The role of geography in extending biodiversity gap analaysis

McKendry, Jean E.; Machlis, Gary E.

doi:10.1016/0143-6228(93)90055-6

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gap analysis is a useful means of identifying sites that ought to be protected but that currently fall outside existing conservation networks ( Burley 1988; McKendry & Machlis 1991; Scott et al 1993; Caicco et al 1995 and references therein). The technique, developed and widely tested in the United States, uses geographic information system (GIS) technology to identify gaps in the existing reserve network.…”

Section: Techniques For Reserve Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Gaps between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature Reserves

Prendergast

Quinn

Lawton

1999

Conservation Biology

513

244

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last three decades a great deal of research, money, and effort have been put into the development of theory and techniques designed to make conservation more efficient. Much of the recent emphasis has been on methods to identify areas of high conservation interest and to design efficient networks of nature reserves. Reserve selection algorithms, gap analysis, and other computerized approaches have much potential to transform conservation planning, yet these methods are used only infrequently by those charged with managing landscapes. We briefly describe different approaches to identifying potentially valuable areas and methods for reserve selection and then discuss the reasons they remain largely unused by conservationists and land‐use planners. Our informal discussions with ecologists, conservationists, and land managers from Europe and the United States suggested that the main reason for the low level of adoption of these sophisticated tools is simply that land managers have been unaware of them. Where this has not been the case, low levels of funding, lack of understanding about the purpose of these tools, and general antipathy toward what is seen as a prescriptive approach to conservation all play a part. We recognize there is no simple solution but call for a closer dialogue between theoreticians and practitioners in conservation biology. The two communities might be brought into closer contact in numerous ways, including carefully targeted publication of research and Internet communication. However it is done, we feel that the needs of land managers need to be catered to by those engaged in conservation research and that managers need to be more aware of what science can contribute to practical conservation.

show abstract

Section: Techniques For Reserve Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Gaps between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature Reserves

Prendergast

Quinn

Lawton

1999

Conservation Biology

513

244

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assessing trends in biological diversity requires, in addition to information about habitat and ecological processes, information about the location and trends of human activities on the land (Davis et al 1990). McKendry and Machlis (1993) describe a general framework to include socioeconomic indicators such as population change, economic trends, government policies, and land‐use conversion in gap analysis. Few methods have been developed that use socioeconomic indicators in conservation planning.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of possible indicators of human development have been suggested, but to provide a general method that can be applied easily to regional and national extents, the indicator must be readily mapped from existing, commonly available, digital data sources. Human population density (e.g., McKendry & Machlis 1993;Merrill et al 1999), housing density (e.g., Theobald 2001), and road density (e.g., Moyle & Randall 1998;Mladenoff et al 1995;Merrill et al 1999) are commonly used indicators of the intensity of human land-use activities and can be easily derived from nationwide, detailed data from the U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Geological Survey. In contrast, although detailed maps depicting allowable densities and types of human activities on private lands (i.e., zoning maps) and management zones on public land would be useful, these data are demanding to compile and are typically unavailable for regional-or national-level studies (e.g., White et al 1997;Theobald & Hobbs 2002).…”

Section: Socioeconomic Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The GAP uses biological survey data and geographic information systems (GIS) to detect conservation “gaps” (Scott et al 1993). There is a major opportunity to refine GAP analysis by integrating socioeconomic factors to better assess levels of protection and risk, particularly on private lands (McKendry & Machlis 1993). These refinements are especially useful for informing local land‐use planners and decision‐makers (Theobald et al 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Targeting Conservation Action through Assessment of Protection and Exurban Threats

