The distribution of diversity: challenges and applications
147
Box 6.3 Conducting systematic conservation planning in the marine
environment: a case study from the central coast of California
Written by Carissa J. Klein (The University of Queensland, Australia).
California ’ s Marine Life Protection Act mandates the design and management of a network of
marine protected areas to protect marine life, habitats, ecosystems and natural heritage, and to
improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems (State of
California 1999). As part of the initiative to implement the Marine Life Protection Act, California ’ s
central coast (from Pigeon Point to Point Conception, covering an area of 2,978 km
2
) was the fi rst of
fi ve regions to undergo a stakeholder - driven process to design a network of marine protected areas.
To help inform the design of marine protected areas consistent with the Act ’ s goals, a representative group of stakeholders from California ’ s central coast developed a very broad set of Regional
Goals and Objectives with the help of administrators, managers, and scientists in the period
2005 – 2006. A scientifi c advisory team was then tasked to provide guidelines that quantifi ed the
science - related Regional Goals and Objectives. These guidelines were as follows:
1 The diversity of species, habitats, and human uses prevents a single optimum network design.
2 Every ‘ key ’ marine habitat should be represented in the network.
3 Protected areas should extend from the intertidal zone to deep waters.
4 Protected areas should have an alongshore span of 5 – 20 km.
5 Protected areas should be placed within 50 – 100 km of each other.
6 Each ‘ key ’ habitat should be replicated at least 3 – 5 times.
7 Placement should take into account local resource use and stakeholder activities.
8 Placement should take into account the adjacent terrestrial environment and associated human
activities.
9 Network design should account for the need to evaluate and monitor biological changes within
the protected areas.
Systematic conservation planners were asked to produce a network of marine protected areas
consistent with the scientifi c guidelines. These planners decided that it could be accomplished using
the systematic conservation planning decision support tool Marxan (see Klein et al ., 2008a,b and
www.uq.edu.au/marxan/ ). Marxan identifi es possible locations for protection that achieve a set of
conservation targets (e.g. protect 20 per cent of each habitat type, 50 per cent of threatened species ’
distributions) for a minimal ‘ cost ’ (e.g. cost of closing conservation areas to fi shermen; see Box 6.4
for more information on what a minimal - set problem is).
The nine guidelines outlined above, with the exception of 8 and 9 , were able to be factored into
the Marxan analysis as follows:
• Guideline 1, which is related to the systematic conservation planning principle of fl exibility, was
accounted for by using Marxan to produce a number of different reserve networks which achieved
a similar objective. Marxan produces multiple different solutions for the location of protected areas,
all of which achieve the same set of conservation goals.
• Guideline 2, which is related to the principle of representation, was addressed by representing
each key habitat identifi ed in the different reserve networks.
• Guideline 3, which is also related to the principle of representation, was addressed by targeting
each feature in fi ve different depth zones.
• Guidelines 4, 5, and 6, which are related to the principle of persistence, were addressed by
employing user - defi ned parameters to ensure reserves were of an adequate size, spacing, and
replication.
• Guideline 7, which is related to the principle of effi ciency, was addressed by minimizing the impact
on commercial and recreational fi sheries.
147
Box 6.3 Conducting systematic conservation planning in the marine
environment: a case study from the central coast of California
Written by Carissa J. Klein (The University of Queensland, Australia).
California ’ s Marine Life Protection Act mandates the design and management of a network of
marine protected areas to protect marine life, habitats, ecosystems and natural heritage, and to
improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems (State of
California 1999). As part of the initiative to implement the Marine Life Protection Act, California ’ s
central coast (from Pigeon Point to Point Conception, covering an area of 2,978 km
2
) was the fi rst of
fi ve regions to undergo a stakeholder - driven process to design a network of marine protected areas.
To help inform the design of marine protected areas consistent with the Act ’ s goals, a representative group of stakeholders from California ’ s central coast developed a very broad set of Regional
Goals and Objectives with the help of administrators, managers, and scientists in the period
2005 – 2006. A scientifi c advisory team was then tasked to provide guidelines that quantifi ed the
science - related Regional Goals and Objectives. These guidelines were as follows:
1 The diversity of species, habitats, and human uses prevents a single optimum network design.
2 Every ‘ key ’ marine habitat should be represented in the network.
3 Protected areas should extend from the intertidal zone to deep waters.
4 Protected areas should have an alongshore span of 5 – 20 km.
5 Protected areas should be placed within 50 – 100 km of each other.
6 Each ‘ key ’ habitat should be replicated at least 3 – 5 times.
7 Placement should take into account local resource use and stakeholder activities.
8 Placement should take into account the adjacent terrestrial environment and associated human
activities.
9 Network design should account for the need to evaluate and monitor biological changes within
the protected areas.
Systematic conservation planners were asked to produce a network of marine protected areas
consistent with the scientifi c guidelines. These planners decided that it could be accomplished using
the systematic conservation planning decision support tool Marxan (see Klein et al ., 2008a,b and
www.uq.edu.au/marxan/ ). Marxan identifi es possible locations for protection that achieve a set of
conservation targets (e.g. protect 20 per cent of each habitat type, 50 per cent of threatened species ’
distributions) for a minimal ‘ cost ’ (e.g. cost of closing conservation areas to fi shermen; see Box 6.4
for more information on what a minimal - set problem is).
The nine guidelines outlined above, with the exception of 8 and 9 , were able to be factored into
the Marxan analysis as follows:
• Guideline 1, which is related to the systematic conservation planning principle of fl exibility, was
accounted for by using Marxan to produce a number of different reserve networks which achieved
a similar objective. Marxan produces multiple different solutions for the location of protected areas,
all of which achieve the same set of conservation goals.
• Guideline 2, which is related to the principle of representation, was addressed by representing
each key habitat identifi ed in the different reserve networks.
• Guideline 3, which is also related to the principle of representation, was addressed by targeting
each feature in fi ve different depth zones.
• Guidelines 4, 5, and 6, which are related to the principle of persistence, were addressed by
employing user - defi ned parameters to ensure reserves were of an adequate size, spacing, and
replication.
• Guideline 7, which is related to the principle of effi ciency, was addressed by minimizing the impact
on commercial and recreational fi sheries.