Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Apples, Oranges, and Probabilities: Integrating Multiple Factors into Biodiversity Conservation with Consistency

  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We explore the problem of integrating some of the many factors involved in conservation planning by focusing on their effects on a common currency of conservation success, the probability of persistence. This approach has the potential to reduce many of the difficulties inherent in combining different pattern and process factors. For handling information expressed as probabilities, five area-selection methods are compared.

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

  1. C.R. Margules and R.L. Pressey, Systematic conservation planning, Nature London 405 (2000) 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Hollick, The role of quantitative decision-making methods in environmental impact assessment, J. Environ. Management 12 (1981) 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P.G.R. Smith and J.B. Theberge, Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: Theory and practice, Environ. Management 11 (1987) 447–460.

    Google Scholar 

  4. P.H. Williams, Key sites for conservation: Area-selection methods for biodiversity, in: Conservation in a Changing World, eds. G.M. Mace, A. Balmford and J.R. Ginsberg (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1998) pp. 211–249.

    Google Scholar 

  5. F.B. Goldsmith, The evaluation of ecological resources in the countryside for conservation purposes, Biol. Conserv. 8 (1975) 89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D.A. Ratcliffe, Selection of important areas for wildlife conservation in Great Britain: The Nature Conservancy Council's approach, in: Wildlife Conservation Evaluation, ed. M.B. Usher (Chapman and Hall, London, 1986) pp. 135–159.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Anselin, P.M. Meire and L. Anselin, Multicriteria techniques in ecological evaluation: An example using the analytical hierarchy process, Biol. Conserv. 49 (1989) 215–229.

    Google Scholar 

  8. S. Freitag, A.S. van Jaarsveld and H.C. Biggs, Ranking priority biodiversity areas: An iterative conservation value-based approach, Biol. Conserv. 82 (1997) 263–272.

    Google Scholar 

  9. F.B. Goldsmith, The selection of protected areas, in: The Scientific Management of Temperate Communities for Conservation, eds. I.F. Spellerberg, F.B. Goldsmith and M.G. Morris (Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1991) pp. 273–291.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D.P. Faith and P.A. Walker, Integrating conservation and development: Effective trade-offs between biodiversity and cost in the selection of protected areas, Biodiv. Conserv. 5 (1996) 431–446.

    Google Scholar 

  11. C.R. Margules, Conservation evaluation in practice, in: Wildlife Conservation Evaluation, ed. M.B. Usher (Chapman and Hall, London, 1986) pp. 297–314.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Bedward, R.L. Pressey and D.A. Keith, A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks: Addressing efficiency, reserve design and land suitability with an iterative analysis, Biol. Conserv. 62 (1992) 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Kershaw, P.H. Williams and G.M. Mace, Conservation of Afrotropical antelopes: Consequences and efficiency of using different site selection methods and diversity criteria, Biodiv. Conserv. 3 (1994) 354–372.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. Polasky, J.D. Camm, A.R. Solow, B. Csuti, D. White and R. Ding, Choosing reserve networks with incomplete species information, Biol. Conserv. 94 (2000) 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M.B. AraÚjo and P.H. Williams, Selecting areas for species persistence using occurrence data, Biol. Conserv. 96 (2000) 331–345.

    Google Scholar 

  16. C.R. Margules, A.O. Nicholls and M.B. Usher, Apparent species turnover, probability of extinction and the selection of nature reserves: A case study of the Ingleborough limestone pavements, Conserv. Biol. 8 (1994) 398–409.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D.P. Faith and P.A. Walker, Integrating conservation and development: Incorporating vulnerability into biodiversity-assessment of areas, Biodiv. Conserv. 5 (1996) 417–429.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R.L. Pressey, Priority conservation areas: Towards an operational de-finition for regional assessments, in: National Parks and Protected Areas: Selection, Delimitation and Management, eds. J.J. Pigram and R.C. Sundell (University of New England, Armidale, 1997) pp. 337–357.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R.M. Cowling, R.L. Pressey, A.T. Lombard, P.G. Desmet and A.G. Ellis, From representation to persistence: Requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species-rich Mediterraneanclimate Desert of Southern Africa, Diversity Distrib. 5 (1999) 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  20. K.M. Virolainen, T. Virola, J. Suhonen, M. Kuitunen, A. Lammi and P. Siikamäki, Selecting networks of nature reserves: Methods do affect the long-term outcome, Proc. R. Soc. London B 266 (1999) 1141–1146.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A.S.L. Rodrigues, R.D. Gregory and K.J. Gaston, Robustness of reserve selection procedures under temporal species turnover, Proc. R. Soc. London B 267 (2000) 49–55.

    Google Scholar 

  22. D.P. Faith, Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity, Biol. Conserv. 61 (1992) 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  23. P.H. Williams, K.J. Gaston and C.J. Humphries, Do conservationists and molecular biologists value differences between organisms in the same way? Biodiv. Lett. 2 (1994) 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J.B. Callicott, L.B. Crowder and K.Mumford, Current normative concepts in conservation, Conserv. Biol. 13 (1999) 22–35.

