20.7 Representativeness Assessment, Partnerships, and Conservation Planning
301
Step 11. A regional monitoring scheme should be
designed using RA information to ensure the
long-term maintenance of all the targets and associated processes. Ecological indicators should
be developed to indicate changes within each
conservation area that are significant at the network level.
The process is flexible enough to allow for emphasizing some steps and deleting others, depending on specific conservation objectives, available
data and resources, the sociopolitical context, and
the selection methods used. The impact of such decisions on the conservation value of the planning
process (see Section 20.7) and on the properties
of the network should be evaluated carefully. For
example, omitting assessment of ecological conditions (e.g., fire and hydrologic conditions) at
multiple scales may appear to be convenient and
time and cost effective when databases are assembled during the assessment. However, site
conservation planning (sensu Poiani et aI., 1998)
may reveal that (1) extensive and long-term management actions are required immediately to alleviate the stresses of fire suppression and altered
hydrologic regimes and maintain conservation targets in the conservation area, and (2) the management costs far exceed the additional expenditures that would have been incurred during the
assessment. The process described has not explicitly considered the spatial distribution of land
units. A large body of work documents increased
protection of biodiversity generally afforded by
large, well-connected conservation areas (e.g.,
Noss et aI., 1997; Soule and Terborgh, 1999a,
199?b). However, there is also evidence that populatIons scattered over several sites might be less
vulnerable to environmental disturbance than populations in a single, large site (Harrison and
Quinn, 1989). Spatial considerations should be incorporated into the RA process to provide solutions that best fit the targets of conservation under consideration. The spatial connectivity of the
selected sites should be evaluated at different spatial scales.
20.7 Representativeness
Assessment, Partnerships,
and Conservation Planning
Like all IREAs, RAs involve large areas of multiple ownership, and therefore many management
options should be evaluated. Assessments that
cover large geographic domains can provide a common scientific foundation for coordinated planning
and management among all concerned parties (see
Chapter 35; also see Slocombe 1993a, 1993b,
1998). Effective conservation planning and management within the bounds of sustainable local and
regional economies requires coordination among
landowners and managers (see Chapter 35; also see
Moore and Lee, 1999). The problems involved in
conducting conservation across multiple ownerships are substantial (Landres et aI., 1998), but
known general solutions can be applied (Knight
and Clark, 1998; Landres, 1998; Groom et ai.
1999).
'
A major obstacle to the integration of knowledge
(see Chapter 9) is that management and planning
units do not relate to ecosystems, ecosystem connections to economic and social processes, or the
cultural and political identities of local people (Slocombe, 1993b; Knight and Landres, 1998). A solution is the creation of regional and local planning
and management frameworks that can be used to
decide on a common strategy that will maintain a
representative network of conservation areas and
provide for a stable economy (e.g., Slocombe,
1993b; Yaffee, 1998; Moore and Lee, 1999).
To be successful and effective, RAs should be
el~Jbedded in a flexible, adaptive, managementonented planning process (see Chapter 35 and
Figure 20.3). First, the problem to be managed is
formulated and its boundaries are either set or clarified. Stakeholders are identified and their involvement is sought. Partnerships are formed and
planning frameworks are created. Specific actions
~re prop~se~ to solve problems and answer questions. SCIentists work within the planning framework to clearly formulate the problems, questions,
a~d alternatives as hypotheses with explicit predIcted outcomes that will be tested by the RA (Underwood, 1995).
The next step involves conducting RAs that are
designed specifically to test the hypotheses. If the
predicted outcomes are not realized, an assessment is made of how the process led to failure.
In particular, an evaluation is required of how the
outcomes were determined. The criteria for testing hypotheses should be examined as well. If the
predicted outcomes are realized, RA results are
implemented. Activities shift to scientific and
management activities (e.g., site conservation
plan~ing). Monitoring schemes are designed at
the SIte, landscape, and regional levels to determine whether the desired outcomes are maintained over time; the results of monitoring are incorporated into the planning process (Hoc kings
1998).
