfalls and Solutions for Meeting National and Global Conservation Area Targets

Effectiveness of Natura 2000 system for habitat types protection: A case study from the Czech Republic

Not all data are equal: Influence of data type and amount in spatial conservation prioritisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About