The conservation goal of representation of biodiversity (in the broad sense of all species) in protected areas requires best-possible use of available surrogate information. One standard approach is based on ‘indicator’ groups of taxa. A minimum set of areas having at least one representation of each indicator species is taken to be representative of other organisms. This same minimum-set approach is adapted to other ‘attributes’ of biodiversity, for example, derived environmental clusters. A weakness of these approaches is that useful information is lost; for example, for environmental clusters, there is no distinction made either among or within clusters. A more powerful surrogate approach can use some expression of environmental and/or biotic pattern so that variation among areas is seen as part of a continuum rather than partitioned into arbitrary clusters/attributes. The challenge in using pattern effectively is to adopt a robust model for the relationship between pattern and the underlying units of biodiversity, i.e. species. An environmental space (a continuum or ordination pattern), combined with the standard ecological continuum model relating species to environmental space, has advantages over other patterns based on hierarchy or distance matrices. Because an environmental space can be estimated either directly (observed environmental data) or indirectly (data on indicator groups), the corresponding surrogate-measure of biodiversity, ‘environmental diversity’ (ED) makes best-possible use of either kind of data. We conclude that the arbitrariness of the ‘attribute’ approach can be replaced by a robust surrogate ‘pattern’ approach that is flexible and avoids unwarranted assumptions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Austin, M.P. and Margules, C.R. (1986) Assessing representativeness. Chapter 2 in (M.B. Usher, ed.) Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. pp. 45–68.
Bedward, M., Pressey, R.L. and Keith, D. (1992) A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks: addressing efficiency, reserve design and land suitability with an iterative analysis. Biol. Conserv. 62, 115–25.
Belbin, L. (1992) Comparing two sets of community data: a method for testing reserve adequacy. Aus. J. Ecol. 17, 255–62.
Belbin, L. (1993) Environmental representativeness: regional partitioning and reserve selection. Biol. Conserv. 66, 223–30.
Belbin, L., Faith, D.P. and Milligan, G. (1993) A comparison of two approaches to Beta-flexible clustering. Multiv. Behav. Res. 27, 417–33.
Brandeau, M.L. and Chiu, S.S. (1989) An overview of representative problems in location research. Management Science 35, 645–74.
Colwell, R.K. and Coddington, J.A. (1994) Estimated terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 345, 101–18.
DeVelice, R.L., DeVelice, J.W. and Park, G.N. (1988) Gradient analysis in nature reserve design: a New Zealand example. Conserv. Biol. 2, 206–17.
Erkut, E. (1990) The discrete p-dispersion problem. European Journal of Operational Res. 46, 48–60.
Faith, D.P. (1992) Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Conserv. 61, 1–10.
Faith, D.P. (1994) Phylogenetic pattern and the quantification of organismal biodiversity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 345, 45–58.
Faith, D.P., Minchin, P. and Belbin, L. (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69, 57–68.
Faith, D.P. and Norris, R. (1989) Correlation of environmental variables with patterns of distribution and abundance of common and rare freshwater macroinvertebrates. Biological Conservation — Special Issue: Australian Developments in Conservation Evaluation 50, 77–98.
Faith, D.P. and Walker, P.A. (1993) DIVERSITY: a software package for sampling phylogenetic and environmental diversity. Reference and user's guide. v. 1.0 Canberra: CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology.
Faith, D.P. and Walker, P.A. (1996a) Integrating conservation and development: effective trade-offs between biodiversity and cost in the selection of protected areas. Biodiv. Conserv. 6, 431–46.
Faith, D.P. and Walker, P.A. (1996b) Integrating conservation and development: incorporating vulnerability into biodiversity-assessment of areas. Biodiv. Conserv. 6, 417–29.
Forey, P.L., Humphries, C.J., Kitching, I.J., Scotland, R.W., Siebert, D.J. and Williams, D.M. (1992) Cladistics: a Practical Course in Systematics. London: Systematics Association Publications.
Gauch, H.G. (1982) Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge University Press.
Handler, G.Y. and Rozman, M. (1985) The continuous m-center problem on a network. Networks 15, 191–204.
Kremen, C. (1992) Assessing the indicator properties of species assemblages for natural areas monitoring. Ecol. Applic. 2, 203–17.
Love, R.F., Morris, J.G. and Wesolowsky, G.O. (1988) Facilities Location: Models and Methods. New York: North-Holland.
Margules, C.R. (1986) Conservation evaluation in practice. In (M.B. Usher, ed.) Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. pp. 297–314. London: Chapman and Hall.
Margules, C.R., Nicholls, A.O. and Pressey, R.L. (1988) Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity. Biol. Conserv. 43, 63–76.
Margules, C.R., Cresswell, I.D. and Nicholls, A.O. (1994) A scientific basis for establishing networks of protected areas. In Systematics and Conservation Evaluation (P.L. Forey, C.J. Humphries and R.I. Vane-Wright, eds) pp. 327–350. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nicholls, A.O. and Margules, C.R. (1993) An upgraded reserve selection algorithm. Biol. Conserv. 64, 165–9.
Ortians, G.H. (1993) Endangered at what level? Ecol. Appl. 3, 206–8.
Pressey, R.L. (1994) Land classifications are necessary for conservation planning but what do they tell us about fauna? In Future of the Fauna of Western New South Wales (D. Lunney, S. Hand, P. Reed and D. Butcher, eds) Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman.
Pressey, R.L., Humphries, C.J., Margules, C.R., Vane-Wright, R.I. and Williams, P.H. (1993) Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8, 124–8.
Pressey, R.L., Bedward, M. and Keith, D.A. (1994) New procedures for reserve selection in New South Wales: maximising the chances of achieving a representative network. In Systematics and Conservation Evaluation (P.L. Forey, C.J. Humphries and R.I. Vane-Wright, eds) pp. 351–73. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pressey, R.L. and Logan, V.S. (1994) Level of geographical subdivision and its effects on assessments of reserve coverage: a review of regional studies. Conserv. Biol. 8, 1037–1046.
Richards, B.N., Bridges, R.G., Curtin, R.A., Nix, H.A., Sheperd, K.R. and Turner, J. (1990) Biological Conservation of the South-East Forests. Report of the Joint Scientific committee. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Sætersdal, M. and Birks, H.J.B. (1993) Assessing the representativeness of nature reserves using multivariate analysis: vascular plants and breeding birds in deciduous forests, western Norway. Biol. Conserv. 65, 121–32.
Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, B., Groves, C., Anderson, H., Caicco, S., D'Erchia, F., Edwards, T.C., Ulliman, J. and Wright, R.G. (1993) Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographys 123, 1–41.
Solow, A., Polasky, S., and Broadus, J. (1993) On the measurement of biological diversity. J. Envir. Econ. Manag. 24, 60–8.
Taggart, J.B. (1994) Ordination as an aid in determining priorities for plant community protection. Biol. Conserv. 68, 135–41.
Tansel, B.C., Francis, R.L. and Lowe, T.J. (1983) Location on networks: a survey. Part I: the p-center and p-median problems. Management Science 29, 482–97.
Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I.D. (1993) Environmental regionalisations of Australia: a user oriented approach. E.R.I.N.
Walker, P.A. and Faith, D.P. (1993) DIVERSITY: a software package for sampling phylogenetic and environmental diversity. v. 1.0. Canberra: CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Faith, D.P., Walker, P.A. Environmental diversity: on the best-possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas. Biodivers Conserv 5, 399–415 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056387
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056387