'
301
Step 11. A regional monitoring scheme should be
designed using RA information to ensure the
long-term maintenance of all the targets and associated processes. Ecological indicators should
be developed to indicate changes within each
conservation area that are significant at the network level.
The process is flexible enough to allow for emphasizing some steps and deleting others, depending on specific conservation objectives, available
data and resources, the sociopolitical context, and
the selection methods used. The impact of such decisions on the conservation value of the planning
process (see Section 20.7) and on the properties
of the network should be evaluated carefully. For
example, omitting assessment of ecological conditions (e.g., fire and hydrologic conditions) at
multiple scales may appear to be convenient and
time and cost effective when databases are assembled during the assessment. However, site
conservation planning (sensu Poiani et aI., 1998)
may reveal that (1) extensive and long-term management actions are required immediately to alleviate the stresses of fire suppression and altered
hydrologic regimes and maintain conservation targets in the conservation area, and (2) the management costs far exceed the additional expenditures that would have been incurred during the
assessment. The process described has not explicitly considered the spatial distribution of land
units. A large body of work documents increased
protection of biodiversity generally afforded by
large, well-connected conservation areas (e.g.,
Noss et aI., 1997; Soule and Terborgh, 1999a,
199?b). However, there is also evidence that populatIons scattered over several sites might be less
vulnerable to environmental disturbance than populations in a single, large site (Harrison and
Quinn, 1989). Spatial considerations should be incorporated into the RA process to provide solutions that best fit the targets of conservation under consideration. The spatial connectivity of the
selected sites should be evaluated at different spatial scales.
20.7 Representativeness
Assessment, Partnerships,
and Conservation Planning
Like all IREAs, RAs involve large areas of multiple ownership, and therefore many management
options should be evaluated. Assessments that
cover large geographic domains can provide a common scientific foundation for coordinated planning
and management among all concerned parties (see
Chapter 35; also see Slocombe 1993a, 1993b,
1998). Effective conservation planning and management within the bounds of sustainable local and
regional economies requires coordination among
landowners and managers (see Chapter 35; also see
Moore and Lee, 1999). The problems involved in
conducting conservation across multiple ownerships are substantial (Landres et aI., 1998), but
known general solutions can be applied (Knight
and Clark, 1998; Landres, 1998; Groom et ai.
1999).
'
A major obstacle to the integration of knowledge
(see Chapter 9) is that management and planning
units do not relate to ecosystems, ecosystem connections to economic and social processes, or the
cultural and political identities of local people (Slocombe, 1993b; Knight and Landres, 1998). A solution is the creation of regional and local planning
and management frameworks that can be used to
decide on a common strategy that will maintain a
representative network of conservation areas and
provide for a stable economy (e.g., Slocombe,
1993b; Yaffee, 1998; Moore and Lee, 1999).
To be successful and effective, RAs should be
el~Jbedded in a flexible, adaptive, managementonented planning process (see Chapter 35 and
Figure 20.3). First, the problem to be managed is
formulated and its boundaries are either set or clarified. Stakeholders are identified and their involvement is sought. Partnerships are formed and
planning frameworks are created. Specific actions
~re prop~se~ to solve problems and answer questions. SCIentists work within the planning framework to clearly formulate the problems, questions,
a~d alternatives as hypotheses with explicit predIcted outcomes that will be tested by the RA (Underwood, 1995).
The next step involves conducting RAs that are
designed specifically to test the hypotheses. If the
predicted outcomes are not realized, an assessment is made of how the process led to failure.
In particular, an evaluation is required of how the
outcomes were determined. The criteria for testing hypotheses should be examined as well. If the
predicted outcomes are realized, RA results are
implemented. Activities shift to scientific and
management activities (e.g., site conservation
plan~ing). Monitoring schemes are designed at
the SIte, landscape, and regional levels to determine whether the desired outcomes are maintained over time; the results of monitoring are incorporated into the planning process (Hoc kings
1998).
'