Literature DB >> 16909567

Designing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: best practice from South Africa.

Andrew T Knight1, Amanda Driver, Richard M Cowling, Kristal Maze, Philip G Desmet, Amanda T Lombard, Mathieu Rouget, Mark A Botha, Andre F Boshoff, J Guy Castley, Peter S Goodman, Kathy Mackinnon, Shirley M Pierce, Rebecca Sims-Castley, Warrick I Stewart, Amrei von Hase.   

Abstract

Systematic conservation assessment and conservation planning are two distinct fields of conservation science often confused as one and the same. Systematic conservation assessment is the technical, often computer-based, identification of priority areas for conservation. Conservation planning is composed of a systematic conservation assessment coupled with processes for development of an implementation strategy and stakeholder collaboration. The peer-reviewed conservation biology literature abounds with studies analyzing the performance of assessments (e.g., area-selection techniques). This information alone, however can never deliver effective conservation action; it informs conservation planning. Examples of how to translate systematic assessment outputs into knowledge and then use them for "doing" conservation are rare. South Africa has received generous international and domestic funding for regional conservation planning since the mid-1990s. We reviewed eight South African conservation planning processes and identified key ingredients of best practice for undertaking systematic conservation assessments in a way that facilitates implementing conservation action. These key ingredients include the design of conservation planning processes, skills for conservation assessment teams, collaboration with stakeholders, and interpretation and mainstreaming of products (e.g., maps) for stakeholders. Social learning institutions are critical to the successful operationalization of assessments within broader conservation planning processes and should include not only conservation planners but also diverse interest groups, including rural landowners, politicians, and government employees.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16909567     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00452.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  12 in total

1.  Interactions between human behaviour and ecological systems.

Authors:  E J Milner-Gulland
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Mapping grazing-induced degradation in a semi-arid environment: a rapid and cost effective approach for assessment and monitoring.

Authors:  Mark Thompson; Jan Vlok; Mathieu Rouget; M T Hoffman; Andrew Balmford; R M Cowling
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2008-11-22       Impact factor: 3.266

Review 3.  An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation.

Authors:  Richard M Cowling; Benis Egoh; Andrew T Knight; Patrick J O'Farrell; Belinda Reyers; Mathieu Rouget; Dirk J Roux; Adam Welz; Angelika Wilhelm-Rechman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-07-09       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  The value of validated vulnerability data for conservation planning in rapidly changing landscapes.

Authors:  Emily Sherra Weeks; Susan Walker; Jake McC Overton; Bruce Clarkson
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 3.266

5.  Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development.

Authors:  William C Clark; Lorrae van Kerkhoff; Louis Lebel; Gilberto C Gallopin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 6.  Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning.

Authors:  Aija S Kukkala; Atte Moilanen
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2012-12-22

7.  Is rich and rare the common share? Describing biodiversity patterns to inform conservation practices for South American anurans.

Authors:  Fabricio Villalobos; Ricardo Dobrovolski; Diogo B Provete; Sidney F Gouveia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Comparison of marine spatial planning methods in Madagascar demonstrates value of alternative approaches.

Authors:  Thomas F Allnutt; Timothy R McClanahan; Serge Andréfouët; Merrill Baker; Erwann Lagabrielle; Caleb McClennen; Andry J M Rakotomanjaka; Tantely F Tianarisoa; Reg Watson; Claire Kremen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-02-16       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Quantifying high resolution transitional breaks in plant and mammal distributions at regional extent and their association with climate, topography and geology.

Authors:  Giovanni Di Virgilio; Shawn W Laffan; Malte C Ebach
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Managers, modelers, and measuring the impact of species distribution model uncertainty on marine zoning decisions.

Authors:  Bryan Costa; Matthew Kendall; Steven McKagan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.