Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Reserve Selection Algorithms and the Real World

Reserve Selection Algorithms and the Real World *New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 402, Armidale New South Wales 2350, Australia, email bpressey@ozemail.com.au †Institute for Plant Conservation, Department of Botany, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa Prendergast et al. (1999) set out to examine the utility of reserve selection algorithms for those organizations and individuals charged with the difficult, practical task of acquiring or extending strict reserves or other conservation areas. Much of our work has involved the development and application of reserve selection algorithms (hereafter “algorithms”) and regular interaction with people making conservation decisions on the ground (hereafter “managers”). With experience in both the theory and practice of conservation planning, our reaction to the essay by Prendergast et al. (1999) is mixed. On one hand, we acknowledge there are undesirable gaps between the world views of many scientists and managers, and we agree with some of the explanations for these and the proposed solutions. On the other hand, we are concerned about four misconceptions in the essay and comment on these here: (1) algorithms and gap analysis are alternative approaches to conservation planning; (2) algorithms need data of higher quality than do other planning approaches; (3) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

Reserve Selection Algorithms and the Real World

Conservation Biology , Volume 15 (1) – Feb 1, 2001

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/reserve-selection-algorithms-and-the-real-world-38Z1aMgEcq

References (21)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
DOI
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.99541.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

*New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 402, Armidale New South Wales 2350, Australia, email bpressey@ozemail.com.au †Institute for Plant Conservation, Department of Botany, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa Prendergast et al. (1999) set out to examine the utility of reserve selection algorithms for those organizations and individuals charged with the difficult, practical task of acquiring or extending strict reserves or other conservation areas. Much of our work has involved the development and application of reserve selection algorithms (hereafter “algorithms”) and regular interaction with people making conservation decisions on the ground (hereafter “managers”). With experience in both the theory and practice of conservation planning, our reaction to the essay by Prendergast et al. (1999) is mixed. On one hand, we acknowledge there are undesirable gaps between the world views of many scientists and managers, and we agree with some of the explanations for these and the proposed solutions. On the other hand, we are concerned about four misconceptions in the essay and comment on these here: (1) algorithms and gap analysis are alternative approaches to conservation planning; (2) algorithms need data of higher quality than do other planning approaches; (3)

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Feb 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.