The distribution of diversity: challenges and applications
135
2 What are the respective strengths and weaknesses
of hotspot approaches and biogeographical representation approaches to global conservation planning?
3 How important is it to continue to refi ne the science
underpinning protected area planning?
4 How appropriate is it to transfer the hotspots rationale to the marine realm?
5 Ecoregion - based conservation planning enables
nested scales of analysis. How important and unusual
is this feature?
6 Are contemporary protected area planning
approaches truly science - based, or might it be better to
consider them the products of an interplay between
science, politics and organizational interests?
SUGGESTED READING
Belt , H. van den ( 2004 ) Networking nature, or Serengeti
behind the dikes . History and Technology , 20 , 311 – 333 .
Dasmann , R.F. ( 1972 ) Towards a system for classifying natural
regions of the world and their representation by national
parks and reserves . Biological Conservation , 4 , 247 – 255 .
Eken , G. , Bennun , L. , Brooks , T.M. , Darwall , W. , Fishpool ,
L.D.C. , Foster , M. , Knox , D. , Langhammer , P. Matiku , P.
Radford , E. , Salaman , P. , Sechrest , W. , Smith , M.L. , Spector ,
S. & Tordoff , A. ( 2004 ) Key Biodiversity Areas as site conservation targets . BioScience , 54 , 1110 – 1118 .
Hughes , T.P. , Bellwood , D.R. , Folke , C. , Steneck , R.S. & Wilson ,
J. ( 2005 ) New paradigms for supporting the resilience of
marine ecosystems . Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 20 ,
380 – 386 .
Jackson , J.B.C. ( 2008 ) Ecological extinction and evolution in
the brave new ocean . Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA , 105 ( Supp. 1 ), 11458 – 11465 .
Jepson , P. & Whittaker , R.J. ( 2002 ) Ecoregions in context: a
critique with special reference to Indonesia . Conservation
Biology , 16 , 42 – 57 .
Lourie , S.A. & Vincent , A.C.J. ( 2004 ) Using biogeography to
help set priorities in marine conservation . Conservation
Biology , 18 , 1004 – 1020 .
Olson , D.M. , Dinerstein , E. , Wikramanayake , E.D. , Burgess ,
N.D. , Powell , G.V.N. , Underwood , E.C. , D ’ Amico , J.A. , Itoua ,
I. , Strand , H.E. , Morrison , J.C. , Loucks , C.J. , Allnutt , T.F. ,
Ricketts , T.H. , Kura , Y. , Lamoreux , J.F. , Wettengel , W.W. ,
Hedao , P. & Kassem , K.R. ( 2001 ) Terrestrial ecoregions of
the world: a new map of life on Earth . BioScience , 51 ,
933 – 938 .
Soutullo , A. , De Castro , M. & Urios , V. ( 2008 ) Linking political
and scientifi cally derived targets for global biodiversity conservation: implications for the expansion of the global
network of protected areas . Diversity & Distributions , 14 ,
604 – 613 .
bewildering array of frameworks and designations.
The most rapid developments in this fi eld have occurred
in the last two decades, as very substantial resources
have been mobilized towards protected area planning
and conservation prioritization on land and, increasingly, in the oceans.
One notable recent trend is the extent to which
many of the major players are pooling resources and
schemes together once again (cf. Mace et al ., 2000 ),
after a ‘ breakaway ’ period in which a few newly
founded or re - founded NGOs changed the organizational frame of global conservation science and
planning. The Key Biodiversity Areas scheme is one
manifestation of this process, as is the re - drawing of
hotspots boundaries on to the WWF Ecoregions maps
in the latest CI - 2004 hotspots iteration (above).
A second notable trend is the extension of protected
area planning schemes into the productive landscape
and the engagement of major corporate actors in the
identifi cation, protection and management of areas
with high conservation value. The number and extent
of such ‘ commercial ’ protected areas seems set to
expand, and this will require their future integration
in global protected area planning and accounting
frameworks.
There is no particular reason to think that the
phase of planning protected area systems is at an end.
Even when the broad outlines of a protected area
system have been decided and legally recognized, there
is a need for reiterative phases of data refi nement,
monitoring, examination of shifting priorities, changes
of designation and resourcing. This remains the
case globally, as well as for particular regions (e.g.
Loucks et al ., 2008 ; Soutullo et al ., 2008) . It is evident,
especially at fi ner, landscape scales of analysis, that,
even in countries with strong legal codes and frameworks, designation decisions can sometimes be
revised.
Further discussion of the tools available for conservation planning at these fi ner scales of analysis, and in
the light of ongoing global environmental change, is
provided in the following two chapters.
FOR DISCUSSION
1 How well do the modern NGO - driven protected area
planning approaches discussed above capture and
refl ect the foundational social values of the conservation movement discussed in Chapter 2 ?
