2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Toward better application of minimum area requirements in conservation planning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
54
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
3
54
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Embora autores discutam e proponham diferentes métodos de estimar o tamanho mínimo viável de uma unidade de conservação (Smith et al 2010;Pe'er et al 2014), não existe um número mínimo absoluto e geral para todos grupos taxonômicos. Um exemplo disto é que para macacos neotropicais, a área mínima de conservação é de cerca de 11.000 ha (Brito & Grelle 2006).…”
Section: Discussionunclassified
“…Embora autores discutam e proponham diferentes métodos de estimar o tamanho mínimo viável de uma unidade de conservação (Smith et al 2010;Pe'er et al 2014), não existe um número mínimo absoluto e geral para todos grupos taxonômicos. Um exemplo disto é que para macacos neotropicais, a área mínima de conservação é de cerca de 11.000 ha (Brito & Grelle 2006).…”
Section: Discussionunclassified
“…Another important metric is the Minimum Area Requirement (MAR), defining the minimum habitat area for a viable population. While offering policy-relevant information, especially for spatial planning, it is notable that alternative scenarios, explored within a given study, may offer MAR values differing by as much as two orders of magnitude for the same species and site (Pe'er et al 2014b). Under such uncertainty, the MAR values finally communicated to stakeholders may reflect primarily subjective decisions.…”
Section: Overconfidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, a range of uncertainties remain poorly considered or communicated (Pe'er et al 2014b). Communicated values and confidence intervals are subject to judgment interpretation, often dictated by societal aspects: thresholds that are over-restrictive may be rejected by civil society or policymakers (Pe'er et al 2014b), promote misreporting and thereby enhance uncertainty with respect to population status (Quaas et al 2013), or are simply posing goals that are too challenging to meet (e.g. Palazy et al 2011;Quaas et al 2013).…”
Section: Overconfidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, dispersal distances have been compared with the distances between different sites to assess functional habitat connectivity and determine the maximum distance between sites that will permit movement of individuals (Calabrese & Fagan 2004). Finally, estimates of home range sizes have been used to determine the quantity of habitat area that might be required by each individual, and therefore the total amount that should be protected to achieve persistence or other recovery objectives Pe'er et al 2014). The use of different measures will result in different sets of sites identified as critical habitat; therefore, deciding which measure, or combination of measures, should be used is central to critical habitat identification.…”
Section: Step 3 Identifying the Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Identifying critical habitat for threatened species requires information about 1) habitat quality and its influence on the abundance and distribution of populations , 2) the functional connectivity of habitat patches and its role in species persistence (Calabrese & Fagan 2004;Kindlmann & Burel 2008), and 3) the quantity of habitat needed to achieve the recovery objectives Pe'er et al 2014) (Fig. 5.2).…”
Section: Step 3 Identifying the Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 99%