124
The shaping of the global protected area estate
Box 5.2 Gap analysis
In building networks of protected areas, a common question is ‘ what is the most important area to add
to the network next? ’ Gap analysis is the term given for approaches to answering this question that
follow the principle of assessing the properties of sites within the existing protected area network and
of potential candidate sites, and of selecting those sites that best fi ll the gaps identifi ed in the network.
In its simplest form, such an analysis can be undertaken by drawing up a matrix of sites and the
key properties of interest, and ticking the boxes where those properties exist, thereby identifying
which potential sites provide the best gain to the network. Such analysis relies upon availability of
reliable and comparable data across sites, but is otherwise extremely simple in execution.
Gap analysis can in fact be as simple or as complex a process as desired. The availability of
modern computer systems and geographically referenced electronic data has enabled increasingly
technically sophisticated forms of analysis of this ilk to be undertaken (as reviewed at length in
Chapter 6 ). Moreover, the scope of gap analysis has been extended in other ways. For example, in
a study of cowpea ( Vigna ) species in sub - Saharan Africa, Maxted et al . (2008) demonstrate that both
in situ and ex situ strategies aimed at conserving genetic diversity can be assessed within a gap
analysis framework. The steps in their analysis involved:
• determining the taxa for analysis and their geographical distributions;
• assessing the genetic diversity and the level of threat for each taxon;
• assessing the in situ conservation programme (in this case including on - farm conservation of
traditional crop varieties);
• assessing the ex situ conservation programmes (e.g. in seed banks and botanic gardens);
• reformulation of the conservation strategy to focus on the element of the original diversity that is
threatened and lacks adequate protection.
A more conventional Geographical Information System (GIS) based GAP analysis was provided
by Soutullo et al . (2008) . They set out to fi nd an answer to the questions of how much land area
needs to be protected to meet the CBD target of protecting at least ten per cent of all terrestrial
ecoregions, and where the additional protected areas required should be located. They used the
World Database on Protected Areas and extracted those reserves that have an IUCN protected area
designation and can be located on a map; there were 27,951 of these, covering just under three
million km
2 . Protected Areas were then assigned to one of the 825 WWF Ecoregions from the Olson
et al . (2001) data set and those ecoregions with less than ten per cent of their area protected were
identifi ed. This analysis indicated that 63 per cent of the terrestrial ecoregions fail to meet the ten
per cent protected area threshold, and that to meet it a further six million km
2 of protected areas
would be required (see Table B5.2a ).
As an additional step of their analysis, Soutullo et al . (2008) overlaid these poorly protected ecoregions with the CI hotspots maps, the Global 200 Ecoregions and the boundaries of the ‘ Last of the
Wild ’ places (Sanderson et al ., 2002 ). They found that 427 of the 549 underprotected ecoregions
were already identifi ed as priority regions within one or more of these CI - or WWF - led strategic
conservation planning exercises (62 in all three). Some of the remaining inadequately protected areas
were also found to be priority areas within other conservation planning frameworks.
Soutullo et al . (2008) argued that their analysis showed that the major NGO schemes can potentially make a substantial and key contribution to CBD targets by directing resources within the
existing strategic planning exercises reviewed in this chapter. They also argued that the gap analysis
provided a basis for the CBD secretariat to focus pressure on donors to direct conservation efforts
towards those ecoregions not currently highlighted (or suffi ciently highlighted) in these schemes.
This analysis also serves to demonstrate the extent to which the WWF Ecoregions scheme has
already become a key data layer in conservation biogeographical analyses (see also e.g. Kier et al .,
2005 ; Loucks et al ., 2008 ).
The shaping of the global protected area estate
Box 5.2 Gap analysis
In building networks of protected areas, a common question is ‘ what is the most important area to add
to the network next? ’ Gap analysis is the term given for approaches to answering this question that
follow the principle of assessing the properties of sites within the existing protected area network and
of potential candidate sites, and of selecting those sites that best fi ll the gaps identifi ed in the network.
In its simplest form, such an analysis can be undertaken by drawing up a matrix of sites and the
key properties of interest, and ticking the boxes where those properties exist, thereby identifying
which potential sites provide the best gain to the network. Such analysis relies upon availability of
reliable and comparable data across sites, but is otherwise extremely simple in execution.
Gap analysis can in fact be as simple or as complex a process as desired. The availability of
modern computer systems and geographically referenced electronic data has enabled increasingly
technically sophisticated forms of analysis of this ilk to be undertaken (as reviewed at length in
Chapter 6 ). Moreover, the scope of gap analysis has been extended in other ways. For example, in
a study of cowpea ( Vigna ) species in sub - Saharan Africa, Maxted et al . (2008) demonstrate that both
in situ and ex situ strategies aimed at conserving genetic diversity can be assessed within a gap
analysis framework. The steps in their analysis involved:
• determining the taxa for analysis and their geographical distributions;
• assessing the genetic diversity and the level of threat for each taxon;
• assessing the in situ conservation programme (in this case including on - farm conservation of
traditional crop varieties);
• assessing the ex situ conservation programmes (e.g. in seed banks and botanic gardens);
• reformulation of the conservation strategy to focus on the element of the original diversity that is
threatened and lacks adequate protection.
A more conventional Geographical Information System (GIS) based GAP analysis was provided
by Soutullo et al . (2008) . They set out to fi nd an answer to the questions of how much land area
needs to be protected to meet the CBD target of protecting at least ten per cent of all terrestrial
ecoregions, and where the additional protected areas required should be located. They used the
World Database on Protected Areas and extracted those reserves that have an IUCN protected area
designation and can be located on a map; there were 27,951 of these, covering just under three
million km
2 . Protected Areas were then assigned to one of the 825 WWF Ecoregions from the Olson
et al . (2001) data set and those ecoregions with less than ten per cent of their area protected were
identifi ed. This analysis indicated that 63 per cent of the terrestrial ecoregions fail to meet the ten
per cent protected area threshold, and that to meet it a further six million km
2 of protected areas
would be required (see Table B5.2a ).
As an additional step of their analysis, Soutullo et al . (2008) overlaid these poorly protected ecoregions with the CI hotspots maps, the Global 200 Ecoregions and the boundaries of the ‘ Last of the
Wild ’ places (Sanderson et al ., 2002 ). They found that 427 of the 549 underprotected ecoregions
were already identifi ed as priority regions within one or more of these CI - or WWF - led strategic
conservation planning exercises (62 in all three). Some of the remaining inadequately protected areas
were also found to be priority areas within other conservation planning frameworks.
Soutullo et al . (2008) argued that their analysis showed that the major NGO schemes can potentially make a substantial and key contribution to CBD targets by directing resources within the
existing strategic planning exercises reviewed in this chapter. They also argued that the gap analysis
provided a basis for the CBD secretariat to focus pressure on donors to direct conservation efforts
towards those ecoregions not currently highlighted (or suffi ciently highlighted) in these schemes.
This analysis also serves to demonstrate the extent to which the WWF Ecoregions scheme has
already become a key data layer in conservation biogeographical analyses (see also e.g. Kier et al .,
2005 ; Loucks et al ., 2008 ).