140
Systematic conservation planning: past, present and future
principles has been successfully integrated into an
applied systematic conservation plan through the
careful choice of conservation objectives.
6.4.1 Achieving r epresentation
As discussed earlier, ‘ Linnean ’ and ‘ Wallacean ’ shortfalls in biogeographical data are highly problematic
for any plan trying to achieve representation. Given
such a defi cit of knowledge and data on biodiversity, a
partial measure of biodiversity is almost always used
as a surrogate for the rest of biodiversity. To develop
biodiversity surrogates, conservation planners must
gather all existing data sets and determine which are
fi t for purpose. Decisions on which data sets to use will
often be based on the likely effectiveness of the particular data set and biodiversity metric as a surrogate for
other components of biodiversity for which we have no
data or poor data.
However, the mere existence of a data set does not
necessarily guarantee fi tness for purpose (see examples
in Chapter 4 ). For instance, where the underlying
survey regime is too geographically biased, it could
skew the selection of protected areas towards places
that have been well - surveyed but which are not particularly biodiverse. In data - poor areas, one alternative
is to use environmental surrogates (e.g. vegetation
types) as a ‘ coarse fi lter ’ , with the aim of capturing
biodiversity attributes that are likely to correlate with
the chosen data layers (e.g. Faith & Walker, 1996 ). A
limitation of such approaches is that unless very fi ne -
scale environmental data are available, ‘ fi ne fi lter ’
features indicative of resource hotspots, such as salt -
licks, are likely to be missed, as may be the factors
controlling the distributions of the subset of threatened and rare species (see: Ara ú jo et al ., 2001, 2003,
2004a ; Faith et al ., 2004a ; Noss, 2004 ). Below are
some examples of different theoretical approaches
in developing surrogates for conservation planning
purposes.
Species - b ased s urrogates
A variety of criteria have traditionally been used to
select species - based surrogates in systematic conservation plans. These surrogates have often been called
‘ indicator ’ species and there are a number of different
types that have been used in past planning techniques
(see Box 6.1 ).
It is also possible to modify the cost of conservation
by incorporating into the analysis the benefi ts obtained
from the delivery of ecosystem services, such as the
amount of carbon sequestrated or the reduced cost
to fi lter water (Venter et al ., 2009 ). Such payment
for ecosystem services has the potential to increase
the support and resources available for conservation
(Costanza et al ., 1997 ; Daily et al ., 2009 ).
6.3.4 Flexibility
Objectives can often be achieved in a number of alternative places, particularly when the distribution of
biodiversity features is widespread. Moreover, proposed
new conservation areas or networks must be accepted
and implemented by planning bodies, which brings
economic, political and social considerations to bear
upon decisions. Therefore, a key principle of systematic
conservation planning is fl exibility.
A fl exible conservation plan provides alternative
solutions and assists planners to take account of
opportunities (Knight & Cowling, 2007 ). This is
because socio - economic constraints may not be fully
understood and, in any event, may constantly be
changing. For example, a piece of land with high conservation value might not initially be available for conservation management, but may later become available
for sale, lease or other management intervention
(McDonald - Madden et al ., 2008 ). Adopting a fl exible
plan also gives scope for sensible resolutions of
resource/use confl icts.
6.4 DEVELOPING A SYSTEMATIC
CONSERVATION PLAN
In this section we provide examples of how objectives
can be set against the key principles outlined in section
6.3 . The process of defi ning measurable objectives is
one of the principal components of systematic conservation planning (Nicholson & Possingham, 2006 ).
Defi ning objectives gives the planning approach transparency and a benchmark by which to evaluate
progress towards goals. We discuss how all stakeholders (and not just planners sitting in academic or government institutions) need to be involved in the process
of developing these objectives to ensure the plan is successfully implemented. We also provide two real - world
case studies to help describe how each of these
Systematic conservation planning: past, present and future
principles has been successfully integrated into an
applied systematic conservation plan through the
careful choice of conservation objectives.
6.4.1 Achieving r epresentation
As discussed earlier, ‘ Linnean ’ and ‘ Wallacean ’ shortfalls in biogeographical data are highly problematic
for any plan trying to achieve representation. Given
such a defi cit of knowledge and data on biodiversity, a
partial measure of biodiversity is almost always used
as a surrogate for the rest of biodiversity. To develop
biodiversity surrogates, conservation planners must
gather all existing data sets and determine which are
fi t for purpose. Decisions on which data sets to use will
often be based on the likely effectiveness of the particular data set and biodiversity metric as a surrogate for
other components of biodiversity for which we have no
data or poor data.
However, the mere existence of a data set does not
necessarily guarantee fi tness for purpose (see examples
in Chapter 4 ). For instance, where the underlying
survey regime is too geographically biased, it could
skew the selection of protected areas towards places
that have been well - surveyed but which are not particularly biodiverse. In data - poor areas, one alternative
is to use environmental surrogates (e.g. vegetation
types) as a ‘ coarse fi lter ’ , with the aim of capturing
biodiversity attributes that are likely to correlate with
the chosen data layers (e.g. Faith & Walker, 1996 ). A
limitation of such approaches is that unless very fi ne -
scale environmental data are available, ‘ fi ne fi lter ’
features indicative of resource hotspots, such as salt -
licks, are likely to be missed, as may be the factors
controlling the distributions of the subset of threatened and rare species (see: Ara ú jo et al ., 2001, 2003,
2004a ; Faith et al ., 2004a ; Noss, 2004 ). Below are
some examples of different theoretical approaches
in developing surrogates for conservation planning
purposes.
Species - b ased s urrogates
A variety of criteria have traditionally been used to
select species - based surrogates in systematic conservation plans. These surrogates have often been called
‘ indicator ’ species and there are a number of different
types that have been used in past planning techniques
(see Box 6.1 ).
It is also possible to modify the cost of conservation
by incorporating into the analysis the benefi ts obtained
from the delivery of ecosystem services, such as the
amount of carbon sequestrated or the reduced cost
to fi lter water (Venter et al ., 2009 ). Such payment
for ecosystem services has the potential to increase
the support and resources available for conservation
(Costanza et al ., 1997 ; Daily et al ., 2009 ).
6.3.4 Flexibility
Objectives can often be achieved in a number of alternative places, particularly when the distribution of
biodiversity features is widespread. Moreover, proposed
new conservation areas or networks must be accepted
and implemented by planning bodies, which brings
economic, political and social considerations to bear
upon decisions. Therefore, a key principle of systematic
conservation planning is fl exibility.
A fl exible conservation plan provides alternative
solutions and assists planners to take account of
opportunities (Knight & Cowling, 2007 ). This is
because socio - economic constraints may not be fully
understood and, in any event, may constantly be
changing. For example, a piece of land with high conservation value might not initially be available for conservation management, but may later become available
for sale, lease or other management intervention
(McDonald - Madden et al ., 2008 ). Adopting a fl exible
plan also gives scope for sensible resolutions of
resource/use confl icts.
6.4 DEVELOPING A SYSTEMATIC
CONSERVATION PLAN
In this section we provide examples of how objectives
can be set against the key principles outlined in section
6.3 . The process of defi ning measurable objectives is
one of the principal components of systematic conservation planning (Nicholson & Possingham, 2006 ).
Defi ning objectives gives the planning approach transparency and a benchmark by which to evaluate
progress towards goals. We discuss how all stakeholders (and not just planners sitting in academic or government institutions) need to be involved in the process
of developing these objectives to ensure the plan is successfully implemented. We also provide two real - world
case studies to help describe how each of these