135
2 What are the respective strengths and weaknesses
of hotspot approaches and biogeographical representation approaches to global conservation planning?
3 How important is it to continue to refi ne the science
underpinning protected area planning?
4 How appropriate is it to transfer the hotspots rationale to the marine realm?
5 Ecoregion - based conservation planning enables
nested scales of analysis. How important and unusual
is this feature?
6 Are contemporary protected area planning
approaches truly science - based, or might it be better to
consider them the products of an interplay between
science, politics and organizational interests?
SUGGESTED READING
Belt , H. van den ( 2004 ) Networking nature, or Serengeti
behind the dikes . History and Technology , 20 , 311 – 333 .
Dasmann , R.F. ( 1972 ) Towards a system for classifying natural
regions of the world and their representation by national
parks and reserves . Biological Conservation , 4 , 247 – 255 .
Eken , G. , Bennun , L. , Brooks , T.M. , Darwall , W. , Fishpool ,
L.D.C. , Foster , M. , Knox , D. , Langhammer , P. Matiku , P.
Radford , E. , Salaman , P. , Sechrest , W. , Smith , M.L. , Spector ,
S. & Tordoff , A. ( 2004 ) Key Biodiversity Areas as site conservation targets . BioScience , 54 , 1110 – 1118 .
Hughes , T.P. , Bellwood , D.R. , Folke , C. , Steneck , R.S. & Wilson ,
J. ( 2005 ) New paradigms for supporting the resilience of
marine ecosystems . Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 20 ,
380 – 386 .
Jackson , J.B.C. ( 2008 ) Ecological extinction and evolution in
the brave new ocean . Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA , 105 ( Supp. 1 ), 11458 – 11465 .
Jepson , P. & Whittaker , R.J. ( 2002 ) Ecoregions in context: a
critique with special reference to Indonesia . Conservation
Biology , 16 , 42 – 57 .
Lourie , S.A. & Vincent , A.C.J. ( 2004 ) Using biogeography to
help set priorities in marine conservation . Conservation
Biology , 18 , 1004 – 1020 .
Olson , D.M. , Dinerstein , E. , Wikramanayake , E.D. , Burgess ,
N.D. , Powell , G.V.N. , Underwood , E.C. , D ’ Amico , J.A. , Itoua ,
I. , Strand , H.E. , Morrison , J.C. , Loucks , C.J. , Allnutt , T.F. ,
Ricketts , T.H. , Kura , Y. , Lamoreux , J.F. , Wettengel , W.W. ,
Hedao , P. & Kassem , K.R. ( 2001 ) Terrestrial ecoregions of
the world: a new map of life on Earth . BioScience , 51 ,
933 – 938 .
Soutullo , A. , De Castro , M. & Urios , V. ( 2008 ) Linking political
and scientifi cally derived targets for global biodiversity conservation: implications for the expansion of the global
network of protected areas . Diversity & Distributions , 14 ,
604 – 613 .
bewildering array of frameworks and designations.
The most rapid developments in this fi eld have occurred
in the last two decades, as very substantial resources
have been mobilized towards protected area planning
and conservation prioritization on land and, increasingly, in the oceans.
One notable recent trend is the extent to which
many of the major players are pooling resources and
schemes together once again (cf. Mace et al ., 2000 ),
after a ‘ breakaway ’ period in which a few newly
founded or re - founded NGOs changed the organizational frame of global conservation science and
planning. The Key Biodiversity Areas scheme is one
manifestation of this process, as is the re - drawing of
hotspots boundaries on to the WWF Ecoregions maps
in the latest CI - 2004 hotspots iteration (above).
A second notable trend is the extension of protected
area planning schemes into the productive landscape
and the engagement of major corporate actors in the
identifi cation, protection and management of areas
with high conservation value. The number and extent
of such ‘ commercial ’ protected areas seems set to
expand, and this will require their future integration
in global protected area planning and accounting
frameworks.
There is no particular reason to think that the
phase of planning protected area systems is at an end.
Even when the broad outlines of a protected area
system have been decided and legally recognized, there
is a need for reiterative phases of data refi nement,
monitoring, examination of shifting priorities, changes
of designation and resourcing. This remains the
case globally, as well as for particular regions (e.g.
Loucks et al ., 2008 ; Soutullo et al ., 2008) . It is evident,
especially at fi ner, landscape scales of analysis, that,
even in countries with strong legal codes and frameworks, designation decisions can sometimes be
revised.
Further discussion of the tools available for conservation planning at these fi ner scales of analysis, and in
the light of ongoing global environmental change, is
provided in the following two chapters.
FOR DISCUSSION
1 How well do the modern NGO - driven protected area
planning approaches discussed above capture and
refl ect the foundational social values of the conservation movement discussed in Chapter 2 ?