Biodiversity protection prioritisation: a 25-year review
Ross Cullen
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
Accounting, Economics and Finance, Lincoln University, Box 84, Lincoln University, New Zealand. Email: ross.cullen@lincoln.ac.nz
Wildlife Research 40(2) 108-116 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12065
Submitted: 29 March 2012 Accepted: 22 July 2012 Published: 4 September 2012
Abstract
There are insufficient resources available globally, nationally and in many regions, to conserve all species, habitats and ecosystems. Prioritisation of targets or actions is a rational response to resource scarcity. Prioritisation can be directed at areas for reservation, species, habitats or ecosystems for management, and threat management actions. The scale at which prioritisation is applied is a fundamental decision, and the range includes global, national, regional and patch. Choice of scale influences availability of data and methods available for prioritisation. Since 1986 availability of data, computing power and expertise available have all improved globally and in many countries. Approaches to prioritisation have evolved during the past 25 years as researchers from several disciplines, including biology, ecology, decision sciences, mathematics and economics, have sought ways to achieve greater output from the resources available for biodiversity conservation. This review surveys the literature and groups prioritisation approaches into the following four categories: reserves and reserve selection, prescriptive costed biodiversity prioritisation, ranked costed biodiversity projects and contracted costed conservation actions. A concluding section considers the limitations of current prioritisation approaches and points to areas for further development.
Additional keywords: actions, contracts, costs, reserves.
References
Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S., and Solow, A. (1998). Species distributions, land values and efficient conservation. Science 279, 2126–2128.| Species distributions, land values and efficient conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXitFGrur8%3D&md5=73369ff7e1e4237a5c2cb05c859b770cCAS |
Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Rodrigues, A. S. L., and James, A. (2000). Integrating costs of conservation into international priority setting. Conservation Biology 14, 597–605.
Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Blyth, S., James, A., and Kapos, V. (2003). Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits and unmet conservation needs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100, 1046–1050.
| Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits and unmet conservation needs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXhtF2gtr4%3D&md5=3d4ece80f86ea3181ba81fb2ef41e218CAS |
Carwardine, J., O’Connor, T., Legge, S., Mackey, B., Possingham, H.P., and Martin, T.G. (2011). ‘Priority Threat Management to Protect Kimberly Wildlife.’ (CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences: Brisbane.)
Crowe, B. C., White, B., and Panell, D. (2010). The impact of inaccurate and costly assessment in payments for environmental services. In ‘54th Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Annual Conference’, Adelaide. Available at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/58876 [verified 13 August 2012].
Faith, D. P., Carter, G., Cassis, G., Ferrier, S., and Wilkie, L. (2003). Complementarity, biodiversity viability analysis and policy-based algorithms for conservation. Environmental Science and Policy 6, 311–328.
Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, S. A., Williams, K., Faith, D. P., and Burton, M. (2007). Optimisation and the selection of conservation contracts. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 51, 39–56.
| Optimisation and the selection of conservation contracts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Halpern, B. S., Pyke, C. R., Fox, H. E., Haney, J. C., Schlaepferr, M. A., and Zaradic, P. (2006). Gaps and mismatches between global conservaion priortities annd spending. Conservation Biology 20, 56–64.
| Gaps and mismatches between global conservaion priortities annd spending.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Joseph, L., Maloney, R., O’Connor, S. M., Cromarty, P., Jansen, P. L., Stephens, T., and Possingham, H. P. (2008). Improving methods of allocating resources among threatened species: the case for a new national approach in New Zealand. Pacific Conservation Biology 14, 154–158.
Joseph, L., Maloney, R., and Possingham, H. P. (2009). Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: A Project Prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology 23, 328–338.
| Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: A Project Prioritization protocol.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kremen, C., Cameron, A., Moilanen, A., Phillips, S., Thomas, C. D., Beentje, H., Dransfeld, J., Fisher, B. L., Glaw, F., Good, T., Harper, G., Hijmans, R. J., Lees, D. C., Louis, E., Nussbaum, R., Razafimpahanana, A., Raxworthy, C., Schatz, G., Vences, M., Vieites, D. R., Wright, P. C., and Zjhra, M. L. (2008). Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar, a biodiversity hotspot, with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320, 222–226.
| Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar, a biodiversity hotspot, with high-resolution planning tools.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXktlGjtLo%3D&md5=ff225a5dc4fdbe2a3237e5d0f3a58d84CAS |
Leathwick, J. R., Moilanen, A., Ferrier, S., and Julian, K. (2010). Complementarity-based conservation prioritization using a community classification, and its application to riverine ecosystems. Biological Conservation 143, 984–991.
| Complementarity-based conservation prioritization using a community classification, and its application to riverine ecosystems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Margules, C. R. (1989). Introduction to some Australian developments in conservation planning. Biological Conservation 50, 1–11.
| Introduction to some Australian developments in conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Margules, C. R., and Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253.
| Systematic conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXjsFyjsLg%3D&md5=f3a30b4e93d16fd9364dac29a67fde87CAS |
Margules, C. R., Pressey, R. L., and Williams, P. H. (2002). Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. Journal of Biosciences 27, 309–326.
| Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38vit1Sguw%3D%3D&md5=f25ed99774476204c6e3a73ee4aa38a7CAS |
McDonald-Madden, E., Baxter, P. W. J., Fuller, R. A., Martin, T. G., Game, E. T., Montambault, J., and Possingham, H. P. (2011). Should we implement monitoring or research for conservation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26, 108–109.
| Should we implement monitoring or research for conservation?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meir, E., Andelman, S., and Possingham, H. P. (2004). Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecology Letters 7, 615–622.
| Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Metrick, A., and Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12, 21–34.
| Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mittermeier, R. A., Myers, N., Thomsen, J. B., da Fonseca, G. A. B., and Olivieri, S. (1998). Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 12, 516–520.
