Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning

Abstract

Systematic conservation planning (SCP) is a field of conservation biology concerned with delivering on-the-ground actions that achieve conservation goals. It describes a set of operational models that cover both design and implementation of conservation, with a strong focus on mobilising the collective action typically required to implement conservation. SCP, as it was originally described, was composed of six different stages: collection of data, identification of conservation goals, evaluation of the existing protected area network, design of expansions, implementation of conservation action, and long-term maintenance of biodiversity in the network. Since then, the operational model has been expanded into several different variants. Conservation actions applied inside SCP include establishment and expansion of reserve networks and allocation of habitat restoration and management.Within the broader context of SCP, there is a fundamental biogeographic-economic analysis frequently called spatial conservation prioritisation or conservation assessment, which is used for identifying where important areas for biodiversity are and how conservation goals might be achieved efficiently. Here, we review the usage and meaning of the 12 biogeographic-economic core concepts of SCP: adequacy, complementarity, comprehensiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, flexibility, irreplaceability, replacement cost, representation, representativeness, threat, and vulnerability. Some of the concepts have clear definitions whereas others may have alternative and possibly conflicting definitions. With a comprehensive literature review literature, we elucidate the historical backgrounds of these concepts, the first definitions and usages, alternative later definitions, key applications, and prior reviews. This review reduces linguistic uncertainty in the application of SCP. Since SCP is a global activity with a multitude of different stakeholders involved, it is vital that those involved can speak the same language. Through these concepts, this review serves as a source of information about the historical development of SCP. It provides a comprehensive review for anyone wishing to understand the key concepts of spatial prioritisation within SCP.

Research advances and gaps in marine planning: towards a global database in systematic conservation planning

“…Australia, USA, Canada, United Kingdom, and South Africa; Figure 4a). This finding is consistent with a previous analysis of SCP literature (Kukkala and Moilanen, 2013) and suggests there are organizations with strong resources and expertise in SCP within these countries. Organizations leading marine SCP studies in these five countries have also developed studies in other countries.…”

“…The database currently contains 115 fields and includes information on planning goals and objectives, geographic scope and location, targeted features, methods and decision-support tools, planning units, threats to features, stakeholder participation, planning outputs, and approaches to incorporating ecological connectivity, climate change, and socioeconomic considerations ( Figure S1). To ensure consistency of coding across fields, we drew upon relevant reviews and key papers (e.g., Álvarez-Romero et al, 2011;Ban and Klein, 2009;Magris et al, 2014;Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008) to develop clear definitions of the database fields (see review on SCP concepts by Kukkala and Moilanen, 2013). We populated the database with all peer-reviewed papers on marine SCP published before 2016 (details below).…”

“…Since the most recent review of marine planning exercises (Leslie, 2005), hundreds of publications on marine SCP have appeared in the academic and gray literature, adding new concepts, planning frameworks, and methods (Groves and Game, 2016;Kukkala and Moilanen, 2013). Our review revealed an exponential increase in marine SCP over the past 15 years, with over 160 papers in the primary literature (Table S1) and an increased rate of publication (~22 papers per year) over the last five years (Figure 1).…”

“…Overall, the field of SCP continues to grow, with rapidly increasing publications (Kukkala and Moilanen, 2013;Moilanen et al, 2009), hundreds of applications world-wide Groves and Game, 2016), and substantial influence achieved with governments and non-government organizations (Kareiva et al, 2014;Taylor et al, 2014). In particular, the number of studies added to the marine SCP literature has increased significantly over the past 10 years (Ban and Klein, 2009;Kukkala and Moilanen, 2013;Magris et al, 2014), including numerous exercises aiming to inform the creation of new MPAs (e.g., Álvarez-Romero et al, 2018;Green et al, 2009;Weeks and Jupiter, 2013).…”

“…In particular, the number of studies added to the marine SCP literature has increased significantly over the past 10 years (Ban and Klein, 2009;Kukkala and Moilanen, 2013;Magris et al, 2014), including numerous exercises aiming to inform the creation of new MPAs (e.g., Álvarez-Romero et al, 2018;Green et al, 2009;Weeks and Jupiter, 2013). This accelerating output of marine SCP methods and applications demands an updated analysis of the literature, as well as reflection on the need for continuous and systematic documentation of SCP applications in general.…”