CHAPTER 6
Systematic Conservation Planning:
Past, Present and Future
James E.M. Watson
1
, Hedley S. Grantham
1 , Kerrie A. Wilson
1 and
Hugh P. Possingham
1
1 School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In general, the best farming land is the fi rst to be
cleared. In long - settled regions of the world, this has
meant that by the time biodiversity conservation
became a social priority, a very much non - random
subset of the ‘ original ’ habitat types has been available
for conservation management. Historical decisions on
where protected areas were located were rarely based
solely (if at all) on scientifi c assessment of biodiversity
value or biogeographical representativeness. Rather,
these decisions were based on other factors, such as the
suitability of alternative land uses, availability of an
area for conservation management, scenic beauty, and
recreational values (Chapters 2 and 5 ; Pressey et al .,
1993 ; Margules et al ., 2002 ; Gaston et al ., 2008 ).
This has resulted in a legacy of protected areas that
are biased towards habitats that are generally not
threatened, such as dry, infertile or steep habitats
(Pressey et al ., 1993, 2002 ; Soul é & Terborgh, 1999 ).
For example, fi ve per cent of the Earth ’ s entire terrestrial protected area (972,000 km
2
) is the Greenland
National Park, which contributes little to biodiversity
conservation as it contains mostly ice (Chape et al .,
2003 ; WDPA Consortium, 2006).
This form of bias can be demonstrated quantitatively, as shown in a regional - scale analysis by Pressey
et al . (2002) . In their paper, a part of their analysis was
an assessment of protected area coverage as a function
of slope and fertility in the northern eastern region of
New South Wales, Australia (Figure 6.1 ). This analysis
highlights the bias often found in reserve systems, with
the steepest slopes and the soils of lowest fertility being
far more represented in the reserve system than the
converse. There are examples like this found on all
inhabited continents on Earth (Brooks et al ., 2004 ;
Rodrigues et al ., 2004a ; Joppa & Pfaff, 2009 ).
The threat to biodiversity as a result of habitat loss
and change over the second half of the 20th century
led to an increased interest in enhancing the coverage
and representativeness of the protected areas network
(McNeely, 1994 ). The efforts taken towards these goals
at a global and regional scale gained impetus from the
development of the IUCN biogeographical regions
(Dasmann – Udvardy) framework discussed in Chapter
5 . This coarse - scale analysis did not, however, offer
guidance on designing networks within regions at the
scale of landscapes.
The fi rst efforts to take a more scientifi c approach to
designing protected area networks were based on the
theory of island biogeography (e.g. Chapter 8 ;
MacArthur & Wilson, 1967 ; Diamond, 1975a ). The
rationale followed was that nature reserves and
other protected areas can be considered forms of
Conservation Biogeography
Edited by Richard J. Ladle and Robert J. Whittaker
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-444-33503-3
Systematic Conservation Planning:
Past, Present and Future
James E.M. Watson
1
, Hedley S. Grantham
1 , Kerrie A. Wilson
1 and
Hugh P. Possingham
1
1 School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In general, the best farming land is the fi rst to be
cleared. In long - settled regions of the world, this has
meant that by the time biodiversity conservation
became a social priority, a very much non - random
subset of the ‘ original ’ habitat types has been available
for conservation management. Historical decisions on
where protected areas were located were rarely based
solely (if at all) on scientifi c assessment of biodiversity
value or biogeographical representativeness. Rather,
these decisions were based on other factors, such as the
suitability of alternative land uses, availability of an
area for conservation management, scenic beauty, and
recreational values (Chapters 2 and 5 ; Pressey et al .,
1993 ; Margules et al ., 2002 ; Gaston et al ., 2008 ).
This has resulted in a legacy of protected areas that
are biased towards habitats that are generally not
threatened, such as dry, infertile or steep habitats
(Pressey et al ., 1993, 2002 ; Soul é & Terborgh, 1999 ).
For example, fi ve per cent of the Earth ’ s entire terrestrial protected area (972,000 km
2
) is the Greenland
National Park, which contributes little to biodiversity
conservation as it contains mostly ice (Chape et al .,
2003 ; WDPA Consortium, 2006).
This form of bias can be demonstrated quantitatively, as shown in a regional - scale analysis by Pressey
et al . (2002) . In their paper, a part of their analysis was
an assessment of protected area coverage as a function
of slope and fertility in the northern eastern region of
New South Wales, Australia (Figure 6.1 ). This analysis
highlights the bias often found in reserve systems, with
the steepest slopes and the soils of lowest fertility being
far more represented in the reserve system than the
converse. There are examples like this found on all
inhabited continents on Earth (Brooks et al ., 2004 ;
Rodrigues et al ., 2004a ; Joppa & Pfaff, 2009 ).
The threat to biodiversity as a result of habitat loss
and change over the second half of the 20th century
led to an increased interest in enhancing the coverage
and representativeness of the protected areas network
(McNeely, 1994 ). The efforts taken towards these goals
at a global and regional scale gained impetus from the
development of the IUCN biogeographical regions
(Dasmann – Udvardy) framework discussed in Chapter
5 . This coarse - scale analysis did not, however, offer
guidance on designing networks within regions at the
scale of landscapes.
The fi rst efforts to take a more scientifi c approach to
designing protected area networks were based on the
theory of island biogeography (e.g. Chapter 8 ;
MacArthur & Wilson, 1967 ; Diamond, 1975a ). The
rationale followed was that nature reserves and
other protected areas can be considered forms of
Conservation Biogeography
Edited by Richard J. Ladle and Robert J. Whittaker
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-444-33503-3