    Google Scholar 

  25. P.H. Williams and M.B. AraÚjo, Integrating species and ecosystem monitoring for identifying conservation priorities, European Nature 4 (2000) 17–18.

    Google Scholar 

  26. C.R. Margules and A.O. Nicholls, Assessing the conservation value of remnant habitat ‘islands’: Mallee patches on the western Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, in: Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation, eds. D.A. Saunders, G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbidge and A.J.M. Hopkins (CSIRO, 1987) pp. 89–102.

  27. P.H. Williams and M.B. AraÚjo, Using probability of persistence to identify important areas for biodiversity conservation, Proc. R. Soc. London B 267 (2000) 1959–1966.

    Google Scholar 

  28. R.L. Pressey and A.O. Nicholls, Efficiency in conservation evaluation: Scoring versus iterative approaches, Biol. Conserv. 50 (1989) 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M.B. AraÚjo, The representation and persistence of species in conservation area networks, Ph.D. thesis, University of London, London (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  30. J.D. Camm, S. Polasky, A. Solow and B. Csuti, A note on optimal algorithms for reserve site selection, Biol. Conserv. 78 (1996) 353–355.

    Google Scholar 

  31. A.S. van Jaarsveld, K.J. Gaston, S.L. Chown and S. Freitag, Throwing biodiversity out with the binary data? S. Afr. J. Sci. 94 (1998) 210–214.

    Google Scholar 

  32. J. Jalas and J. Suominen (eds.), Atlas Florae Europaeae, Vols. 1–10 (The Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe and Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo, 1972, 1973, 1976, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1994).

  33. T. Lahti and R. Lampinen, From dot maps to bitmaps, Acta Bot. Fennica 162 (1999) 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. M.A. Burgman, S. Ferson and H.R. Akçakaya, Risk Assessment in Conservation Biology (Chapman and Hall, London, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  35. E.S. Menges, Population viability analyses in plants: Challenges and opportunities, Trends Ecol. Evol. 15 (2000) 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  36. D. Ludwig, Is it meaningful to estimate a probability of extinction? Ecology 80 (1999) 298–310.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J. Fieberg and S.P. Ellner, When is it meaningful to estimate an extinction probability? Ecology 81 (2000) 2040–2047.

    Google Scholar 

  38. M. Mangel and C. Tier, Four facts every conservation biologist should know about persistence, Ecology 75 (1994) 607–614.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  41. B. Csuti, S. Polasky, P.H. Williams, R.L. Pressey, J.D. Camm, M. Kershaw, A.R. Kiester, B. Downs, R. Hamilton, M. Huso and K. Sahr, A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon, Biol. Conserv. 80 (1997) 83–97.

    Google Scholar 

  42. A.G. Rebelo and W.R. Siegfried, Where should nature reserves be located in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa? Models for the spatial configuration of a reserve network aimed at maximizing the protection of floral diversity, Conserv. Biol. 6 (1992) 243–252.

    Google Scholar 

  43. P. Williams, Complementarity, in: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, ed. S.A. Levin (Academic Press, London, 2001) pp. 813–829.

    Google Scholar 

  44. P.H. Williams, Worldmap 4 Windows: Software and Help Document 4.2 (distributed privately and from http://www.nhm.ac.uk/ science/projects/worldmap/, 1999).

  45. S. Gates and P.F. Donald, Local extinction of British farmland birds and the prediction of further loss, J. Appl. Ecol. 37 (2000) 806–820.

    Google Scholar 

  46. B. Huntley, The dynamic response of plants to environmental change and the resulting risks of extinction, in: Conservation in a Changing World, eds. G.M. Mace, A. Balmford and J.R. Ginsberg (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1998) pp. 69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  47. K.S. Shrader-Frechette and E.D. McCoy, Method in Ecology – Strategies for Conservation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  48. M.B. AraÚjo and P.H. Williams, The bias of complementarity hotspots towards marginal populations, Conserv. Biol. 15 (2001) 1710–1720.

    Google Scholar 

  49. R. Wolters and I. Bouwma, Stepping stones towards the future, European Nature 1 (1998) 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  50. J.A. McNeely, Assessing methods for setting conservation priorities, in: Investing in Biological Diversity: The Cairns Conference (OECD Proceedings, Paris, 1997) pp. 25–55.

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biogeography & Conservation Lab, The Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, UK

    Paul H. Williams & Miguel B. Araújo

Authors
  1. Paul H. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miguel B. Araújo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Williams, P.H., Araújo, M.B. Apples, Oranges, and Probabilities: Integrating Multiple Factors into Biodiversity Conservation with Consistency. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 7, 139–151 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015657917928

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015657917928

Search

Navigation