Designing nature reserves: adapting ecology to real-world problems

Kingsland, Sharon

doi:10.1016/s0160-9327(00)01396-x

Cited by 38 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The science of reserve selection and design as an interdisciplinary field is relatively new, having only become well established over the last two to three decades (see Kingsland 2002 for a review) but it has developed considerably in the last decade. Two main methods have been used for the selection of priority areas: (1) scoring techniques, where one or more criteria are used to attribute a given value to an area, and areas are ranked based directly on those values (see Margules and Usher 1981 for a review) and (2) complementarity methods, where areas are chosen based on the degree of dissimilarity prevailing among them, whether by a sequential choice of areas (suboptimal complementarity) or a selection of a minimum set of areas (optimal complementarity; defined by VaneWright et al 1991, see Justus andSarkar 2002 for a review).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of priority areas for arthropod conservation in the Azores archipelago

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The largest standardised database available to date for arthropods in native forests of the Azores archipelago was used to determine the minimum optimal set of native forest fragments needed to accomplish four different targets of species occurrence (presence-absence) and abundance (20, 50 and 80%) using different groups of arthropods and all data combined. The results showed that occurrence and 20% abundance targets gave similar optimal solutions for most of the groups considered. At least one fragment on each of the seven studied islands was required to accomplish any occurrence and abundance target. To achieve 80% of abundance for all species, all fragments were necessary and to guarantee 50% of the overall abundance of endemics, 17 out of 18 native forests were needed. A suggestion is made to apply a measure of biotic integrity related to disturbance to select, among alternative optimal solutions, the set of areas that will help to guarantee the viability of populations. Some guidelines for the selection of priority areas for conservation in the Azores are presented.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of priority areas for arthropod conservation in the Azores archipelago

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this conflict, experts appear as the group that can guarantee scientific rationality, while local people point to their right to use natural resources (Clapp, 2004). Inclusionary models of environmental governance in contemporary planning share the premise that local inhabitants participation is a prerequisite of an effective management strategy (Aasetre, 2006;Ellis & Porter-Bolland, 2008;Kingsland, 2002; www.intechopen.com…”

Section: Local Participation In Protected Area Governance and Issues mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Forest Management in Protected Areas Produce New Risk Situations? A Mixed-Motive Perspective from the Dadia-Soufli-Lefkimi Forest National Park, Greece

Hovardas¹

2012

Sustainable Forest Management - Case Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This was particularly true in the sub-discipline within conservation biology that came to be known as systematic conservation planning (Margules and Pressey 2000). Even though there was little formal contact or collaboration between conservation biologists and operations researchers during the formative 1980-1995 period when the framework of systematic conservation planning was established (for a contrary interpretation, see Kingsland 2002), what emerged was a discipline that drew as much from operations research and other areas outside biology as from within the biological sciences. This paper is a history of the introduction and elaboration of algorithms within conservation biology during the 1980-1995 period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementarity and the selection of nature reserves: algorithms and the origins of conservation planning, 1980–1995

Sarkar

2012

Arch. Hist. Exact Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reconstructs the history of the introduction and use of iterative algorithms in conservation biology in the 1980s and early 1990s in order to prioritize areas for protection as nature reserves. The importance of these algorithms was that they led to greater economy in spatial extent ("efficiency") in the selection of areas to represent biological features adequately (that is, to a specified level) compared to older methods of scoring and ranking areas using criteria such as biotic "richness" (the number of features of interest). The development of these algorithms was critical to producing a research program for conservation biology that was distinct from ecology and eventually led to what came to be called systematic conservation planning. Very similar algorithmic approaches were introduced independently in the 1980-1990 period in Australia, South Africa, and (arguably) the United Kingdom. The key rules in these algorithms were the use of rarity and what came to be called complementarity (the number of new or under-represented features in an area relative to those that had already been selected). Because these algorithms were heuristic, they were not guaranteed to produce optimal (most "efficient") solutions. However, complementarity came to be seen as a principle rather than a rule in an algorithm and its use was also advocated for the former reason. Optimal solutions could be produced by reformulating the reserve selection problem in a mathematical programming formalism and using exact algorithms developed in that context. A dispute over the relevance of full optimality arose and was never resolved. Moreover, exact algorithms could not easily incorporate criteria determining the spatial configuration of networks of selected areas, in contrast to heuristic algorithms. Meanwhile metaheuristic algorithms emerged in 123 398 S. Sarkar the 1990s and came to be seen as a credible more effective alternative to the heuristic algorithms. Ultimately what was important about these developments was that the reserve selection problem came to be viewed a complex optimal decision problem under uncertainty, resource, and other constraints. It was a type of problem that had no antecedent in traditional ecology.

show abstract

Designing nature reserves: adapting ecology to real-world problems

Cited by 38 publications

References 24 publications

Selection of priority areas for arthropod conservation in the Azores archipelago

Selection of priority areas for arthropod conservation in the Azores archipelago

Can Forest Management in Protected Areas Produce New Risk Situations? A Mixed-Motive Perspective from the Dadia-Soufli-Lefkimi Forest National Park, Greece

Complementarity and the selection of nature reserves: algorithms and the origins of conservation planning, 1980–1995

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About