Sampling of land types by protected areas: three measures of effectiveness applied to western New South Wales

Pressey, Robert L.; Taffs, Kathryn H

doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(01)00040-4

Cited by 42 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For other taxa, especially plants, or the entire representation of ecosystem properties (HD, ED), the situation will differ. Therefore, especially when taking into account the vulnerability or irreplaceability of different habitats (Pressey and Taffs 2001), different representation targets should be set for different environmental classes (see also Cowling and Heijnis 2001;Rodrigues and Gaston 2001).…”

Section: Proportional Representation Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the grounds that this is all that can be done and=or that environmental diversity should act as an effective surrogate for patterns of biodiversity at lower organisational levels (Belbin 1993;Folke et al 1996;Noss 1996a, b;Cowling et al 1999;Fairbanks and Benn 2000;Faith 2003), several area selection activities have been suggested. They have been discussed or conducted in terms of a variety of higher level organisational units, for example land facets (Wessels et al 1999), land types (Pressey and Taffs 2001), geomorphological heterogeneity (Nichols et al 1998), environmental diversity (Faith and Walker 1996), environmental units (Pressey et al 1996), environmental classes (Woinarski et al 1996) and ecosystems (Noss 1996a, b). However, the effectiveness of priority areas for conservation identified at one level of organisation in adequately capturing diversity at another level remains poorly understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. International treaties call for the protection of biodiversity in all its manifestations, including ecosystem and species diversities. The selection of most priority area networks focuses, however, primarily on species richness and occurrence. The effectiveness of this approach in capturing higher order manifestations of biodiversity, that is ecosystem and environmental diversity patterns, remains poorly understood. Using a case study of birds and environmental data from South Africa and Lesotho, we test how complementary networks that maximise species diversity perform with regard to their representation of ecosystem and environmental diversity, and vice versa. We compare these results to the performance of the existing reserve network. We conclude that focusing on any single biodiversity component alone is insufficient to protect other components. We offer explanations for this in terms of the autocorrelation of species diversity in environmental space.

show abstract

Section: Proportional Representation Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of papers have defined high priority sites for conservation, or "biodiversity hotspots," as those sites containing both a high degree of threat and high biodiversity. Papers analyzing conservation priorities in this way include Myers 1988, Dinerstein and Wikramanayake 1993, Balmford and Long 1994, Sisk et al 1994, Cole and Landres 1996, Mittermeir et al 1998, Ricketts et al 1999, Abbitt et al 2000, Myers et al 2000, and Pressey and Taffs 2001. This literature makes an advance over the reserve site selection literature in that it recognizes that some lands, but certainly not all, will remain natural at least for some period of time even if it is not formally protected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic reserve site selection

Costello

Polasky

2004

Resource and Energy Economics

303

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most conservation planning studies have concentrated on which features are or are not represented and to what extent (e.g., Jennings 2000;Pressey and Taffs 2001;Mendel and Kirkpatrick 2002). However, a single representation of every biodiversity feature will not represent all of the variation within the feature (Williams 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographic Assessment of Present Protected Areas in Japan for Representativeness of Forest Communities

Kamei

Nakagoshi

2006

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most assessments of present protected areas have focused on which features are or are not represented and to what extent, but they have not considered the environmental gradients and the geographic context within each biodiversity feature under a conservation network. We examined how protected areas are distributed with respect to the distribution of six forest community types. Three analyses were applied to the dataset in the Red Data Book of Plant Communities in Japan and the related survey: (1) recursive partitioning was used to contrast environmental factors of conserved communities with nonconserved communities; (2) point pattern analysis, based on Ripley's K function, was used to describe the spatial pattern of conserved communities; and (3) the spatial scan statistic was used to detect spatial representation gaps. Overall, environmental bias was greatest in relation to soil and topography. However, the results of point pattern analysis showed that the spatial pattern of conserved communities did not depend entirely on the distribution of environmental factors. Four types of gaps in spatial representation were detected by the spatial scan statistic, irrespective of environmental bias. These results showed that although a community type might be well protected in total or along the environmental gradients, conserved communities might not capture the full range of geographic context. To ensure appropriate representation or protection, it is important that conservation planning for protected areas take into account both the environmental gradients and the geographic context within each biodiversity feature.

show abstract

Sampling of land types by protected areas: three measures of effectiveness applied to western New South Wales

Cited by 42 publications

References 29 publications

Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria

Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria

Dynamic reserve site selection

Geographic Assessment of Present Protected Areas in Japan for Representativeness of Forest Communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About