From displacement activities to evidence-informed decisions in conservation

Pressey, Robert L.; Gurney, Georgina G.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.009

Cited by 82 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…most importantly fishing, but also seabed mining and oil and gas production). The inclusion of socio‐economic data in the planning process may, therefore, favour relatively cheap areas to the exclusion of costly but biologically relevant sites (Jenkins & Van Houtan, ; Pressey, Weeks, & Gurney, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the synergies among global biodiversity targets to reconcile conservation and socio‐economic demands

Vilar

Magris

Loyola

et al. 2020

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most of the world's nations adopted the 20 Aichi global biodiversity targets to be met by 2020, including the protection of at least 10% of their coastal and marine areas (Target 11) and the avoidance of extinction of threatened species (Target 12). However, reconciling these biodiversity targets with socio‐economic demands remains a great dilemma for implementing conservation policies. In this paper, Aichi Targets 11 and 12 were simultaneously addressed using Brazil's exclusive economic zone as an example. Priority areas for expanding the current system of marine protected areas within the country's eight marine ecoregions were identified with data on threatened vertebrates under different scenarios. Additionally, the potential effects of major socio‐economic activities (small‑ and large‐scale fishing, seabed mining, and oil and gas exploration) on the representation of conservation features in proposed marine protected areas were explored. Areas selected for expanding marine protected areas solely based on biodiversity data were different (spatial overlap from 62% to 93%) from areas prioritized when socio‐economic features were incorporated into the analysis. The addition of socio‐economic data in the prioritization process substantially decreased opportunity costs and potential conservation conflicts, at the cost of reducing significantly (up to 31%) the coverage of conservation features. Large‑ and small‐scale fisheries act in most of the exclusive economic zone and are the major constraints for protecting high‐priority areas. Nevertheless, there is some spatial mismatch between areas of special relevance for conservation and socio‐economic activities, suggesting an opportunity for reconciling the achievement of biodiversity targets and development goals within the intricate Brazilian seascape by 2020 and beyond.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the synergies among global biodiversity targets to reconcile conservation and socio‐economic demands

Vilar

Magris

Loyola

et al. 2020

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our technique can be added to the existing toolset of marine conservation planners to highlight regions in which efforts should be focused and additional methods employed. While habitat representation is not a panacea to reserve design (Pressey et al., ), there are still significant ecological benefits to be accrued by protecting a range of habitats and conservation targets (Airame et al., ; Ward, Vanderklift, Nicholls, & Kenchington, ). Importantly, these two approaches are not mutually exclusive, and future management should aim to incorporate both in conjunction when formulating decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, the degree to which the two differ in effectiveness depends upon their likely impact. The conservation impact of a reserve is the difference it makes to one or more intended or unintended outcomes relative to no intervention or a different intervention (Pressey, Visconti, & Ferraro, ; Pressey, Weeks, & Gurney, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting impact to assess the efficacy of community‐based marine reserve design

Smallhorn‐West

Bridge

Malimali

et al. 2018

CONSERVATION LETTERS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the planning phase the efficacy of different strategies to manage marine resources should ultimately be assessed by their potential impact, or ability to make a difference to ecological and social outcomes. While community‐based and systematic approaches to establishing marine protected areas have their strengths and weaknesses, comparisons of their effectiveness often fail to explicitly address potential impact. Here, we predict conservation impact to compare recently implemented community‐based marine reserves in Tonga to a systematic configuration specifically aimed at maximizing impact. Boosted regression tree outputs indicated that fishing pressure accounted for ∼24% of variation in target species biomass. We estimate that the community‐based approach provides 84% of the recovery potential of the configuration with the greatest potential impact. This high potential impact results from community‐based reserves being located close to villages, where fishing pressure is greatest. These results provide strong support for community‐based marine management, with short‐term benefits likely to accrue even where there is little scope for systematic reserve design.

show abstract

“…; Pressey et al. ). Nevertheless, there is evidence that conservation plans have been used in numerous planning and regulatory applications (Nel et al.…”

Section: Reflections On Biodiversity Outcomes and The Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 97%

Practical actions for applied systematic conservation planning

Botts¹,

Pence²,

Holness

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic conservation planning is intended to inform spatially explicit decision making. Doing so requires that it be integrated into complex regulatory and governance processes, and there are limited instances where this has been achieved effectively. South Africa is a global leader in the application of conservation plans, the outputs of which are widely used for spatial planning and decision making in many spheres of government. We aimed to determine how conservation planning in the country progressed from theory to implementation, and to identify practical actions that enabled this transition, by assessing temporal trends in the characteristics of conservation plans (1990–2017, n = 94). Since 2010 conservation planning has entered an operational period characterized by government leadership of plans, administrative rather than ecological planning domains, decreasing size of planning units, increasing emphasis on end‐user products, and scheduled revision of plans. Key actions that enabled this progression include transitioning leadership of plans from scientists to practitioners, building capacity within implementing agencies, creating opportunities to integrate plans in legislative processes, establishing a strong community of practice, adopting implementation‐focused methods, and balancing standardization with innovation. Learning from this model will allow other countries, particularly those with a similar megadiverse, developing context, to operationalize conservation planning into spatial planning and decision making.

show abstract

From displacement activities to evidence-informed decisions in conservation

Cited by 82 publications

References 96 publications

Strengthening the synergies among global biodiversity targets to reconcile conservation and socio‐economic demands

Strengthening the synergies among global biodiversity targets to reconcile conservation and socio‐economic demands

Predicting impact to assess the efficacy of community‐based marine reserve design

Practical actions for applied systematic conservation planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About