Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(1999)
Systematic reserve selection in the USA : an example from the Columbia Plateau ecoregion
M. Bedward, R. Pressey, D. Keith (1992)
A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks: addressing efficiency, reserve design and land suitability with an iterative analysisBiological Conservation, 62
(1997)
An evaluation of the effectiveness of environmental surrogates and modelling techniques in predicting the distribution of biological diversity
J. Prendergast, R. Quinn, J. Lawton (1999)
The Gaps between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature ReservesConservation Biology, 13
S. Freitag, A. Nicholls, A. Jaarsveld (1998)
Dealing with established reserve networks and incomplete distribution data sets in conservation planningSouth African Journal of Science, 94
(1998)
Decision support systems : new tools for data users
A. Kiester, J. Scott, B. Csuti, Reed Noss, Bart Butterfield, K. Sahr, D. White (1996)
Conservation Prioritization Using GAP DataConservation Biology, 10
D. Saunders, J. Craig (1995)
Nature conservation: the role of networks: Geraldton, W.A., Australia, 16–20 May 1994Landscape and Urban Planning, 32
A. Rebelo, W. Siegfried (1990)
Protection of Fynbos vegetation: ideal and real-world optionsBiological Conservation, 54
J. Kirkpatrick (1983)
An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: An example from TasmaniaBiological Conservation, 25
(1999)
Applications of irreplaceability analysis to planning and management problems
R. Pressey, Vicki Loganl (1997)
Inside looking out: findings of research on reserve selection relevant to "off-reserve" nature conservation
H. Mowrer, R. Czaplewski, R. Hamre (1996)
Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences
R. Pressey, S. Ferrier, T. Hager, C. Woods, S. Tully, K. Weinman (1996)
How well protected are the forests of north-eastern New South Wales? − Analyses of forest environments in relation to formal protection measures, land tenure, and vulnerability to clearingForest Ecology and Management, 85
(1995)
Involving ecologists and local communities in survey , planning and action for conservation in a rural landscape : an example from the Bega Valley , New South Wales
International program at the Eros Data Center: program activities
J. Lawton (1997)
The Science and Non-Science of Conservation BiologyOikos, 79
C. Margules, R. Pressey (2000)
Systematic conservation planningNature, 405
(1998)
Algorithms , politics and timber : an example of the role of science in a public , political negotiation process over new conservation areas in production forests
(1996)
A spatial analytical hierarchy for gap analysis
C. Margules, M. Austin (1994)
Biological Models for Monitoring Species Decline: The Construction and Use of Data BasesPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 344
*New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 402, Armidale New South Wales 2350, Australia, email bpressey@ozemail.com.au â 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 âalgorithmsâ) and regular interaction with people making conservation decisions on the ground (hereafter âmanagersâ). 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)
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Feb 1, 2001
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.