Implementation strategies for systematic conservation planning

Adams, Vanessa M.; Mills, Morena; Segan, Daniel B.; Pressey, Robert L.; Gurney, Georgina G.; Groves, Craig; Davis, Frank W.; Álvarez‐Romero, Jorge G.

doi:10.1007/s13280-018-1067-2

Cited by 51 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…; Adams et al. ), and South African plans have progressed toward these characteristics, including greater involvement of implementing agencies (Fig. b), better alignment with administrative boundaries (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Strengthening feedbacks into the academic arena provides practitioners with exposure to new thinking while providing scientists with insights of how to translate theory into practice (Adams et al. ). Academic involvement may also ensure recruitment of new conservation planners (Roux & Nel ).…”

Section: Expanding Conservation Planning From Scientists To Practitiomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the transition from academic planning to effective implementation has been achieved in only limited cases and documentation of practical application is rare in the formal literature (Adams et al. ). Because successful implementation can be complex, context‐specific, and protracted, documenting cases where conservation planning has transitioned to applied decision making is valuable (Adams et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because successful implementation can be complex, context‐specific, and protracted, documenting cases where conservation planning has transitioned to applied decision making is valuable (Adams et al. ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Practical actions for applied systematic conservation planning

Botts¹,

Pence²,

Holness

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic conservation planning is intended to inform spatially explicit decision making. Doing so requires that it be integrated into complex regulatory and governance processes, and there are limited instances where this has been achieved effectively. South Africa is a global leader in the application of conservation plans, the outputs of which are widely used for spatial planning and decision making in many spheres of government. We aimed to determine how conservation planning in the country progressed from theory to implementation, and to identify practical actions that enabled this transition, by assessing temporal trends in the characteristics of conservation plans (1990–2017, n = 94). Since 2010 conservation planning has entered an operational period characterized by government leadership of plans, administrative rather than ecological planning domains, decreasing size of planning units, increasing emphasis on end‐user products, and scheduled revision of plans. Key actions that enabled this progression include transitioning leadership of plans from scientists to practitioners, building capacity within implementing agencies, creating opportunities to integrate plans in legislative processes, establishing a strong community of practice, adopting implementation‐focused methods, and balancing standardization with innovation. Learning from this model will allow other countries, particularly those with a similar megadiverse, developing context, to operationalize conservation planning into spatial planning and decision making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Expanding Conservation Planning From Scientists To Practitiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Practical actions for applied systematic conservation planning

Botts¹,

Pence²,

Holness

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is an increasingly important component of conservation science (Kareiva & Marvier, ) that represents an extensive body of theory, methods and tools. A fundamental part of decision science is framing the problem, which involves: (a) defining the context; (b) identifying the set of potential actions for implementation (Adams et al., ); and (c) specifying the environmental objectives to be achieved through these actions (Groves & Game, ). In this section we frame systematic conservation planning and the KBA approach in terms of these three aspects and then use this to clarify their similarities and differences.…”

Section: Using Decision Science To Frame the Two Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches

Smith

Bennun

Brooks

et al. 2018

CONSERVATION LETTERS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic conservation planning and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are the two most widely used approaches for identifying important sites for biodiversity. However, there is limited advice for conservation policy makers and practitioners on when and how they should be combined. Here we provide such guidance, using insights from the recently developed Global Standard for the Identification of KBAs and the language of decision science to review and clarify their similarities and differences. We argue the two approaches are broadly similar, with both setting transparent environmental objectives and specifying actions. There is however greater contrast in the data used and actions involved, as the KBA approach uses biodiversity data alone and identifies sites for monitoring and vigilance actions at a minimum, whereas systematic conservation planning combines biodiversity and implementation‐relevant data to guide management actions. This difference means there is much scope for combining approaches, so conservation planners should use KBA data in their analyses, setting context‐specific targets for each KBA type, and planners and donors should use systematic conservation planning techniques when prioritizing between KBAs for management action. In doing so, they will benefit conservation policy, practice and research by building on the collaborations formed through the KBA Standard's development.

show abstract

Assessing population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors for terrestrial wildlife

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human activity influences wildlife. However, the ecological and conservation significances of these influences are difficult to predict and depend on their population-level consequences. This difficulty arises partly because of information gaps, and partly because the data on stressors are usually collected in a count-based manner (e.g., number of dead animals) that is difficult to translate into rate-based estimates important to infer population-level consequences (e.g., changes in mortality or population growth rates). However, ongoing methodological developments can provide information to make this transition. Here, we synthesize tools from multiple fields of study to propose an overarching, spatially explicit framework to assess population-level consequences of anthropogenic stressors on terrestrial wildlife. A key component of this process is using ecological information from affected animals to upscale from count-based field data on individuals to rate-based demographic inference. The five steps to this framework are (1) framing the problem to identify species, populations, and assessment parameters; (2) field-based measurement of the effect of the stressor on individuals; (3) characterizing the location and size of the populations of interest; (4) demographic modeling for those populations; and (5) assessing the significance of stressor-induced changes in demographic rates. The tools required for each of these steps are well developed, and some have been used in conjunction with each other, but the entire group has not previously been unified together as we do in this framework. We detail these steps and then illustrate their application for two species affected by different anthropogenic stressors. In our examples, we use stable hydrogen isotope data to infer a catchment area describing the geographic origins of affected individuals, as the basis to estimate population size for that area. These examples reveal unexpectedly greater potential risks from stressors for the more common and widely distributed species. This work illustrates key strengths of the framework but also important areas for subsequent theoretical and technical development to make it still more broadly applicable.

show abstract

Implementation strategies for systematic conservation planning

Cited by 51 publications

References 64 publications

Practical actions for applied systematic conservation planning

Practical actions for applied systematic conservation planning

Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches

Assessing population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors for terrestrial wildlife

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About