Conserving biodiversity in production landscapes

Wilson, Kerrie A.; Meijaard, Erik; Drummond, Simon; Grantham, Hedley S.; Boitani, Luigi; Catullo, Gianluca; Christie, Lenny; Dennis, Rona; Dutton, Ian; Falcucci, Alessandra; Maiorano, Luigi; Possingham, Hugh P.; Rondinini, Carlo; Turner, Will R.; Venter, Oscar; Watts, Matthew

doi:10.1890/09-1051.1

Cited by 115 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only recently, however, did investigation into systematic zoning begin (Moilanen et al 2005) enabling planning for multi-objective, multistakeholder contexts (Wilson et al 2010). Forest managers used simulated annealing to harmonize site suitability and different forestry regimes (Bos 1993) and Verdiell & Sabatini (2005) Sabatini & Verdiell (2007 internally zoned a protected area designated as a world heritage site in Argentina.…”

Section: Zoning In the Context Of Systematic Conservation Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Howevers in both cases, the claims of spatially explicit zoning were based only on spatial attributes such as compatibility and connectivity. They overlooked the explicit incorporation of objectives in the optimization, failing to explicitly target representation, complementarity and constraints of conflicting objectives in the actual problem definition (Possingham 2001;Wilson et al 2010).…”

Section: Zoning In the Context Of Systematic Conservation Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We show how a spatially explicit tool can engage the public into the decision process, where objectives and goals are laid out and compromises are negotiated explicitly (Dhargalkar & Untawale 1991;Higgins et al 2004;Cabeza & Moilanen 2006;Wilson et al 2010).…”

Section: Zoning In the Context Of Systematic Conservation Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What is Missing in Biosphere Reserves Accountability?

Lourival¹,

Watts²,

Pressey³

et al. 2011

Nat. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The design of Biosphere Reserves (BR) poses an interesting problem for systematic planning. It entails a spatially explicitly compromise between economic, social, cultural and biodiversity protection objectives, in a sustainable development context. The global network of Biosphere Reserves includes 563 sites in 110 countries. Currently the spatial configuration of BRs follows a nested scheme, where different land use regimes are assigned to zones in an ad hoc fashion, which complicates the evaluation of their effectiveness. So far in the literature, have not been designed to achieve quantitative objectives, which could limit their value for sustainable development. Using the newly developed version of the software MARXAN © , we solve part of this problem enabling BRs to reach predefined set of spatially explicit quantitative targets, while minimizing the reserves' overall costs (i.e. opportunity, implementation, land value, etc.). Our case study is the Pantanal Biosphere Reserve (PBR), in Brazil. According to our results the PBR could substantially improve its effectiveness if a systematic review of its objectives and goals is performed. Rearrangements of all zones proved to be necessary. Core zones for example, composed of IUCN categories I to IV, increased from its current 1.5% of the BR area to 18.5% to reach all objectives. The absence of quantitative guidelines from UNESCO for the configuration of BRs has limited their effectiveness. Our quantitative systematic approach provided the first insights into potential requirements for zone partitioning, prescribing 22 ± 5% to be allocated in core zones, 22 ± 3% in buffer zones, and 33 ± 4% in transition zones. The most useful outcome, however, was the flexibility the software offered to reach multiple objectives simultaneously.

show abstract

Section: Zoning In the Context Of Systematic Conservation Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Zoning In the Context Of Systematic Conservation Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What is Missing in Biosphere Reserves Accountability?

