Environmental representativeness: Regional partitioning and reserve selection

Belbin, Lee

doi:10.1016/0006-3207(93)90007-n

Cited by 133 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of Systematic Conservation Planning's main objectives is to identify a set of representative areas (Dasmann 1972;Mackey et al 1988;Belbin 1993;Church et al 1996;Vane-Wright 1996;Powell et al 2000), in which all species may persist if included in a reserve network (Araújo and Williams 2000;Araújo et al 2004b). This is a key objective of several international conservation policy schemes, such as IUCN MacKinnon 1986a,b, MacKinnon et al 1986) or WWF (Dinerstein et al 1995;Olson and Dinerstein 1998) frameworks.…”

Section: Obtaining Reliable Data For Regional Conservation Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A synecological framework for systematic conservation planning

Hortal

Lobo

2006

Biodiv. Inf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.− Biodiversity conservation design, though difficult with fragmentary or insufficient biological data, can be planned and evaluated with several methods. One of them, the complementarity criterion, is commonly used to account for the distributions of a number of species (i.e., an autoecological approach). At the same time, the patchiness and spatial bias of available distribution data has also been dealt with through distribution modelling. However, both the uncertainty of the ranges estimated and the changes in species' distributions in response to changing climates, limit the potential of single-species distributions as the biodiversity attribute to be used in complementarity strategies. Several technical and theoretical advantages of composite biodiversity variables (i.e., a synecological approach) may, however, make them ideal biodiversity indicators for conservation area selection. The drawbacks associated with current biodiversity data are discussed herein, along with the possible advantages and disadvantages of conservation planning through a synecological or autoecological approach.

show abstract

“…In other words, the ecological landscape context for resource management is made up of fairly similar biophysical characteristics. For example, the soils, geology, elevation climate and topography combine to provide a relatively homogeneous ecological resource base (Belbin, 1993;Forman, 1995;Omernik, 1995;Bailey, 1996).…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Eco-civic’ optimisation: A nested framework for planning and managing landscapes

Brunckhorst

Coop

Reeve

2006

Landscape and Urban Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important institution for regional resource governance is civic engagement in local affairs, including resource use issues. Local civic engagement has traditionally been structured around local government and, more recently, to catchment-based decision-making bodies. If citizens are to participate in regional resource management in ways that are meaningful to them, it is important that both the landscape units being discussed and the jurisdictional boundaries are meaningful. We have been examining how boundaries for resource management regions might be identified. Three considerations are believed to be important if regional resource management is to be meaningful to the citizens involved. Firstly, that the regional boundaries maximise the areal proportion of the region that residents consider to be part of their 'community', which should lead to greater commitment to civic engagement in resource management. Secondly, that the character of the landscape units within the region possess a high degree of homogeneity, reflecting greater coincidence of interest among the inhabitants of the region. The third consideration is a hierarchical multi-scaling capacity to deal with externalities of resource use. The approach was tested through identification of a series of nested 'eco-civic' resource management regions for north-eastern New South Wales in Australia. The results delineate resource governance regions that nest at local to regional scales for integrated natural resource management. Such 'eco-civic' regions demonstrate a better spatial representation of social and ecological characteristics than existing regional frameworks. Crown

show abstract

Environmental representativeness: Regional partitioning and reserve selection

Cited by 133 publications

References 32 publications

Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria

Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria

A synecological framework for systematic conservation planning

‘Eco-civic’ optimisation: A nested framework for planning and managing landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About