Moilanen, A. (2007). Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biological Conservation 134, 571–579.
| Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Myers, N. (1988). Threatened ‘hotspots’ in tropical forests. The Environmentalist 8, 187–208.
| Threatened ‘hotspots’ in tropical forests.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38ngsFCrsQ%3D%3D&md5=d60fc35ff08cefb90bff48174ae2d5ecCAS |
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., de Fonseca, G. A. G., and Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858.
| Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXhs1Olsr4%3D&md5=6cf7f67f5e7386029799ef49d02ffc79CAS |
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H., and Rouget, M. (2006). Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 681–687.
| Integrating economic costs into conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell, D. J., Roberts, A. M., Park, G., Alexander, J., Curatolo, A., and Marsh, S. P. (2012). Integrated assessment of public investment in land-use change to protect environmental assets in Australia. Land Use Policy 29, 377–387.
| Integrated assessment of public investment in land-use change to protect environmental assets in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Perry, N. (2010). The ecological importance of species and the Noah’s Ark problem. Ecological Economics 69, 478–485.
| The ecological importance of species and the Noah’s Ark problem.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Camm, J., Csuit, B., Facker, P., Lonsdorf, E., Montgomery, C., White, D., Arthur, J., Garber-Yonts, B., Haight, R., Kagan, J., Starfield, A., and Tobalske, C. (2008). Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation 141, 1505–1524.
| Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Polyakov, M., Pannell, D., Rowles, A., Park, G., and Roberts, A. (2011). Optimising the spatial pattern of landscape revegetation. In ‘55th Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Annual Conference’, Melbourne, Vic. Available at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/100697 [verified 28 August 2012].
Possingham, H. P., Ball, I., and Andelman, S. (2000). Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In ‘Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology’. (Eds S. Ferson and M. Burgman.) pp. 291–305. (Springer-Verlag: New York.)
Possingham, H. P., Ryan, S., Baxter, J., and Morton, S. (2002). ‘Setting biodiversity priorities; a paper prepared as part of the activities of the working group producing the report sustaining our natural systems and biodiversity.’ Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra, Australia.
Pressey, R. L., Humphries, C. J., Margules, C. R., Vane-Wright, R. I., and Williams, P. H. (1993). Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8, 124–128.
| Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3M7itVymtA%3D%3D&md5=370b83c792992ec473966150c2582366CAS |
Pressey, R. L., Matthews, W. S., Barrett, T. W., and Ridges, M. (2009). The C-Plan conservation planning system: origins, applications, and possible futures. In ‘Spatial Models for Conservation’. (Eds A. Moilanen, H. P. Possingham and K. A. Wilson.) (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.)
Sarkar, S., Aggarwal, A., Garson, J., Margules, C. R., and Zeidler, J. (2002). Place prioritisation for biodiversity content. Journal of Biosciences 27, 339–346.
| Place prioritisation for biodiversity content.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sarkar, S., Fuller, T., Aggarwal, A., Moffett, A., and Kelley, C. D. (2009). The ConSNet software platform for systematic conservation planning. In ‘Spatial Conservation Prioritization’. (Eds A. Moilanen, H. P. Possingham and K. A. Wilson.) pp. 235–248. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.)
Segan, D. B., Game, E. T., Watts, W. E., Stewart, R. R., and Possingham, H. P. (2011). An interoperable decision support tool for conservation planning. Environmental Modelling & Software 26, 1434–1441.
| An interoperable decision support tool for conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vane-Wright, R. I., Humphries, C. J., and Williams, P. H. (1991). What to protect? – Systematics and the agony of choice. Biological Conservation 55, 235–254.
| What to protect? – Systematics and the agony of choice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Watts, M. E., Ball, I. R., Stewart, R. S., Klein, C. J., Wilson, K., Steinback, C., Lourival, R., Kircher, L., and Possingham, H. P. (2009). Marxan with zones: software for optimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning. Environmental Modelling and Software 24, 1513–1521.
Weitzman, M. (1992). On diversity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107, 363–405.
| On diversity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Weitzman, M. (1998). The Noah’s Ark problem. Econometrica 66, 1279–1298.
| The Noah’s Ark problem.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
White, B., and Sadler, R. (2012). Optimal conservation investment for a biodiversity-rich agricultural landscape. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 56, 1–21.
| Optimal conservation investment for a biodiversity-rich agricultural landscape.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilson, K. A., Underwood, E. C., Morrison, S. A., Klausmeyer, K. R., Murdoch, W. W., Reyers, B., Wardell-Johnson, G., Marquet, P. A., Rundel, P. W., McBride, M. F., Pressey, R. L., Bode, M., Hoekstra, J. M., Andelman, S. J., Looker, M., Rondinini, C., Kareiva, P., Shaw, M. R., and Possingham, H. P. (2007). Conserving biodiversity efficiently: what to do, where and when. PLoS Biology 5, 1850–1861.
| Conserving biodiversity efficiently: what to do, where and when.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhtFeksL7J&md5=29e79fd8df72f7366534efbe5e724467CAS |
Wilson, K. A., Carwardine, J., and Possingham, H. P. (2009). Setting conservation priorities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1162, 237–264.
| Setting conservation priorities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
