Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we present the results of a multi-criteria decision analysis used to identify a comprehensive set of criteria for assigning biodiversity value to sites for conservation planning. For effective conservation management, biodiversity value needs to be a composite of biotic and abiotic factors. However, in the reserve design literature, conservation value is assigned with a limited set of metrics usually based on comprehensiveness, representativeness and persistence which may be insufficient at fully capturing biodiversity value. A group of conservation specialists in California, USA, used a multi-criteria decision making framework to elucidate and weight criteria for scoring biodiversity value at sites. A formal model for consensus and negotiation was applied to aggregate individuals’ criteria weights across all group members. The group identified ecological condition, followed by biotic composition as the most important contributors to site conservation value. Long- and short-term threats causing fragmentation and degradation are also important criteria to consider. Key criteria are identified for which further data collection would serve the greatest purpose in prioritizing sites and the role of prioritization criteria in the larger context of systematic conservation planning is discussed. With the recognition that biodiversity value plays an important role in conservation decisions, the criteria presented here represents a comprehensive suite of factors to consider when assigning biodiversity value to sites for conservation planning. These can serve as an encompassing list which other groups can customize for the purpose of biodiversity evaluation for alternative conservation planning contexts.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andelman SJ, Willig MR (2003) Present patterns and future prospects for biodiversity in the Western Hemisphere. Ecol Lett 6(9):818–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin MP, Margules CR (1986) Assessing representativeness. In: Usher MB (ed) Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 45–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonn A, Gaston KJ (2005) Capturing biodiversity: selecting high priority areas for conservation using different criteria. Biodivers Conserv 14:1083–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caballero R, Galache T, Gomez T, Molina J, Torrico A (2004) Budgetary allocations and efficiency in the human resources policy of a university following multiple criteria. Econ Educ Rev 23(1):67–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16(5):242–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costello C, Polasky S (2004) Dynamic reserve site selection. Resour Energy Econ 26(2):157–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson AP, Rodriguez JP, Roberts WM, Wilcove DS (1997) Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science 275:550–553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) (2004) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol. 78. Springer, Berlin Germany

  • Fleishman E, Mcdonal N, Mac Nally R, Murphy DD, Walters J, Floyd T (2003) Effects of floristics, physiognomy and non-native vegetation on riparian bird communities in a Mojave Desert watershed. J Anim Ecol 72(3):484–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardi C, Tomaselli M, Parisi V, Petraglia A, Santini C (2002) Soil quality indicators and biodiversity in northern Italian permanent grasslands. Eur J Soil Biol 38(1):103–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith JA (2003) Regions of high fish diversity for conservation concern within the US Central Plains. J Freshwat Ecol 18(3):451–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves CR (2003) Drafting a conservation blueprint: a practitioner’s guide to planning for biodiversity. Island Press, Washington D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Haight RG, Snyder SA, Revelle CS (2005) Metropolitan open-space protection with uncertain site availability. Conserv Biol 19(2):327–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haimes YY (2000) MCDM and its worldwide role in risk-based decision making: opening remarks to the XIVth International Conference on MCDM. Res Pract Mult Crit Decis Mak: Lect Notes Econ Math Syst 487:IX–XI

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossack I, Robertson D, Tucker P, Hursthouse A, Fyfe C (2004) A GIS and web-based decision support tool for the management of urban soils. Cybern Syst 35(5–6):499–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasanen E, Wallenius H, Wallenius J, Zionts S (2000) A study of high-level managerial decision processes, with implications for MCDM research. Eur J Oper Res 120(3):496–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer K, Wagner C (1981) Rational consensus in science and society. Philosophical studies series in philosophy 24. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell MD, Possingham HP, Ball IR, Cousins EA (2002) Mathematical methods for spatially cohesive reserve design. Environ Model Assess 7(2):107–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham HP (2004) Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol Lett 7:615–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendel LC, Kirkpatrick JB (2002) Historical progress of biodiversity conservation in the protected area system of Tasmania, Australia. Conserv Biol 16:1520–1529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffett A, Sarkar S (2006) Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations. Divers Distrib 12(2):125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83(4):1131–1145

