98
The shaping of the global protected area estate
i.e. a single map is generated for a chosen (often only
vaguely delimited) scale of analysis. The chosen criteria
could be cultural, ecological, or could depend on some
biodiversity accounting exercise, and the resulting
maps of priority areas for conservation could be used
for identifying extremely small areas for reservation or
very large areas for conservation investment.
Examples include hotspots of richness, endemism
and threat, as exemplifi ed at the macro - scale by
Conservation International ’ s (CI) hotspots scheme
(e.g. Myers et al ., 2000 ) and, at the site scale, by
Important Bird Areas, sacred forests, nature monuments and, most recently High Conservation Value
schemes (Box 5.1 ). Sites of Special Scientifi c Interest or
importance may also be considered examples of
‘ cherry - picking ’ unless the criteria used amount to
selecting a representative set of vegetation types or
habitats. Some sites identifi ed in this way may be
strongly isolated from other patches of similar habitat
and thus may be functionally acting as habitat islands
in the sense discussed in Chapter 8 while, in the case
of CI hotspots, the hotspot areas are each so large that
they are more akin to vast archipelagos of fragments.
On land, the fi rst generation of modern protected
area planning schemes were largely zonal in character,
with azonal approaches rising to greater prominence
more recently. This might refl ect the transition from an
earlier focus on assisting the governments of less -
developed nations to create reserve networks within a
state - owned forest estate, towards the creation of
multi - agency frameworks that can operate in regions
of complex land use and ownership and engage with
modern norms of participation in land use and policy
planning.
In the sea, where biogeographical data for systematic zonal planning have largely been lacking, azonal
approaches have dominated. Recent azonal approaches
have been supported by map - based analyses of species
richness and threats (Burke et al ., 2002 ; Roberts et al .,
2003 ). Fisheries management considerations have
also ensured that marine planning has tended to focus
on single species and ecosystems. Concepts of representation and connectivity have only been introduced
more recently.
Careful examination of this division of spatial
approaches will doubtless reveal shortcomings, as with
any such heuristic scheme. Its value, we believe, lies in
that it encourages us to start thinking in geographical/
spatial terms about conservation planning and the
extent to which planning approaches for protected
(e.g. biomes or ecoregions) or on biogeographical
criteria, using compositional variation in the membership of biological assemblages (Chapter 4 ).
Finer subdivisions of the zones are typically determined using similar criteria to those used in the fi rst
level cut. For example, within ecoregional schemes, a
controlling factors approach is involved at each level of
the hierarchy while, in compositionalist biogeographical schemes, the percentage (dis - )similarity may be
used at each successive level (below).
In these schemes, map - makers often recognize features such as mountaintops and seamounts that do not
conform to the zone within which they occur, supporting distinctive climates and biota. At a coarse scale,
these may be considered azonal features, meaning that
they are not predictable from the general climate zone
in which they occur, and are thus mapped as separate
spatially transgressive units. However, the overall
approach in contiguous mapping schemes remains
zonal, i.e. the entire ‘ cheese ’ is cut up into a series of
discrete pieces, with nothing left behind.
In the second panel of Figure 5.2 , denoting the landscape approach, the ‘ cookie cutter ’ analogy invokes the
image of a piece of pastry with cookies cut from it. The
cookies are the distinct landscapes – a mountain range,
a plain, a delta, etc. – that are considered of particular
conservation interest, while the discarded ‘ pastry ’
represents the intervening transitional landscapes
where human population, industry and infrastructure
is often located.
This form of spatial division is not so evident in high -
profi le global schemes, but it is particularly suited to
macro - scale protected area planning in regions dominated by cultural landscapes (such as Europe), where
the goal is to conserve particular cultural/ecological
interactions that shape a landscape. The network of 45
Parcs naturels r é gionaux de France (see www.parcs -
naturels - regionaux.tm.fr ) is an excellent example. In
the marine realm, Large Marine Ecosystems are an
example of a global ‘ cookie - cutter ’ classifi cation that
focuses on identifying large regions with distinct
bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and which
contain trophically interconnected populations
(Sherman, 1993 ).
