Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, University of Texas at Austin, Waggener 316, 78712-1180, Austin, TX, USA

    James Justus & Sahotra Sarkar

Authors
  1. James Justus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sahotra Sarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02704970

Keywords

Search

Navigation