Evaluating species for protection in natural areas

Adamus, Paul R.; Clough, Garrett C.

doi:10.1016/0006-3207(78)90032-0

Cited by 22 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, the criteria for selecting species are sometimes explicitly stated: "The emphasis has been upon species that are, rare, threatened or endangered, and upon those that breed at traditional locations, in large concentrations, and in scarce habitat, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance" (Ealey 1981:36). Adamus and Clough (1978) have identified those characteristics of species which make them more or less suitable and desirable for conservation in protected areas. Suitability criteria are site tenacity, seasonal mobility, area size needs, and spatial distribution.…”

Section: Importance For Wildlifementioning

confidence: 99%

A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas

Smith

Theberge

1986

Environmental Management

191

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT/Methods for evaluating natural areas have evolved in the last couple of decades to assess the importance of natural areas for the purposes of land-use planning, environmental impact assessment, and planning protected areas. Criteria used for evaluation vary and generally fall into three categories: ecological, or abiotic and biotic; cultural; and planning and management. Abiotic and biotic criteria are reviewed here in terms of three questions for each criterion: What is it--what are the definitions used in the ecological and environmental management literature? Why use it--what are the reasons behind its use? How has it been used--what is the state-of-the-art in assessing the criterion? Cultural criteria are discussed more generally in terms of the commonly used frameworks and the concept of significance. Planning and management criteria are generally related to either the need for management action or feasibility of effective management.

show abstract

Section: Importance For Wildlifementioning

confidence: 99%

A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas

Smith

Theberge

1986

Environmental Management

191

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It may not be practical to set aside reserves of thousands of square kilometers or more. There may not be enough suitable land to set aside, or the costs of acquiring and protecting such expanses may be prohibitively high (Adamus and Clough 1978;Terborgh 1974). In Alberta, for instance, there exist few areas of sufficient size to set aside as large reserves in the settled White Area, whereas there is more potential to set aside large, basically untouched areas in the Green Area.…”

Section: Sustain?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the introduced species persists, the measure of simple species diversity remains the same, but the reduction in ecosystem functioning argues in favor of maintaining both the ecosystem processes and original component species within reserves. To do so, examples of common habitats, and also the scarcer habitats and the many rare species that naturally occur in ecosystems, should be protected in reserves(Adamus and Clough 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reserves for nature /

Webb¹

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

tion ensures that we will reap such benefits in the future. Examples abound (Oldfield 1984). The value of plants for medicinal purposes is one example of the economic benefit of preserving species. Hie International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources recently estimated the worldwide retail value of tropical plants for medicinal uses at $20 billion (WWF 1986). The third argument, and perhaps the most critical one, is that ecosystems and the organisms they comprise provide us with services upon which we humans depend for survival, for example, production of oxygen, nitrogen fixation, and breakdown of organic wastes and chemical pollutants, among many others (Pimentel et al. 1980). Aside from survival value, the services provided by ecosystems are of great economic benefit to society. Hie benefit, however, tends to be underestimated because the interconnectedness of components of the biosphere is not always recognized. Consider, for example, the ability of soil micro-organisms to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere. Assigning a dollar value to the nitrogen in the soil inadequately accounts for the benefits provided by nitrogen because other, related services, such as better soil erosion control and support of larger or more diverse plant and animal populations, are also provided Trophic Level: aganisms that obtain food (Westman 1977). from plants by the same number of steps The problem belong to the same trophic level. Plants ocwith the ecosystem-'^^Py^®^' ''st trophic level and plant-eaters service argument is^® second. An organism may occupy more that while scien-humans eat plants, they occupy the second trophic level; tists are sure of the when we eat beef, we occupy the third level. disastrous ecological consequences of causing the dysfunction of a whole trophic level, for example, the producer (plant) level, or the decomposer level, they effectively do not know what the consequen-Readers wanting more detailed coverage of the subject may consult The Theory of Island Biogeography by RH. MacArthur and E.O. Wilson, or Geographical Ecology by RH. MacArthur.

show abstract

“…Secondly, there is little clear guidance on the relationship between human interests and the various features displayed by Nature conservation resources. Although relationships are assumed in all evaluations, and whilst the characteristics that might give rise to interest in certain species have been suggested (Adamus & Clough, 1978), scant systematic study of these relationships has taken place.…”

Section: Sectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to make decisions about designating land for Nature conservation, it is necessary to assess conservation values in a rational and consistent manner. In recent years an array of techniques have been proposed which attempt to establish these values (Helliwell, 1969(Helliwell, , 1974Tubbs&Blackwood, 1971;Yapp, 1973;Tans, 1974;Gehlbach, 1975;Goldsmith, 1975;Ratcliffe, 1977;Wright, 1977;Adamus & Clough, 1978;Everett, 1979;Goodfellow & Peterken, 1981).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation in Nature Conservation Decision-making

Roome

1984

Envir. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers alternative approaches to the evaluation of Nature conservation resources as part of the overall process of establishing Nature conservation priorities. The techniques available for evaluation are seen to differ in their ideological base and methodology, and in the relative importance which they attach to physical and ecological features. This lack of consistency means that existing techniques only represent a partial basis for determining conservation priorities. Furthermore, the assumptions on which evaluation techniques are based tend not to be stated explicitly and often appear not to have been substantiated. These inconsistencies are due in part to ambiguity concerning the objectives of conservation, in part to the lack of research into the relationship between human demands and the features of Nature conservation resources, and in part to uncertainty as to the position of evaluation in the conservation priority-setting process.A model of this process for setting conservation priorities is presented. It delimits ecological evaluation as an objective, value-free element in the priority-setting process—where ecological evaluation is seen to provide information which aids decision-makers in the more value-laden socio-economic elements of conservation priority-setting. The model implies that the objective and subjective elements in existing evaluation techniques are not sufficiently explicit to ensure consistency in decision-making.

show abstract

Evaluating species for protection in natural areas

Cited by 22 publications

References 9 publications

A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas

A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas

Reserves for nature /

Evaluation in Nature Conservation Decision-making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About