Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 1821–1835 | Cite as

The influence of planning unit characteristics on the efficiency and spatial pattern of systematic conservation planning assessments

Original Paper

Abstract

Systematic conservation planning is a widely used approach for designing protected area systems and ecological networks. This generally involves dividing the planning region into a series of planning units and using computer software to select portfolios of these units that meet specified conservation targets whilst minimising conservation costs. Previous research has shown that changing the size and shape of these planning units can alter the apparent spatial characteristics of the underlying data and thus influence conservation assessment results. However, this may be less problematic when using newer software that can account for additional constraints based on portfolio costs and fragmentation levels. Here we investigate these issues using a dataset from southern Africa and measure the extent to which changing planning unit shape, size and baseline affects the results of conservation planning assessments. We show that using hexagonal planning units instead of squares produces more efficient and less fragmented portfolios and that using larger planning units produces portfolios that are less efficient but more likely to identify the same priority areas. We also show that using real-world constraints in the analysis, based on reducing socio-economic costs and minimising fragmentation levels, reduces the influence of planning unit characteristics on the results and so argue that future studies should adopt a similar approach when investigating factors that influence conservation assessments.

Keywords

Systematic conservation planning Marxan Reserve selection Planning units 

References

  1. Adams VM, Pressey RL, Naidoo R (2010) Opportunity costs: who really pays for conservation? Biol Conserv 143:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S, Solow A (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araújo MB, Williams PH, Fuller RJ (2002) Dynamics of extinction and the selection of nature reserves. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:1971–1980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball I, Possingham H (2000) Marxan (v1.8.2)—marine reserve design using spatially explicit annealing. University of Queensland, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  5. Balmford A, Moore JL, Brooks T, Burgess N, Hansen LA, Williams P, Rahbek C (2001) Conservation conflicts across Africa. Science 291:2616–2619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balmford A, Gaston KJ, Blyth S, James A, Kapos V (2003) Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:1046–1050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bassett SD, Edwards TC (2003) Effect of different sampling schemes on the spatial placement of conservation reserves in Utah, USA. Biol Conserv 113:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birch CPD (2006) Diagonal and orthogonal neighbours in grid-based simulations: Buffon’s stick after 200 years. Ecol Model 192:637–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birch CPD, Oom SP, Beecham JA (2007) Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology. Ecol Model 206:347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bode M, Wilson KA, Brooks TM, Turner WR, Mittermeier RA, McBride MF, Underwood EC, Possingham HP (2008) Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:6498–6501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carwardine J, Rochester WA, Richardson KS, Williams KJ, Pressey RL, Possingham HP (2007) Conservation planning with irreplaceability: does the method matter? Biodivers Conserv 16:245–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carwardine J, Wilson KA, Hajkowicz SA, Smith RJ, Klein CJ, Watts M, Possingham HP (2010) Conservation planning when costs are uncertain. Conserv Biol 24:1529–1537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. CBD (2004) Conservation on biological diversity, COP 7 Decision VII/28. http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7765
  14. Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 360:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cliff AD, Ord JK (1981) Spatial processes–models and applications. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Rouget M, Lombard AT (2003) A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot—the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biol Conserv 112:191–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Csuti B, Polasky S, Williams PH, Pressey RL, Camm JD, Kershaw M, Kiester AR, Downs B, Hamilton R, Huso M, Sahr K (1997) A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol Conserv 80:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Culver DC, Christman MC, Sket B, Trontelj P (2004) Sampling adequacy in an extreme environment: species richness patterns in Slovenian caves. Biodivers Conserv 13:1209–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dobson AP, Rodriguez JP, Roberts WM, Wilcove DS (1997) Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science 275:550–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erasmus BFN, Freitag S, Gaston KJ, Erasmus BH, ASv Jaarsveld (1999) Scale and conservation planning in the real world. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grand J, Cummings MP, Rebelo TG, Ricketts TH, Neel MC (2007) Biased data reduce efficiency and effectiveness of conservation reserve networks. Ecol Lett 10:364–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grantham HS, Pressey RL, Wells JA, Beattie AJ (2010) Effectiveness of biodiversity surrogates for conservation planning: different measures of effectiveness generate a kaleidoscope of variation. PLoS ONE 5:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grantham HS, Game ET, Lombard AT, Hobday AJ, Richardson AJ, Beckley LE, Pressey RL, Huggett JA, Coetzee JC, van der Lingen CD, Petersen SL, Merkle D, Possingham HP (2011) Accommodating dynamic oceanographic processes and pelagic biodiversity in marine conservation planning. PLoS ONE 6:e16552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016552