Lourival¹,

Watts²,

Pressey³

et al. 2011

Nat. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The focus of conservation planning is shifting from solely prioritising for protected areas, and towards new objectives of identifying areas for targeted management to ameliorate negative impacts and to improve ecosystem health (Budiharta et al, 2014;Moilanen et al, 2011;Wilson et al, 2010). This includes targeting control of invasive species (Auerbach et al, 2014;Evans et al, 2011), reduction of poaching (Plumptre et al, 2014), or management of fire (Richards et al, 1999;Wilson et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clear consideration of costs, condition and conservation benefits yields better planning outcomes

Evans

Tulloch

Law

et al. 2015

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conservation benefit of a management action depends on what would have happened in absence of an intervention, and whether the conservation objective is to maintain existing biodiversity values, or to restore those that have been lost. How this benefit is calculated and considered in spatial prioritisation analyses could influence the expected cost-effectiveness of management, although this has not previously been explored. Here, we use a comprehensive decision theoretic approach to identify management priorities in a region of ecological, cultural and economic significance, the Great Western Woodlands (GWW) of south-western Australia.To demonstrate how cost, condition and conservation benefits affect prioritisation outcomes, we consider two different conservation objectives: the maintenance of native vegetation communities, and the restoration of natural fire regimes. We compare the results from (1) our comprehensive approach, to priorities identified using two alternative approaches: (2) consider generic management costs (travel, labour) and assume that landscape condition is homogenous, 2 or; (3) use landscape condition as a surrogate for the cost of management, i.e. areas in poor condition are assumed to have high costs. We demonstrate that prioritisation outcomes differ substantially depending on how the benefits and costs of a management action are calculated.Using landscape condition as a surrogate for management costs resulted in priority areas that were least cost-effective. To avoid misspent conservation funding, we argue that care must be taken to incorporate the most appropriate cost and condition metrics into spatial prioritisation analyses, and that conservation benefits must be derived from a clearly specified objective.

show abstract

“…These advances have facilitated more complex approaches to systematic conservation planning that support more holistic spatial approaches in which multiple uses are considered and planned for explicitly. Studies that consider multiple land uses have demonstrated that potential conflicts can be minimized by explicitly accounting for associated trade-offs (Polasky et al 2005, Wilson et al 2010, Venter et al 2013). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating trade-offs in land-use planning: integrating human well-being into objective setting

Adams¹,

Pressey²,

Stoeckl³

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. There is an increasing demand for development of natural resources, which can be accompanied by environmental degradation. Planning for multiple land uses requires navigating trade-offs between social, economic, and environmental outcomes arising from different possible futures. To explore these trade-offs, we use the Daly River catchment, in Australia's Northern Territory, as a case study. The catchment contains areas of priority for both conservation and development. In response to the challenge of navigating the required trade-offs, the Daly River Management Advisory Committee (DRMAC) initiated a land-use plan for the region. Both development and conservation of natural resources in the catchment will affect human well-being and the long-term provisioning of ecosystem services in diverse ways. To understand some of these impacts, an innovative engagement process was designed to elicit the relative importance of key factors to residents' well-being. The process identified 19 well-being factors grouped into four domains: biodiversity, socio-cultural, recreational, and commercial. Overall, the highest-ranked well-being factors were in the social-cultural and biodiversity domains while commercial values were ranked the least important. Respondents reported low satisfaction with commercial factors as well, noting concerns over environmental impacts from existing developments and sustainability of future developments. We identified differences in the reported importance values for several types of stakeholders, most notably between indigenous respondents and those employed in the agricultural sectors. Indigenous respondents placed greater importance on biodiversity and socio-cultural factors. Agricultural respondents placed greater importance on commercial factors. The outcomes of our engagement were integrated into DRMAC's process of objective-setting to ensure that objectives for each domain were included in land-use planning. Our results can also anticipate potential conflicts between different stakeholders and changes in well-being associated with different land uses. We describe how our findings will inform the next stages of stakeholder engagement and comment on the utility of such an approach for integrating well-being into objective setting for land-use and scenario planning.

show abstract

Conserving biodiversity in production landscapes

Cited by 115 publications

References 58 publications

What is Missing in Biosphere Reserves Accountability?

What is Missing in Biosphere Reserves Accountability?

Clear consideration of costs, condition and conservation benefits yields better planning outcomes

Navigating trade-offs in land-use planning: integrating human well-being into objective setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About