The expert or the algorithm?—comparison of priority conservation areas in the Cape Floristic Region identified by park managers and reserve selection software

The expert or the algorithm?—comparison of priority conservation areas in the Cape Floristic... Expert-based and systematic, algorithm-based approaches to identifying priority areas for conservation are sometimes posited as alternatives. While both approaches have pros and cons, the systematic approach does have the advantage of providing a region-wide assessment of the options for achieving explicit conservation targets. A distinct advantage of the expert-driven approach is its incorporation of expert knowledge on biodiversity persistence and pragmatic management and implementation issues not normally included in biodiversity feature-site data matrices. Given the widespread application of both approaches, surprisingly little research has been undertaken to evaluate their conservation planning outcomes. Here we compare priority conservation areas in South Africa's Cape Floristic Region identified by park managers and reserve-selection software. Managers identified 29 areas (a wishlist) that together, comprised 31% of the planning domain and had 40% of its area under some form of conservation management. This wishlist was assessed for the extent to which it achieved targets for biodiversity pattern and process over and above the existing conservation system, and its incorporation of priority areas identified in terms of conservation value and vulnerability to processes that threaten biodiversity. Overall, the wishlist reflected a desire by managers to improve management efficiency and facilitate rapid implementation by expanding existing, largely montane reserves into low-priority areas where land tenure is sympathetic to conservation. Consequently, it was not very effective and efficient in achieving pattern and process targets, and it excluded large areas of vulnerable and inadequately conserved lowland habitat—the areas currently in most need of conservation action. Further, it provided no basis for scheduling implementation or for exploring alternative areas to achieve the same goals, unlike systematic approaches. Nonetheless, the manager's wishlist did include many highly innovative and feasible projects that make important contributions to the conservation of the region's biodiversity. Rather than emphasize the dichotomy between expert and systematic approaches, conservation planners should devise ways of integrating them. In particular, priority areas identified by experts should be carefully considered against the backdrop of the outcomes of systematic conservation planning. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biological Conservation Elsevier

The expert or the algorithm?—comparison of priority conservation areas in the Cape Floristic Region identified by park managers and reserve selection software

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/the-expert-or-the-algorithm-comparison-of-priority-conservation-areas-EfK0p0K8C5
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd
ISSN
0006-3207
D.O.I.
10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00397-X
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Expert-based and systematic, algorithm-based approaches to identifying priority areas for conservation are sometimes posited as alternatives. While both approaches have pros and cons, the systematic approach does have the advantage of providing a region-wide assessment of the options for achieving explicit conservation targets. A distinct advantage of the expert-driven approach is its incorporation of expert knowledge on biodiversity persistence and pragmatic management and implementation issues not normally included in biodiversity feature-site data matrices. Given the widespread application of both approaches, surprisingly little research has been undertaken to evaluate their conservation planning outcomes. Here we compare priority conservation areas in South Africa's Cape Floristic Region identified by park managers and reserve-selection software. Managers identified 29 areas (a wishlist) that together, comprised 31% of the planning domain and had 40% of its area under some form of conservation management. This wishlist was assessed for the extent to which it achieved targets for biodiversity pattern and process over and above the existing conservation system, and its incorporation of priority areas identified in terms of conservation value and vulnerability to processes that threaten biodiversity. Overall, the wishlist reflected a desire by managers to improve management efficiency and facilitate rapid implementation by expanding existing, largely montane reserves into low-priority areas where land tenure is sympathetic to conservation. Consequently, it was not very effective and efficient in achieving pattern and process targets, and it excluded large areas of vulnerable and inadequately conserved lowland habitat—the areas currently in most need of conservation action. Further, it provided no basis for scheduling implementation or for exploring alternative areas to achieve the same goals, unlike systematic approaches. Nonetheless, the manager's wishlist did include many highly innovative and feasible projects that make important contributions to the conservation of the region's biodiversity. Rather than emphasize the dichotomy between expert and systematic approaches, conservation planners should devise ways of integrating them. In particular, priority areas identified by experts should be carefully considered against the backdrop of the outcomes of systematic conservation planning.

Journal

Biological ConservationElsevier

Published: Jul 1, 2003

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off