126
The shaping of the global protected area estate
co - operation – which in itself is extremely challenging
(Tables 4.6 , 4.7 ). For all these reasons, representation
has driven the marine conservation agenda much less
in Southeast Asia than have other approaches (see
below).
5.4.4 Reefs at r isk – h otspots/threatspots
The promotional and fundraising success of the terrestrial hotspot approach (combining species endemism and threat criteria) spurred the development of
similar analyses for the marine realm. Bryant et al .
(1998) produced an infl uential map - based indicator of
threats to the world ’ s coral reefs. Based on 1 - degree
(latitude/longitude) cells, threats were evaluated under
the following categories: coastal development; marine -
based pollution; sedimentation from inland sources;
overfi shing; and destructive fi shing.
These data were combined with data on species
distributions of 3,235 species of fi sh, corals, snails
and lobsters to assess hotspots of endemism and
threat for coral reefs worldwide (Roberts et al .,
2002 ). Conservation International used these data to
help direct their marine conservation agenda, thus
garnering much public support and funding (Table
5.8 ).
a variety of other features (Day & Roff, 2000 ; Airame
et al ., 2003 ). With such baseline information, conservation goals of, for example, including at least 30 per
cent of each Major Habitat Type in the fi nal network,
and all examples of distinctive habitats, can be determined using site - selection algorithms (discussed in
Chapter 6 ).
It should be noted that changing the scale of the planning region and the size of planning units will affect the
relative importance of areas within that region as well
as what is considered ‘ representative ’ versus ‘ distinctive ’ . For example, if the California Channel Islands are
placed within the context of the Southern California
Bight ( ≈ 275,000 km
2
), the entire Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary (4,294 km
2
) could potentially be set aside as a reserve to meet the conservation
goals of the larger region (Airame et al ., 2003 ).
A zonal representation approach is data - intensive.
Such data often do not exist, especially over large
and extremely diverse regions that lack a strong history
of scientifi c research, such as Southeast Asia. They
are commonly most effective when administered by
a central government. The nature of the marine
environment, its fl uidity and geographical position in
the ‘ voids ’ between national boundaries, means that
governance of ecologically signifi cant units, and planning within them, demands considerable international
Figure 5.10 Marine ecoregions of the world. Figure reproduced with permission from Spalding et al. (2007) , © 2007 by the
American Institute of Biological Sciences, published by the University of California Press.
The shaping of the global protected area estate
co - operation – which in itself is extremely challenging
(Tables 4.6 , 4.7 ). For all these reasons, representation
has driven the marine conservation agenda much less
in Southeast Asia than have other approaches (see
below).
5.4.4 Reefs at r isk – h otspots/threatspots
The promotional and fundraising success of the terrestrial hotspot approach (combining species endemism and threat criteria) spurred the development of
similar analyses for the marine realm. Bryant et al .
(1998) produced an infl uential map - based indicator of
threats to the world ’ s coral reefs. Based on 1 - degree
(latitude/longitude) cells, threats were evaluated under
the following categories: coastal development; marine -
based pollution; sedimentation from inland sources;
overfi shing; and destructive fi shing.
These data were combined with data on species
distributions of 3,235 species of fi sh, corals, snails
and lobsters to assess hotspots of endemism and
threat for coral reefs worldwide (Roberts et al .,
2002 ). Conservation International used these data to
help direct their marine conservation agenda, thus
garnering much public support and funding (Table
5.8 ).
a variety of other features (Day & Roff, 2000 ; Airame
et al ., 2003 ). With such baseline information, conservation goals of, for example, including at least 30 per
cent of each Major Habitat Type in the fi nal network,
and all examples of distinctive habitats, can be determined using site - selection algorithms (discussed in
Chapter 6 ).
It should be noted that changing the scale of the planning region and the size of planning units will affect the
relative importance of areas within that region as well
as what is considered ‘ representative ’ versus ‘ distinctive ’ . For example, if the California Channel Islands are
placed within the context of the Southern California
Bight ( ≈ 275,000 km
2
), the entire Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary (4,294 km
2
) could potentially be set aside as a reserve to meet the conservation
goals of the larger region (Airame et al ., 2003 ).
A zonal representation approach is data - intensive.
Such data often do not exist, especially over large
and extremely diverse regions that lack a strong history
of scientifi c research, such as Southeast Asia. They
are commonly most effective when administered by
a central government. The nature of the marine
environment, its fl uidity and geographical position in
the ‘ voids ’ between national boundaries, means that
governance of ecologically signifi cant units, and planning within them, demands considerable international
Figure 5.10 Marine ecoregions of the world. Figure reproduced with permission from Spalding et al. (2007) , © 2007 by the
American Institute of Biological Sciences, published by the University of California Press.