Future directions
251
(Parr & Cummings, 2005 ; Thomas, 2009 ). This is
understandable from the perspective of those who wish
to make further use (i.e. produce more publications) of
hard - won, painstakingly compiled data sets prior to
releasing them for others to plunder. Costello (2009)
has recently argued that many of the perceived barriers will be removed if the idea of ‘ data sharing ’ is
replaced by that of ‘ data publication ’ . However, to
make this a reality, online data publication systems
and, of more relevance to conservation biogeography,
biodiversity information systems (see Section 10.2.1
above) will need to develop mechanisms and protocols
for data curation, supporting documentation, citation
and data access.
• Second, a greater investment needs to be made in
producing freely available and user - friendly tools and
applications to analyse and visualize biogeographical
data. An excellent example of this is the SAM (Spatial
Analysis in Macroecology) software that allows biogeographers to correct statistically for the infl uence of
spatial clustering of data points (Rangel et al. , 2006 ).
Interestingly, the often powerful and pervasive infl uence of this sort of clustering (known technically as
spatial auto - correlation) on standard statistical tests
has only recently been generally recognized (Legendre,
1993 ), and many studies still ignore it in their analyses. It is therefore particularly encouraging that Rangel
and his colleagues have developed and made this powerful statistical package freely available (download
from: www.ecoevol.ufg.br/sam ). Other similar initiatives are clearly to be welcomed.
• Third, greater efforts need to be made to mainstream
biodiversity into other sectors of environmental
governance. In this context, ‘ mainstreaming ’ can be
defi ned as the integration of conservation goals
and sustainable use of biodiversity into sectors that
impact biodiversity (mainly outside of protected areas).
Successful mainstreaming of biodiversity requires
that high - quality biodiversity data are made available
to key decision - makers in forms that they can use.
Conservation biogeography can play a vital role in this
by providing improved frameworks and concepts that
allow biodiversity information to be meaningfully
organized and structured. Moreover, conservation
biogeographers have the knowledge and skills to
produce models and visualization tools that can transform raw data on occurrences and distributions into
products that are useful and of genuine practical
importance.
responses to future climate and land - use change
(Ara ú jo et al. , 2008 ; Diniz - Filho et al. , 2009 ).
Fourth, there is a tendency for many of us to seek to
draw recommendations from particular case studies as
we publish them but, as in many areas of human
endeavour, a single case study may make for poor guidance. Therefore we highlight a continuing need for
efforts to develop and synthesize emerging fi ndings
into improved theoretical frameworks and to update
conservation biogeography theory for the purpose of
revising guidelines to practitioners.
10.2.3 Turning t heory into p ractice
Biogeographical science has had a foundational role
within conservation biology, as demonstrated by the
early attention paid to deriving guidelines for protected
area design from island biogeography (Chapter 8 ).
Currently, biogeography is in an exciting phase in
which there is greatly enhanced potential to apply the
subject to problems in the conservation of biodiversity
(Whittaker et al. , 2005 ; Richardson & Whittaker,
2010 ). An important step in this process is to encourage the teaching of conservation biogeography at university level – a key motivation in the writing of this
book.
However, even if there is a rapid increase in biogeographical understanding, translating this knowledge
into guidelines, protocols, tools and applications that
are useful at every level of conservation decision -
making presents signifi cant challenges. Indeed, many
would argue that generating the scientifi c information
is the easy bit, and the diffi culties really start in communicating geographically precise information about
the current and future status of biodiversity in a form
that is accessible and able to infl uence policy (Kalliola
et al ., 2008 ).
