138
Systematic conservation planning: past, present and future
occur (Smith et al ., 2006 ). Constraints include factors
such as the cost of acting in a particular area or the
willingness of landholders to participate in a conservation initiative (Knight et al ., 2009 ).
Good systematic planning processes, as we will see,
include input, information and values from a wide
variety of stakeholders, incorporated within a transparent and inclusive process (Knight et al ., 2006 ;
Bottrill & Pressey, 2009 ) in order to reduce confl icts
between opposed interests. However, as in any such
fi eld, the approaches discussed herein have also
spawned many analyses that are of largely heuristic
rather than immediate practical value. This allows
analysts to explore ‘ what - if ’ scenarios concerning
future landscapes and climate surfaces or to undertake
‘ tests ’ of the effectiveness of existing protected area
networks or schemes (e.g. Ara ú jo et al ., 2004a,b,
2008 ; see Chapter 7 ).
6.3 CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES
6.3.1 Representativeness
An overarching goal of conservation is to ensure that
there is no loss of biodiversity. As discussed in earlier
chapters, representativeness is a fundamental principle
in systematic conservation planning and refers to how
well protected area networks contain representative
samples of every feature of biodiversity that we aim to
protect. Biodiversity features normally refl ect some
combination of genetic, species and community
diversity. However, it is also important to consider the
structure of habitats, e.g. the availability of coarse
woody debris in temperate woodland, and ecological
processes, such as fi re dynamics in Mediterranean
ecosystems.
It is often diffi cult for protected areas to achieve complete representation for two reasons:
1 in regions with high species compositional turnover
over small distances, such as Mediterranean ecosystems (Judd et al ., 2008 ), a large proportion of the
region will be required to represent all of the unique
biodiversity features; and
2 even for the best studied regions, systematic data are
lacking for some aspects of biodiversity.
This second problem has two elements, termed
‘ Linnean ’ and ‘ Wallacean ’ shortfalls (Chapter 4 ;
Whittaker et al ., 2005 ). The Linnean shortfall refers
to our lack of knowledge of how many, and what kind,
6.2 WHAT IS SYSTEMATIC
CONSERVATION PLANNING
AND WHY USE IT?
The science of systematic conservation planning is
concerned with the optimal application of spatially -
explicit conservation management actions to promote
the persistence of biodiversity and other natural features in situ (Margules & Pressey, 2000 ; Margules &
Sarkar, 2007 ). It involves a transparent process of
setting clear goals and objectives, and of planning conservation actions that meet them (Bottrill & Pressey,
2009 ).
A fundamental characteristic of systematic conservation planning is the principle of complementarity
(Kirkpatrick, 1983 ). Since the fi rst publications in this
research fi eld, systematic methods have identifi ed
systems of conservation areas that are complementary
to one another in terms of collectively achieving
objectives. Areas identifi ed in this way will each
contain, for example, different species or complementary portions of the required areas of different habitat
types. As will be discussed further in this chapter, this
represents a major improvement on the additive scoring
procedures that were used extensively before the application of complementarity methods. Additive scoring
approaches are incapable of dealing with the fundamental notion of building a system of protected area
where the value of the whole system is not the same as
summing the values of the separate protected areas.
Systematic conservation planning has traditionally
been applied to design strict protected area networks
(those areas that are managed for conservation values
only, e.g. IUCN management categories I – IV; see Table
2.2 ). More recently, however, it has been expanded to
include planning other types of conservation actions,
such as stewardship payments or other land management, in space (Carwardine et al ., 2008 ) and time
(Wilson et al ., 2007 ). Here we use the term ‘ protected
area ’ loosely, in reference to any place where an action
is applied for conservation purposes. We acknowledge
that much of what is written in this chapter is focused
on the literature behind planning protected area
networks, but at the end of the chapter we provide
examples of other forms of systematic conservation
planning.