Theobald

2003

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape-level assessments of biodiversity strive to guide land-use planning and conservation activities by providing information about areas of high biodiversity value and low protection status. I developed a methodology to assess the level of threat to conservation of biodiversity to help guide conservation action. This method incorporates socioeconomic indicators of risk, including developed and roaded areas, and measures the proportion of conservation lands affected by developed areas. In addition, I developed a metric called conservation potential to measure the degree of fragmentation of patches caused by development. As an illustration I applied this methodology to Colorado (U.S.A.). Protection levels were determined by examining land ownership, resulting in protected lands (status levels 1 and 2) and unprotected lands (status levels 3 and 4). Areas were considered threatened (at risk) if a land-cover patch had >20% roaded area, >15% developed area, or was highly fragmented. Although 24 of 43 natural land-cover types were unprotected (49% of the state), 9 additional types were threatened. Combining conservation-status protection levels with patterns of threat targets the geographic area where conservation action is needed, provides a way to determine where so-called protected areas are at risk, and allows conservation strategies to be better refined. Orientación de Acciones de Conservación a Través de Evaluación de la Protección y Amenazas ExurbanasResumen: Las evaluaciones de biodiversidad a nivel de paisaje se esfuerzan por proporcionar información para la planificación del uso del suelo y actividades de conservación mediante datos sobreáreas de alto valor de biodiversidad y bajo estatus de protección. Desarrollé una metodología para evaluar el nivel de amenaza para la conservación de la biodiversidad para ayudar a guiar acciones de conservación. Este método incorpora indicadores socioeconómicos de riesgo, incluyendoáreas desarrolladas y con caminos, y mide la proporción de tierras de conservación afectadas poráreas desarrolladas. Adicionalmente, desarrollé una medida llamada potencial de conservación para cuantificar el grado de fragmentación debido al desarrollo. Como un ejemplo, apliqué esta metodología a Colorado (E. U. A). Los niveles de protección se determinaron examinando la propiedad, resultando en tierras protegidas (niveles 1 y 2) y no protegidas (niveles 3 y 4). Lasáreas se consideraron amenazadas (en riesgo) si tenían >20% de su superficie con caminos, >15% delárea desarrollada o si estaban muy fragmentadas. Aunque 24 de los 43 tipos de cobertura natural no estaban protegidos (49% del estado), 9 más estaban amenazados. La combinación de estatus de conservación y niveles de protección con patrones de amenazas identifica alárea geográfica donde se requieren acciones de conservación, proporciona una forma de examinar donde están en riesgo las llamadasáreas protegidas y permite que las estrategias de conservación sean mejor ajustadas.

show abstract

“…Conducted in a variety of ecosystems, these studies have quantified the influence of specific measures of our conceptual factors. They include: historical land use (Turner and Meyer 1991, Savisky 1993, Flamm and Turner 1994, rural population density (Clawson 1971, Jobes 1991, McKendry and Machlis 1993, economic land value (Odum 1936, Alig 1986), tax status (Odum 1936, Fortmann and Huntsinger 1989, Savisky 1993, access , Skole et al 1994, demographic and cultural attributes of land owners (Tosta and Green 1988, Fortmann and Huntsinger 1989, Rudzitis and Johansen 1989, Fortmann and Kusel 1990, Jobes 1991, Turner and Meyer 1991, Savisky 1993, Skole et al 1994, land cover and successional stage (Odum 1936, Rudel 1984, Forman and Godron 1986, Johnston 1987, Tosta and Green 1988, Boyle 1991, Dale et al 1993, Flamm and Turner 1994, Lehmkuhl et al 1994, Koopowitz et al 1994, disturbance (Romme and Despain 1989, Spies et al 1994, Baker 1995, Hessburg et al 1999a, 2000b, soil type (Sader and Joyce 1985, Johnston 1987…”

Section: Generating Correlate Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Social and Biophysical Correlates of Change in Forest Landscapes of the Interior Columbia Basin, Usa

Black

Morgan

Hessburg

2003

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding multi‐scale interactions among human activities and biophysical factors in ecosystem dynamics is a critical step toward managing for long‐term ecological integrity. Studying variation and change over multiple spatial and temporal scales (100–100 000 ha and 1–500 yr) allows one to tease apart the relative roles of these factors. Using meso‐scale data predominantly from the recent Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), we assessed the role of several economic, demographic, cultural, climatic, topographic, and geologic factors in forest spatial pattern changes (from the 1930s to the 1990s) across 800 000 km2 of the interior Northwest, USA. Our 228 forested subwatersheds (∼10 000 ha) lie in 76 counties in six states. We identified key correlates of change, their hierarchical scale, and the scale of vegetation classification at which these correlates explained most change. We used general linear models and partial multiple regression analysis, supplemented by logistic and correlation analysis. Models explained 40–93% of total variation. Changes were not necessarily correlated to factors of the same scale. Broad‐scale social systems encompassing land ownership systems, economic market structures, and cultural value systems appear in all significant models regardless of the response scale. Biophysical parameters describing growing site conditions moderated or exacerbated changes. Corresponding Editor: W. V. Reid

show abstract

The role of geography in extending biodiversity gap analaysis

Cited by 17 publications

References 41 publications

The Gaps between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature Reserves

The Gaps between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature Reserves

Targeting Conservation Action through Assessment of Protection and Exurban Threats

Social and Biophysical Correlates of Change in Forest Landscapes of the Interior Columbia Basin, Usa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About