Scale and conservation planning in the real world

被引:51
作者
Erasmus, BFN
Freitag, S
Gaston, KJ
Erasmus, BH
van Jaarsveld, AS [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pretoria, Dept Zool & Entomol, ZA-0002 Pretoria, South Africa
[2] Sci Serv, ZA-1350 Skukuza, South Africa
[3] Univ Sheffield, Dept Anim & Plant Sci, Sheffield S10 2TN, S Yorkshire, England
[4] No Cape Nat Conservat Serv, ZA-8300 Kimberley, South Africa
关键词
conservation networks; scale; spatial overlap; land use efficiency;
D O I
10.1098/rspb.1999.0640
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Conservation planning is carried out on a variety of geopolitical and biogeographical scales. Whereas considerable consensus is emerging about the most appropriate procedures for identifying conservation areas, the spatial implications of conducting conservation planning at divergent scales have received little attention. Here we explore the consequences of planning at different geopolitical scales, using a database of the mammalian fauna from the Northern Provinces of South Africa. The conservation network resulting from treating the region as one unit is compared with networks generated separately for the provinces nested in that region. These outcomes are evaluated in ter ms of (i) their land use efficiencies, (ii) their spatial overlap, and (iii) the impact of algorithm attributes. Although land use efficiencies are greater on broader scales, on average the spatial congruence between the broad-scale regional network and fine-scale provincial networks was <14%. Algorithms using different selection rules fail to improve this disturbing outcome. Consequently, scale has an overwhelming influence on areas identified as conservation networks in geopolitical units. This should be recognized in conservation planning.
引用
收藏
页码:315 / 319
页数:5
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1995, OUR GLOB NEIGHB
  • [2] REVISING THE BRITISH RED DATA LIST FOR BIRDS - THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF UK CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
    AVERY, M
    GIBBONS, DW
    PORTER, R
    TEW, T
    TUCKER, G
    WILLIAMS, G
    [J]. IBIS, 1995, 137 : S232 - S239
  • [3] A note on optimal algorithms for reserve site selection
    Camm, JD
    Polasky, S
    Solow, A
    Csuti, B
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1996, 78 (03) : 353 - 355
  • [4] Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem
    Church, RL
    Stoms, DM
    Davis, FW
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1996, 76 (02) : 105 - 112
  • [5] A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon
    Csuti, B
    Polasky, S
    Williams, PH
    Pressey, RL
    Camm, JD
    Kershaw, M
    Kiester, AR
    Downs, B
    Hamilton, R
    Huso, M
    Sahr, K
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1997, 80 (01) : 83 - 97
  • [6] Integrating conservation and development: Incorporating vulnerability into biodiversity-assessment of areas
    Faith, DP
    Walker, PA
    [J]. BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 1996, 5 (04) : 417 - 429
  • [7] Freitag S, 1998, S AFR J SCI, V94, P79
  • [8] Ranking priority biodiversity areas: An iterative conservation value-based approach
    Freitag, S
    vanJaarsveld, AS
    Biggs, HC
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1997, 82 (03) : 263 - 272
  • [9] Relative occupancy, endemism, taxonomic distinctiveness and vulnerability: Prioritizing regional conservation actions
    Freitag, S
    VanJaarsveld, AS
    [J]. BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 1997, 6 (02) : 211 - 232
  • [10] Sensitivity of selection procedures for priority conservation areas to survey extent, survey intensity and taxonomic knowledge
    Freitag, S
    Van Jaarsveld, AS
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 1998, 265 (1405) : 1475 - 1482