  24. Hess GR, Bartel RA, Leidner AK, Rosenfeld KM, Rubino MJ, Snider SB, Ricketts TH (2006) Effectiveness of biodiversity indicators varies with extent, grain, and region. Biol Conserv 132:448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huber P, Greco S, Thorne J (2010) Spatial scale effects on conservation network design: trade-offs and omissions in regional versus local scale planning. Landsc Ecol 25:683–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurlbert AH, Jetz W (2007) Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:13384–13389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jenness J (2006) Repeating shapes for ArcGIS. Jenness Enterprises, Arizona, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Justus J, Fuller T, Sarkar S (2008) Influence of representation targets on the total area of conservation-area networks. Conserv Biol 22:673–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kark S, Levin N, Grantham HS, Possingham HP (2009) Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:15368–15373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khan ML, Menon S, Bawa KS (1997) Effectiveness of the protected area network in biodiversity conservation: a case-study of Meghalaya state. Biodivers Conserv 6:853–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klein C, Wilson K, Watts M, Stein J, Berry S, Carwardine J, Smith MS, Mackey B, Possingham H (2009) Incorporating ecological and evolutionary processes into continental-scale conservation planning. Ecol Appl 19:206–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knight AT, Driver A, Cowling RM, Maze K, Desmet PG, Lombard AT, Rouget M, Botha MA, Boshoff AE, Castley G, Goodman PS, MacKinnon K, Pierce SM, Sims-Castley R, Stewart WI, Von Hase A (2006) Designing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: best practice from South Africa. Conservation Biology 20:739–750Google Scholar
  33. Larsen FW, Rahbek C (2003) Influence of scale on conservation priority setting–a test on African mammals. Biodivers Conserv 12:599–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Linke S, Pressey RL, Bailey RC, Norris RH (2007) Management options for river conservation planning: condition and conservation re-visited. Freshw Biol 52:918–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Margules CR, Sarkar S (2007) Systematic conservation planning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Margules CR, Nicholls AO, Pressey RL (1988) Selecting networks of reserves to maximize biological diversity. Biol Conserv 43:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matta JR, Alavalapati JRR, Mercer DE (2009) Incentives for biodiversity conservation beyond the best management practices: are forestland owners interested? Land Econ 85:132–143Google Scholar
  39. Michael JA (2003) Efficient habitat protection with diverse landowners and fragmented landscapes. Environ Sci Policy 6:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mills M, Pressey RL, Weeks R, Foale S, Ban NC (2010) A mismatch of scales: challenges in planning for implementation of marine protected areas in the Coral Triangle. Conserv Lett 3:291–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moilanen A, Wintle BA (2007) The boundary-quality penalty: a quantitative method for approximating species responses to fragmentation in reserve selection. Conserv Biol 21:355–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham H (eds) (2009) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21:681–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nel JL, Roux DJ, Abell R, Ashton PJ, Cowling RM, Higgins JV, Thieme M, Viers JH (2009) Progress and challenges in freshwater conservation planning. Aquat Conserv Marine Freshw Ecosyst 19:474–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pressey RL, Logan VS (1998) Size of selection units for future reserves and its influence on actual vs targeted representation of features: a case study in western New South Wales. Biol Conserv 85:305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pressey RL, Nicholls AO (1989) Efficiency in conservation evaluation—scoring versus iterative approaches. Biol Conserv 50:199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rouget M (2003) Measuring conservation value at fine and broad scales: implications for a diverse and fragmented region, the Agulhas Plain. Biol Conserv 112:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roux DJ, Nel JL, Ashton PJ, Deaconc AR, de Moor FC, Hardwick D, Hill L, Kleynhans CJ, Maree GA, Moolman J, Scholes RJ (2008) Designing protected areas to conserve riverine biodiversity: lessons from a hypothetical redesign of the Kruger National Park. Biol Conserv 141:100–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seo C, Thorne JH, Hannah L, Thuiller W (2009) Scale effects in species distribution models: implications for conservation planning under climate change. Biol Lett 5:39–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shriner SA, Wilson KR, Flather CH (2006) Reserve networks based on richness hotspots and representation vary with scale. Ecol Appl 16:1660–1673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith RJ (2004) Conservation land-use zoning (CLUZ) software. Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, Canterbury. http://www.mosaic-conservation.org/cluz
  52. Smith RJ, Easton J, Nhancale BA, Armstrong AJ, Culverwell J, Dlamini SD, Goodman PS, Loffler L, Matthews WS, Monadjem A, Mulqueeny CM, Ngwenya P, Ntumi CP, Soto B, Leader-Williams N (2008) Designing a transfrontier conservation landscape for the Maputaland centre of endemism using biodiversity, economic and threat data. Biol Conserv 141:2127–2138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith RJ, Verissimo D, Leader-Williams N, Cowling RM, Knight AT (2009) Let the locals lead. Nature 462:280–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith R, Di Minin E, Linke S, Segan D, Possingham H (2010) An approach for ensuring minimum protected area size in systematic conservation planning. Biol Conserv 143:2525–2531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stewart R, Possingham H (2005) Efficiency, costs and trade-offs in marine reserve system design. Environ Model Assess 10:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stoms DM (1994) Scale dependence of species richness maps. Prof Geogr 46:346–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Jaarsveld AS, Freitag S, Chown SL, Muller C, Koch S, Hull H, Bellamy C, Kruger M, Endrody-Younga S, Mansell MW, Scholtz CH (1998) Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies. Science 279:2106–2108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Warman LD, Sinclair ARE, Scudder GGE, Klinkenberg B, Pressey RL (2004) Sensitivity of systematic reserve selection to decisions about scale, biological data, and targets: case study from Southern British Columbia. Conserv Biol 18:655–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weeks R, Russ GR, Bucol AA, Alcala AC (2010) Shortcuts for marine conservation planning: the effectiveness of socioeconomic data surrogates. Biol Conserv 143:1236–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. White D, Kiester AR (2008) Topology matters: network topology affects outcomes from community ecology neutral models. Comput Environ Urban Syst 32:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiersma YF, Nudds TD (2009) Efficiency and effectiveness in representative reserve design in Canada: the contribution of existing protected areas. Biol Conserv 142:1639–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Durrell Institute of Conservation and EcologyUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations