The principle of complementarity in the design of reserve networks to conserve biodiversity: A preliminary history

Abstract

Explicit, quantitative procedures for identifying biodiversity priority areas are replacing the often ad hoc procedures used in the past to design networks of reserves to conserve biodiversity. This change facilitates more informed choices by policy makers, and thereby makes possible greater satisfaction of conservation goals with increased efficiency. A key feature of these procedures is the use of the principle of complementarity, which ensures that areas chosen for inclusion in a reserve network complement those already selected. This paper sketches the historical development of the principle of complementarity and its applications in practical policy decisions. In the first section a brief account is given of the circumstances out of which concerns for more explicit systematic methods for the assessment of the conservation value of different areas arose. The second section details the emergence of the principle of complementarity in four independent contexts. The third section consists of case studies of the use of the principle of complementarity to make practical policy decisions in Australasia, Africa, and America. In the last section, an assessment is made of the extent to which the principle of complementarity transformed the practice of conservation biology by introducing new standards of rigor and explicitness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ackery P R and Vane-Wright R I 1984Milkweed butterflies (Cornell: Cornell University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aggarwal A, Garson J, Margules C R, Nicholls A O and Sarkar S 2000ResNet manual ver 1.1 (Austin: Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andelman S, Ball I, Davis F and Stoms D 1999SITES V 1.0 an analytic toolbox for designing ecoregional conservation portfolios (Santa Barbara: The Nature Conservancy)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Austin M A and Miller D J 1978 Conservation; inLand use on the south coast of New South Wales: a study in acquiring and using information to analyse regional land use options (eds) M P Austin and K D Cocks (Melbourne: CSIRO) pp 169–195

    Google Scholar 

  5. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture (MCFFA) of the Commonwealth of Australia, and National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Sub-committee 1997Comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system for forests in Australia (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cabeza M and Moilanen A 2001 Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity;Trends Ecol. Evol. 16 242–248

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Church R L, Stoms D M and Davis F W 1996 Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem;Biol. Conserv. 76 105–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clark F S and Slusher R B 2000 Using spatial analysis to drive reserve design: a case study of a national wildlife refuge in Indiana and Illinois (USA);Landscape Ecol. 15 75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cocks B and Baird I A 1989 Using mathematical programming to address the multiple reserve selection problem: an example from the Eyre Peninsula South Africa;Biol. Conserv. 49 113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Commonwealth of Australia 1992National forest policy statement: A new focus for Australia’s forests (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Commonwealth of Australia 1995National forest conservation reserves: commonwealth proposed criteria (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Commonwealth of Australia 1999International forest conservation: protected areas and beyond (Canberra: Australian Governmental Publishing Service)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cowling R 1999 Planning for persistence — systematic reserve design in southern Africa’s Succulent Karoo Desert;Parks 9 17–30

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cowling R M, Pressey R L, Lombard A T, Desmet P G and Ellis A G 1999 From representation to persistence: requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species-rich Mediterranean-climate desert of southern Africa;Diver. Distrib. 5 51–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Csuti B, Polansky S, Williams P H, Pressey R L, Camm J D, Kershaw M, Kiester A R, Downs B, Hamilton R, Huso M and SahrK 1997 A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregan;Biol. Conserv. 80 83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Everett R D 1978Conservation evaluation and recreational importance of wildlife within a forestry area, D. Phil thesis, University of York, UK

    Google Scholar 

  17. Faith D P, Nix H A, Margules C R, Hutchinson M F, Walker P A, West J, Stein J L, Kesteven J L, Allison A and Natera G 2001a The BioRap biodiversity assessment and planning study for Papua New Guinea;Pac. Conserv. Biol. 6 279–288

    Google Scholar 

  18. Faith D P, Margules C R, Walker P A, Stein J and Natera G 2001b Practical application of biodiversity surrogates and percentage targets for conservation in Papua New Guinea;Pac. Conserv. Biol. 6 289–303

    Google Scholar 

  19. Faith D P, Margules C R and Walker P A 2001c A biodiversity conservation plan for Papua New Guinea based on biodiversity trade-offs analysis;Pac. Conserv. Biol. 6 304–324

    Google Scholar 

  20. Faith D P, Walker P A and Margules C R 2001d Some future prospects for systematic biodiversity planning in Papua New Guinea — and for biodiversity planning in general;Pac. Conserv. Biol. 6 325–343

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ferrier S, Pressey R L and Barrett T 2000 A new predicator of the irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinement;Biol. Conserv. 93 303–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Finkel E 1998a Software helps Australia manage forest debate;Science 281 1789–1791

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Finkel E 1998b Forest Pact Bypasses Computer Model;Science 282 1968–1969

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Garson J, Aggarwal A and Sarkar S 2002 Birds as surrogates for biodiversity: an analysis of a data set from southern Québec;J. Biosci. (Suppl. 2)27 347–360

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gehlbach F R 1975 Investigation, evaluation, and priority ranking of natural areas;Biol. Conserv. 8 79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Goldsmith F B 1975 The evaluation of ecological resources in the countryside for conservation purposes;Biol. Conserv. 8 89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Groves C, Valutis L, Vosick D, Neely B, Wheaton K, Touval J and Runnels B 2000Designing a geography of hope: a practitioner’s handbook for ecoregional conservation planning 2nd edition (Arlington: Nature Conservancy)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Howard P C, Viskanic P, Davenport, Tim R B, Kigenyi F W, Baltzer M, Dickinson C J, Lwanga J, Matthews R A and Balmford A 1998 Complementarity and the Use of Indicator Groups for Reserve Selection in Uganda;Nature (London)394 472–475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kirkpatrick J B 1983 An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: an example from Tasmania;Biol. Conserv. 25 127–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lombard A T, Cowling R M, Pressey R L and Mustart P J 1996 Reserve selection in a species-rich and fragmented landscape on the Agulhas plain, South Africa;Conserv. Biol. 11 1101–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lombard A T, Hilton-Taylor C, Rebelo A G, Pressey R L and Cowling R M 1999 Reserve Selection in the Succulent Karoo, South Africa: Coping with High Compositional Turnover;Plant Ecol. 142 35–55

    Google Scholar 

  32. Margules C and Usher M B 1981 Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review;Biol. Conserv. 2179–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Margules C R, Nicholls A O, Pressey R L 1988 Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity;Biol. Conserv. 43 63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Margules C R, Redhead T D, Faith D P and Hutchinson M F 1995Guidelines for using the biorap methodology and tools (Australia: CSIRO)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ministry of Town and Country Planning 1947aConservation of Nature in England and Wales (London: HMSO)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ministry of Town and Country Planning 1947bNational Parks and the Conservation of Nature in Scotland (London: HMSO)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nicholls A O and Margules C R 1993 An Upgraded Reserve Selection Algorithm;Biol. Conserv. 64 165–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nix H A, Faith D P, Hutchinson M F, Margules C R, West J, Allison A, Kesteven J L, Natera G, Slater W, Stein J L and Walker P 2000The bioRap toolbox a national study of biodiversity assessment and planning for Papua New Guinea (Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Poore M E D 1971 Introductory remarks by the chairman;Adv. Sci. 27 291

    Google Scholar 

  40. Prendergast J R, Quinn R M and Lawton J H 1999 The gaps between theory and practice in selecting nature reserves;Conserv. Biol. 13 484–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pressey R L 1994Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems?;Conserv. Biol. 8 662–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pressey R L 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; inEcology for everyone: communicating ecology to scientists, the public and the politicians (eds) R T Wills and R I Hobbs (Surrey: Beatty) pp 73–87

    Google Scholar 

  43. Pressey R L 1999 Applications of irreplaceability analysis to planning and management problems;Parks 9 42–51

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pressey R L and Cowling R M 2001 Reserve selection algorithms and the real world;Conserv. Biol. 15 275–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pressey R L and Nicholls A O 1989 Application of a numerical algorithm to the selection of reserves in semi-arid New South Wales;Biol. Conserv. 50 263–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pressey R L, Possingham P H and Day R J 1997 Effectiveness of Alternative Heuristic Algorithms for Identifying Indicative Minimum Requirements for Conservation Reserves;Biol. Conserv. 80 207–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ratcliffe D A 1971 Criteria for the selection of nature reserves;Adv. Sci. 27 294–296

