The influence of planning unit characteristics on the efficiency and spatial pattern of systematic conservation planning assessments

被引:0
作者
Bruno A. Nhancale
Robert J. Smith
机构
[1] University of Kent,Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology
来源
Biodiversity and Conservation | 2011年 / 20卷
关键词
Systematic conservation planning; Marxan; Reserve selection; Planning units;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Systematic conservation planning is a widely used approach for designing protected area systems and ecological networks. This generally involves dividing the planning region into a series of planning units and using computer software to select portfolios of these units that meet specified conservation targets whilst minimising conservation costs. Previous research has shown that changing the size and shape of these planning units can alter the apparent spatial characteristics of the underlying data and thus influence conservation assessment results. However, this may be less problematic when using newer software that can account for additional constraints based on portfolio costs and fragmentation levels. Here we investigate these issues using a dataset from southern Africa and measure the extent to which changing planning unit shape, size and baseline affects the results of conservation planning assessments. We show that using hexagonal planning units instead of squares produces more efficient and less fragmented portfolios and that using larger planning units produces portfolios that are less efficient but more likely to identify the same priority areas. We also show that using real-world constraints in the analysis, based on reducing socio-economic costs and minimising fragmentation levels, reduces the influence of planning unit characteristics on the results and so argue that future studies should adopt a similar approach when investigating factors that influence conservation assessments.
引用
收藏
页码:1821 / 1835
页数:14
相关论文
共 248 条
[1]  
Adams VM(2010)Opportunity costs: who really pays for conservation? Biol Conserv 143 439-448
[2]  
Pressey RL(1998)Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation Science 279 2126-1980
[3]  
Naidoo R(2002)Dynamics of extinction and the selection of nature reserves Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269 1971-2619
[4]  
Ando A(2001)Conservation conflicts across Africa Science 291 2616-1050
[5]  
Camm J(2003)Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100 1046-151
[6]  
Polasky S(2003)Effect of different sampling schemes on the spatial placement of conservation reserves in Utah, USA Biol Conserv 113 141-644
[7]  
Solow A(2006)Diagonal and orthogonal neighbours in grid-based simulations: Buffon’s stick after 200 years Ecol Model 192 637-359
[8]  
Araújo MB(2007)Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology Ecol Model 206 347-6501
[9]  
Williams PH(2008)Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105 6498-258
[10]  
Fuller RJ(2007)Conservation planning with irreplaceability: does the method matter? Biodivers Conserv 16 245-1537