The distribution of diversity: challenges and applications
159
example, semantic uncertainty underpins the actual
defi nition of the conservation problem, while parametric uncertainty is rife in all the data that are used to
develop conservation plans (Whittaker et al ., 2005 ).
While Regan et al . (2005, 2009) argue that we can
generally deal with parameter uncertainty quite well
using sensitivity analysis, uncertainty about problem
formulation or issues like species viability represent
serious challenges at the interface of social science,
philosophy, economics, mathematics and ecology.
So far there are too few papers that deal credibly
with uncertainty in conservation planning (but see
Moilanen & Wintle, 2006 ).
6.7.6 Properly a ccounting for t hreats
There are several ways of dealing with threats in conservation planning. One is to rate sites in terms of the
likelihood that they will be destroyed relative to their
irreplaceability, with preference given to sites that are
under most threat (Ara ú jo et al ., 2002a ; Pressey et al .,
2007 ). In practice, some planners use the likelihood of
a site being converted to other uses as a surrogate of
conservation cost and hence, by reference to the principle of effi ciency, they avoid sites with a high probability of conversion.
Ironically, this will give us the reverse outcome to the
fi rst approach. Indeed, some of the confusion about
how we deal with threats arises because some threats
are mitigated by conservation action, while others are
not. Ideally, threats are dealt with properly in a full
dynamic framework (Wilson et al ., 2006 ; Game et al .,
2008 ) within which the consequences of taking action
at a site, or not, are explicitly modelled.
6.7.7 Persistence – a ttainable g oal or
i mpractical u topia?
Persistence (also known as adequacy) is the bugbear
of systematic conservation planning science because
the question it asks – how much is enough? – is probably unanswerable. Governments and non - government
organizations would often like to know that a suite of
conservation actions in time and space is suffi cient.
However, in reality, more is always better, although
that ‘ more ’ comes at an additional cost.
Probably the best way forward for conservation
planners is to explicitly acknowledge and derive trade -
offs, recognizing that no single answer is best but offering a range of good options that refl ect different societal
aspirations (Whittaker et al ., 2005 ; Polasky et al .,
2008 ). An alternative might be to represent different
levels of risk (e.g. 75 per cent, 80 per cent or 95 per
cent probability of persistence for 100 years) or varying
levels of persistence (80 per cent probability of persistence for 10, 100 or 1000 years) based upon available
knowledge.
Further discussion of the challenges of planning for
persistence in a changing world is provided in the following chapter.
6.7.8 How m uch s hould w e i nvest in
i mproving a c onservation p lan?
As we have discussed throughout this chapter, there
are usually many assumptions about what the most
appropriate conservation actions in any given area
may be and whether the data are truly fi t for purpose.
Recent research has shown that if learning processes
and data collection strategies are intentionally included
into the conservation planning process, it is likely that
future conservation decisions will become more effective (Grantham et al ., 2009 ).
There is a complex and not very well understood
trade - off between acting and learning when developing and implementing a systematic conservation plan.
It is important to recognize that any given planned
conservation action has been traded off with all other
actions and also against the cost of delaying a conservation action.
FOR DISCUSSION
1 Describe and give examples for each of the key
principles of systematic conservation planning.
Describe some ways of achieving each of these
principles when developing a hypothetical systematic
conservation plan in both the marine and terrestrial
environments.
2 How should scientists assess the fi tness for
purpose of data for use in systematic conservation
planning?
159
example, semantic uncertainty underpins the actual
defi nition of the conservation problem, while parametric uncertainty is rife in all the data that are used to
develop conservation plans (Whittaker et al ., 2005 ).
While Regan et al . (2005, 2009) argue that we can
generally deal with parameter uncertainty quite well
using sensitivity analysis, uncertainty about problem
formulation or issues like species viability represent
serious challenges at the interface of social science,
philosophy, economics, mathematics and ecology.
So far there are too few papers that deal credibly
with uncertainty in conservation planning (but see
Moilanen & Wintle, 2006 ).
6.7.6 Properly a ccounting for t hreats
There are several ways of dealing with threats in conservation planning. One is to rate sites in terms of the
likelihood that they will be destroyed relative to their
irreplaceability, with preference given to sites that are
under most threat (Ara ú jo et al ., 2002a ; Pressey et al .,
2007 ). In practice, some planners use the likelihood of
a site being converted to other uses as a surrogate of
conservation cost and hence, by reference to the principle of effi ciency, they avoid sites with a high probability of conversion.
Ironically, this will give us the reverse outcome to the
fi rst approach. Indeed, some of the confusion about
how we deal with threats arises because some threats
are mitigated by conservation action, while others are
not. Ideally, threats are dealt with properly in a full
dynamic framework (Wilson et al ., 2006 ; Game et al .,
2008 ) within which the consequences of taking action
at a site, or not, are explicitly modelled.
6.7.7 Persistence – a ttainable g oal or
i mpractical u topia?
Persistence (also known as adequacy) is the bugbear
of systematic conservation planning science because
the question it asks – how much is enough? – is probably unanswerable. Governments and non - government
organizations would often like to know that a suite of
conservation actions in time and space is suffi cient.
However, in reality, more is always better, although
that ‘ more ’ comes at an additional cost.
Probably the best way forward for conservation
planners is to explicitly acknowledge and derive trade -
offs, recognizing that no single answer is best but offering a range of good options that refl ect different societal
aspirations (Whittaker et al ., 2005 ; Polasky et al .,
2008 ). An alternative might be to represent different
levels of risk (e.g. 75 per cent, 80 per cent or 95 per
cent probability of persistence for 100 years) or varying
levels of persistence (80 per cent probability of persistence for 10, 100 or 1000 years) based upon available
knowledge.
Further discussion of the challenges of planning for
persistence in a changing world is provided in the following chapter.
6.7.8 How m uch s hould w e i nvest in
i mproving a c onservation p lan?
As we have discussed throughout this chapter, there
are usually many assumptions about what the most
appropriate conservation actions in any given area
may be and whether the data are truly fi t for purpose.
Recent research has shown that if learning processes
and data collection strategies are intentionally included
into the conservation planning process, it is likely that
future conservation decisions will become more effective (Grantham et al ., 2009 ).
There is a complex and not very well understood
trade - off between acting and learning when developing and implementing a systematic conservation plan.
It is important to recognize that any given planned
conservation action has been traded off with all other
actions and also against the cost of delaying a conservation action.
FOR DISCUSSION
1 Describe and give examples for each of the key
principles of systematic conservation planning.
Describe some ways of achieving each of these
principles when developing a hypothetical systematic
conservation plan in both the marine and terrestrial
environments.
2 How should scientists assess the fi tness for
purpose of data for use in systematic conservation
planning?