Habitat - island or ‘ cherry - picking ’ approaches are
azonal in character in that they are designed to pick out
sites that meet a particular highly valued criterion or
set of criteria. Such schemes do not rely upon producing continuous maps of ecological or biogeographical
zones. In addition they are not normally hierarchical,
The shaping of the global protected area estate
i.e. a single map is generated for a chosen (often only
vaguely delimited) scale of analysis. The chosen criteria
could be cultural, ecological, or could depend on some
biodiversity accounting exercise, and the resulting
maps of priority areas for conservation could be used
for identifying extremely small areas for reservation or
very large areas for conservation investment.
Examples include hotspots of richness, endemism
and threat, as exemplifi ed at the macro - scale by
Conservation International ’ s (CI) hotspots scheme
(e.g. Myers et al ., 2000 ) and, at the site scale, by
Important Bird Areas, sacred forests, nature monuments and, most recently High Conservation Value
schemes (Box 5.1 ). Sites of Special Scientifi c Interest or
importance may also be considered examples of
‘ cherry - picking ’ unless the criteria used amount to
selecting a representative set of vegetation types or
habitats. Some sites identifi ed in this way may be
strongly isolated from other patches of similar habitat
and thus may be functionally acting as habitat islands
in the sense discussed in Chapter 8 while, in the case
of CI hotspots, the hotspot areas are each so large that
they are more akin to vast archipelagos of fragments.
On land, the fi rst generation of modern protected
area planning schemes were largely zonal in character,
with azonal approaches rising to greater prominence
more recently. This might refl ect the transition from an
earlier focus on assisting the governments of less -
developed nations to create reserve networks within a
state - owned forest estate, towards the creation of
multi - agency frameworks that can operate in regions
of complex land use and ownership and engage with
modern norms of participation in land use and policy
planning.
In the sea, where biogeographical data for systematic zonal planning have largely been lacking, azonal
approaches have dominated. Recent azonal approaches
have been supported by map - based analyses of species
richness and threats (Burke et al ., 2002 ; Roberts et al .,
2003 ). Fisheries management considerations have
also ensured that marine planning has tended to focus
on single species and ecosystems. Concepts of representation and connectivity have only been introduced
more recently.
Careful examination of this division of spatial
approaches will doubtless reveal shortcomings, as with
any such heuristic scheme. Its value, we believe, lies in
that it encourages us to start thinking in geographical/
spatial terms about conservation planning and the
extent to which planning approaches for protected
(e.g. biomes or ecoregions) or on biogeographical
criteria, using compositional variation in the membership of biological assemblages (Chapter 4 ).
Finer subdivisions of the zones are typically determined using similar criteria to those used in the fi rst
level cut. For example, within ecoregional schemes, a
controlling factors approach is involved at each level of
the hierarchy while, in compositionalist biogeographical schemes, the percentage (dis - )similarity may be
used at each successive level (below).
In these schemes, map - makers often recognize features such as mountaintops and seamounts that do not
conform to the zone within which they occur, supporting distinctive climates and biota. At a coarse scale,
these may be considered azonal features, meaning that
they are not predictable from the general climate zone
in which they occur, and are thus mapped as separate
spatially transgressive units. However, the overall
approach in contiguous mapping schemes remains
zonal, i.e. the entire ‘ cheese ’ is cut up into a series of
discrete pieces, with nothing left behind.
In the second panel of Figure 5.2 , denoting the landscape approach, the ‘ cookie cutter ’ analogy invokes the
image of a piece of pastry with cookies cut from it. The
cookies are the distinct landscapes – a mountain range,
a plain, a delta, etc. – that are considered of particular
conservation interest, while the discarded ‘ pastry ’
represents the intervening transitional landscapes
where human population, industry and infrastructure
is often located.
This form of spatial division is not so evident in high -
profi le global schemes, but it is particularly suited to
macro - scale protected area planning in regions dominated by cultural landscapes (such as Europe), where
the goal is to conserve particular cultural/ecological
interactions that shape a landscape. The network of 45
Parcs naturels r é gionaux de France (see www.parcs -
naturels - regionaux.tm.fr ) is an excellent example. In
the marine realm, Large Marine Ecosystems are an
example of a global ‘ cookie - cutter ’ classifi cation that
focuses on identifying large regions with distinct
bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and which
contain trophically interconnected populations
(Sherman, 1993 ).
Habitat - island or ‘ cherry - picking ’ approaches are
azonal in character in that they are designed to pick out
sites that meet a particular highly valued criterion or
set of criteria. Such schemes do not rely upon producing continuous maps of ecological or biogeographical
zones. In addition they are not normally hierarchical,