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ratcliffe D A 1977The selection of biological sites of national importance to nature conservation in Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rebelo R L 1989 Conservation; inVegetation of Southern Africa (eds) R M Cowling, D M Richardson and S M Pierce (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 571–590

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rebelo A G and Siegfried W R 1990 Protection of Fynbos vegetation: ideal and real-world options;Biol. Conserv. 54 15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Redford K, Andrews M, Braun D, Buttrick S, Chaplin S, Coon M, Cox R, Ellis L, Grossman D, Groves C, Livermore D, Pearsall S, Shopland J, Tabas P, Wall K, Williamson D and Rousmaniere N 1997Designing a geography of hope: guidelines for ecoregion conservation in the Nature Conservancy (Arlington: Nature Conservancy)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Richardson K S and Funk V A 1999 An Approach to Designing a Systematic Protected Area System in Guyana;Parks 9 7–16

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sarkar S 2002 Defining "biodiversity" assessing biodiversity;Monist 85 131–155

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sarkar S, Aggarwal A, Garson J, Margules C R and Zeidler J 2002 Place prioritization for biodiversity content;J. Biosci. (Suppl. 2)27 339–346

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sarkar S, Parker N C, Garson J, Aggarwal A and Haskell S 2000 Place prioritization for Texas using GAP data: the use of biodiversity and environmental surrogates within socio-economic constraints;GAP Anal. Bull. 9 76–82

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sarakinos H, Nicholls A O, Tubert A, Aggarwal A, Margules C R, Sarkar S 2001 Area prioritization for biodiversity conservation in Québec on the basis of species distributions: a preliminary analysis;Biodiver. Conserv. 10 1419–1472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Tans W 1974 Priority ranking of biotic natural areas;Michigan Bot. 13 31–39

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tubbs C R and Blackwood J W 1971 Ecological evaluation of land for planning purposes;Biol. Conserv. 3 169–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Underhill L G 1994 Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection algorithms;Biol. Conserv. 70 85–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. van Der Ploeg SWF and Vlijm L 1978 Ecological evaluation, nature conservation and land use planning with particular reference to methods used in the Netherlands;Biol. Conserv. 14 197–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Vane-WrightR I, Humphries C J and Williams P H 1991 What to protect — systematics and the agony of choice;Biol. Conserv. 55 235–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Walker P A and Faith D P 1998TARGET Software priority area setting (Canberra: CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Williams P H, Burgess N D and Rahbek C 2000 Flagship species, ecological complementarity, and conserving the diversity of mammals and birds in sub-Saharan Africa;Anim. Conserv. 3 249–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Williams P H, Gibbons D, Margules C, Rebelo A, Humphries C and Pressey R 1996 A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots and complementary areas for conserving diversity using British birds;Conserv. Biol. 10 155–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Williams P H, Humphries C, Araujo M, Lampinen R, Hagemeijer W, Gasc J P and Mitchell-Jones T 2000 Endemiism and important areas for conserving European diversity: a preliminary exploration of atlas data for plants and terrestrial vertebrates;Belgian J. Entomol. 2 21–46

    Google Scholar 

  66. Wright D F 1977 A site evaluation scheme for use in the assessment of potential nature reserves;Biol. Conserv. 11 293–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. WWF-UQCN (World Wide Fund for Nature, Bureau de Québec-union québecoise pour la conservation de la nature) 1998Les milieux naturels de Québec méridional: Premiére approximation (Montréal, Québec: WWF-UQCN)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sahotra Sarkar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Justus, J., Sarkar, S. The principle of complementarity in the design of reserve networks to conserve biodiversity: A preliminary history. J Biosci 27, 421–435 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02704970

Download citation

Keywords

  • Complementarity
  • history of conservation biology
  • reserve network design