Implications of the Hierarchical Structure of Biodiversity for the Development of Ecological Indicators of Sustainable Use

Biogeographic Patterns of Forest Diversity at Mount Kasigau, Kenya

“…Our study framework was hierarchical with a focus on species richness and chorological relationships, the composition and structure of different forest community types, and spatial patterns of vegetation diversity across the montane landscape. Ecological research on diversity patterns at different scales of analysis is not only important for the recognition of rare and unique conditions for biodiversity conservation (Soberón et al, 2000), but also can highlight geospatial patterns in the distribution of resources that are significant to human utilization practice M fo Kenya by over 50 km (figure 1) Commiphora bushland, and low in altitudinal height at about 1000 m (from ~600 m to 1641 m). Our study shows how one small mountain can make significant contributions to the protection of biodiversity across the highly fragmented afromontane region of East Africa (CEPF, 2003;Mittermeier et al, 2004).…”

Resolving the Conflicts Between Biodiversity Conservation and Socioeconomic Development in China: Fuzzy Clustering Approach

“…However, the wide usability of this indicator needs further verification. The increasing interest, and the actual necessity, for adequate means to evaluate how sustainable human activities are, has led to efforts to define indicators of sustainability (Soberon et al 2000). Many indices such as UNDP's human development index (HDI) have been formulated to quantify regional development from different perspectives.…”

Measuring performance under a landscape approach to biodiversity conservation: the case of USAID/Madagascar

“…Conservation research supports adopting a hierarchical approach to ecological monitoring that considers the composition and structure of diversity within species, in communities/ecosystems and across landscapes (sensu Noss, 1990;Franklin, 1993;Kremen et al, 1994;Furze et al, 1996;Soberó n et al, 2000; Figure 3). Protected areas, multipurpose forests and agricultural lands are three major land uses that differ in their resources and, accordingly, indicators that best capture their respective patterns of biodiversity.…”

“…Figure 3 proposes examples of biodiversity result indicators (cf. Miller and Allen, 1994;Soberó n et al, 2000) or measures on the state of biodiversity in the three land use settings. These results may be used to further examine relationships between impacts and biodiversity, train and report on biodiversity conditions and communicate certain values of biodiversity among stakeholders across landscapes.…”

“…Just about the time that the 'intrusive' and 'top-down' plans of fortress conservation lost hegemony in national strategies (Adams and Hulme, 2001;Agrawal and Gibson, 2001), a backlash emerged, identifying communities and development as obstacles to biological preservation and degradation as a local process (Brown, 2002;Wilshusen et al, 2002). Emerging from the debates are questions concerning the hierarchical scale at which resources are prioritized for protection (from species to landscapes; e.g., Soberó n et al, 2000), the geographic framework that defines development priorities for biodiversity protection (as 'hotspots' in Mittermeier et al, 1998 or 'ecoregions' in Olson andDinerstein, 1998), the 'nature' of communities and their engagement as participants (Pimbert and Pretty, 1997;Agrawal and Gibson, 2001;Cooke and Kothari, 2001) and the 'adaptive' mechanisms that are necessary to best monitor and modify development strategies for positive outcomes Brown, 2003).…”