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyle PB, Randall RJ (1998) Evaluating the biotic integrity of watersheds in the Sierra Nevada, California. Conserv Biol 12(6):1318–1326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson MN, Peterson MJ, Peterson TR (2005) Conservation and the myth of consensus. Conserv Biol 19(3):762–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning – A review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 8(4):365–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Ferrier S, Hager TC, Woods CA, Tully SL, Weinman KM (1996) How well protected are the forests of north-eastern New South Wales – analyses of forest environments in relation to formal protection measures, land tenure and vulnerability to clearing. For Ecol Manage 85:311–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath SA, Arroyo BE, Leckie EM, Bacon P, Bayfield N, Gutierrez RJ, Thirgood SJ (2004) Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human-wildlife conflict: a Raptor-Grouse case study. Conserv Biol 18(2):350–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan HM, Colyvan M, Markovchick-Nicholls L (2006) A formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management. J Environ Manage 80:167–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • The Resources Agency (2001) First draft report on the methodology to identify state conservation priorities, April (2001) Available from http://www.legacy.ca.gov/pub_docs/CCRISP_Methodology.pdf (accessed May 2006)

  • Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, Brooks TM, Cowling RM, Fishpool LDC, da Fonseca GAB, Gaston KJ, Hoffmann M, Long JS, Marquet PA, Pilgrim JD, Pressey RL, Schipper J, Sechrest W, Stuart SN, Underhill LG, Waller RW, Watts MEJ, Yan X (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428(6983):640–643

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roman-Cuesta RM, Gracia M, Retana J (2003) Environmental and human factors influencing fire trends in enso and non-enso years in tropical Mexico. Ecol Appl 13(4):1177–1192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter NA, Setterfield SA, Douglas MM, Hutley LB (2003) Testing the grass-fire cycle: alien grass invasion in the tropical savannas of northern Australia. Divers Distrib 9(3):169–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, setting priorities, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill International Book Company, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Davis FW, McGhie G, Groves C (2001) Nature reserves: do they capture the full range of America’s biodiversity? Ecol Appl 11:999–1007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekercioglu CH (2002) Effects of forestry practices on vegetation structure and bird community of Kibale National Park, Uganda. Biol Conserv 107(2):229–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood KS, Wilcox B, Leidy R, Yarris K (1998) Indicators assessment for habitat conservation plan of Yolo County, California, USA. J Environ Manage 22:947–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein BA, Kutner LS, Adams JS (2000) Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenhouse RN (2004) Fragmentation and internal disturbance of native vegetation reserves in the Perth metropolitan area, Western Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 68(4):389–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Steuer RE, Na P (2003) Multiple criteria decision making combined with finance: a categorized bibliographic study. Eur J Oper Res 150(3):496–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoms DM (1994) Scale dependence of species richness maps. Prof Geogr 46(3):346–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoms DM (2000) GAP management status and regional indicators of threats to biodiversity. Landsc Ecol 15(1):21–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voogd H (1983) Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning. Pion, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie D, Shaw E, Rotberg F, Morelli G, Auzel P (2000) Roads, development, and conservation in the Congo basin. Conserv Biol 14(6):1614–1622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins S, Keith DA, Adam P (2003) Measuring success: evaluating the restoration of a grassy eucalypt woodland on the Cumberland Plain, Sydney, Australia. Restor Ecol 11(4):489–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1992) The diversity of life. Belknap, Cambridge Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Marc Beyeler (California Coastal Conservancy), Pete Dangermond (Dangermond Associates), Greg Greenwood (The Resources Agency of California), Diana Hickson (California Department of Fish and Game), and Mark Hoshovsky (California Department of Fish and Game) for participating in the workshops and offering their knowledge and experience on conservation management. We also wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. AW and MF were funded by an SDSU RSCA grant to HMR. Parts of this work were conducted at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, a Center funded by NSF (Grant #DEB-0072909), the University of California, and the Santa Barbara campus.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA, 92182-4614, USA

    Helen M. Regan, Astrid Widyanata & Mariah Freese

  2. Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-4060, USA

    Frank W. Davis

  3. Conservation International, 1919 M Street, NW Suite 600, Washington, DC, 20036, USA

    Sandy J. Andelman

  4. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara, 735 State St, Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA, 93101, USA

    Helen M. Regan & Sandy J. Andelman

Authors
  1. Helen M. Regan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank W. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandy J. Andelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Astrid Widyanata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mariah Freese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen M. Regan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Regan, H.M., Davis, F.W., Andelman, S.J. et al. Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning. Biodivers Conserv 16, 2715–2728 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9100-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9100-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation