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
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
D.O.I.
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.

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