If societies are to realize the full benefi ts of conceptual advances and an increase in knowledge, it is therefore vital that new understandings are quickly
converted into practical tools. This process can be facilitated in a number of ways:
• First, conservation biogeography, like many other
ecologically - related disciplines, will progress faster
and have more impact if scientists and practitioners
make their data freely available and accessible. This
will be a challenge. There remains a culture of ‘ data
hoarding ’ in ecological and environmental science
251
(Parr & Cummings, 2005 ; Thomas, 2009 ). This is
understandable from the perspective of those who wish
to make further use (i.e. produce more publications) of
hard - won, painstakingly compiled data sets prior to
releasing them for others to plunder. Costello (2009)
has recently argued that many of the perceived barriers will be removed if the idea of ‘ data sharing ’ is
replaced by that of ‘ data publication ’ . However, to
make this a reality, online data publication systems
and, of more relevance to conservation biogeography,
biodiversity information systems (see Section 10.2.1
above) will need to develop mechanisms and protocols
for data curation, supporting documentation, citation
and data access.
• Second, a greater investment needs to be made in
producing freely available and user - friendly tools and
applications to analyse and visualize biogeographical
data. An excellent example of this is the SAM (Spatial
Analysis in Macroecology) software that allows biogeographers to correct statistically for the infl uence of
spatial clustering of data points (Rangel et al. , 2006 ).
Interestingly, the often powerful and pervasive infl uence of this sort of clustering (known technically as
spatial auto - correlation) on standard statistical tests
has only recently been generally recognized (Legendre,
1993 ), and many studies still ignore it in their analyses. It is therefore particularly encouraging that Rangel
and his colleagues have developed and made this powerful statistical package freely available (download
from: www.ecoevol.ufg.br/sam ). Other similar initiatives are clearly to be welcomed.
• Third, greater efforts need to be made to mainstream
biodiversity into other sectors of environmental
governance. In this context, ‘ mainstreaming ’ can be
defi ned as the integration of conservation goals
and sustainable use of biodiversity into sectors that
impact biodiversity (mainly outside of protected areas).
Successful mainstreaming of biodiversity requires
that high - quality biodiversity data are made available
to key decision - makers in forms that they can use.
Conservation biogeography can play a vital role in this
by providing improved frameworks and concepts that
allow biodiversity information to be meaningfully
organized and structured. Moreover, conservation
biogeographers have the knowledge and skills to
produce models and visualization tools that can transform raw data on occurrences and distributions into
products that are useful and of genuine practical
importance.
responses to future climate and land - use change
(Ara ú jo et al. , 2008 ; Diniz - Filho et al. , 2009 ).
Fourth, there is a tendency for many of us to seek to
draw recommendations from particular case studies as
we publish them but, as in many areas of human
endeavour, a single case study may make for poor guidance. Therefore we highlight a continuing need for
efforts to develop and synthesize emerging fi ndings
into improved theoretical frameworks and to update
conservation biogeography theory for the purpose of
revising guidelines to practitioners.
10.2.3 Turning t heory into p ractice
Biogeographical science has had a foundational role
within conservation biology, as demonstrated by the
early attention paid to deriving guidelines for protected
area design from island biogeography (Chapter 8 ).
Currently, biogeography is in an exciting phase in
which there is greatly enhanced potential to apply the
subject to problems in the conservation of biodiversity
(Whittaker et al. , 2005 ; Richardson & Whittaker,
2010 ). An important step in this process is to encourage the teaching of conservation biogeography at university level – a key motivation in the writing of this
book.
However, even if there is a rapid increase in biogeographical understanding, translating this knowledge
into guidelines, protocols, tools and applications that
are useful at every level of conservation decision -
making presents signifi cant challenges. Indeed, many
would argue that generating the scientifi c information
is the easy bit, and the diffi culties really start in communicating geographically precise information about
the current and future status of biodiversity in a form
that is accessible and able to infl uence policy (Kalliola
et al ., 2008 ).
If societies are to realize the full benefi ts of conceptual advances and an increase in knowledge, it is therefore vital that new understandings are quickly
converted into practical tools. This process can be facilitated in a number of ways:
• First, conservation biogeography, like many other
ecologically - related disciplines, will progress faster
and have more impact if scientists and practitioners
make their data freely available and accessible. This
will be a challenge. There remains a culture of ‘ data
hoarding ’ in ecological and environmental science