It should be noted that systematic conservation
planning involves designing protected area networks
based on clear objectives, as well as an understanding
of constraints on where and how implementation can
Systematic conservation planning: past, present and future
occur (Smith et al ., 2006 ). Constraints include factors
such as the cost of acting in a particular area or the
willingness of landholders to participate in a conservation initiative (Knight et al ., 2009 ).
Good systematic planning processes, as we will see,
include input, information and values from a wide
variety of stakeholders, incorporated within a transparent and inclusive process (Knight et al ., 2006 ;
Bottrill & Pressey, 2009 ) in order to reduce confl icts
between opposed interests. However, as in any such
fi eld, the approaches discussed herein have also
spawned many analyses that are of largely heuristic
rather than immediate practical value. This allows
analysts to explore ‘ what - if ’ scenarios concerning
future landscapes and climate surfaces or to undertake
‘ tests ’ of the effectiveness of existing protected area
networks or schemes (e.g. Ara ú jo et al ., 2004a,b,
2008 ; see Chapter 7 ).
6.3 CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES
6.3.1 Representativeness
An overarching goal of conservation is to ensure that
there is no loss of biodiversity. As discussed in earlier
chapters, representativeness is a fundamental principle
in systematic conservation planning and refers to how
well protected area networks contain representative
samples of every feature of biodiversity that we aim to
protect. Biodiversity features normally refl ect some
combination of genetic, species and community
diversity. However, it is also important to consider the
structure of habitats, e.g. the availability of coarse
woody debris in temperate woodland, and ecological
processes, such as fi re dynamics in Mediterranean
ecosystems.
It is often diffi cult for protected areas to achieve complete representation for two reasons:
1 in regions with high species compositional turnover
over small distances, such as Mediterranean ecosystems (Judd et al ., 2008 ), a large proportion of the
region will be required to represent all of the unique
biodiversity features; and
2 even for the best studied regions, systematic data are
lacking for some aspects of biodiversity.
This second problem has two elements, termed
‘ Linnean ’ and ‘ Wallacean ’ shortfalls (Chapter 4 ;
Whittaker et al ., 2005 ). The Linnean shortfall refers
to our lack of knowledge of how many, and what kind,
6.2 WHAT IS SYSTEMATIC
CONSERVATION PLANNING
AND WHY USE IT?
The science of systematic conservation planning is
concerned with the optimal application of spatially -
explicit conservation management actions to promote
the persistence of biodiversity and other natural features in situ (Margules & Pressey, 2000 ; Margules &
Sarkar, 2007 ). It involves a transparent process of
setting clear goals and objectives, and of planning conservation actions that meet them (Bottrill & Pressey,
2009 ).
A fundamental characteristic of systematic conservation planning is the principle of complementarity
(Kirkpatrick, 1983 ). Since the fi rst publications in this
research fi eld, systematic methods have identifi ed
systems of conservation areas that are complementary
to one another in terms of collectively achieving
objectives. Areas identifi ed in this way will each
contain, for example, different species or complementary portions of the required areas of different habitat
types. As will be discussed further in this chapter, this
represents a major improvement on the additive scoring
procedures that were used extensively before the application of complementarity methods. Additive scoring
approaches are incapable of dealing with the fundamental notion of building a system of protected area
where the value of the whole system is not the same as
summing the values of the separate protected areas.
Systematic conservation planning has traditionally
been applied to design strict protected area networks
(those areas that are managed for conservation values
only, e.g. IUCN management categories I – IV; see Table
2.2 ). More recently, however, it has been expanded to
include planning other types of conservation actions,
such as stewardship payments or other land management, in space (Carwardine et al ., 2008 ) and time
(Wilson et al ., 2007 ). Here we use the term ‘ protected
area ’ loosely, in reference to any place where an action
is applied for conservation purposes. We acknowledge
that much of what is written in this chapter is focused
on the literature behind planning protected area
networks, but at the end of the chapter we provide
examples of other forms of systematic conservation
planning.
It should be noted that systematic conservation
planning involves designing protected area networks
based on clear objectives, as well as an understanding
of constraints on where and how implementation can