Abstract
Annual Review of Environment and Resources
Vol. 31:
123-159
(Volume publication date November 2006)
(doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042606.085844)
Biodiversity Conservation Planning Tools: Present Status and Challenges for the Future Sahotra Sarkar,1 Robert L. Pressey,2 Daniel P. Faith,3 Christopher R. Margules,4 Trevon Fuller,1 David M. Stoms,5 Alexander Moffett,1 Kerrie A. Wilson,2 Kristen J. Williams,4 Paul H. Williams,6 and Sandy Andelman71Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712; email: sarkar@mail.utexas.edu, tfuller@mail.utexas.edu, amoffett@mail.utexas.edu 2The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia; email: r.pressey@uq.edu.au, k.wilson2@uq.edu.au 3The Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales 2010, Australia; email: danfaith9@yahoo.com.au 4Sustainable Ecosystems Division, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, St. Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia; email: chris.margules@csiro.au, kristen.williams@csiro.au 5Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106; email: stoms@bren.ucsb.edu 6Biogeography and Conservation Laboratory, Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom; email: paw@nhm.ac.uk 7Conservation International, Washington, District of Columbia 20036; email: s.andelman@conservation.org ▪ Abstract Species extinctions and the deterioration of other biodiversity features worldwide have led to the adoption of systematic conservation planning in many regions of the world. As a consequence, various software tools for conservation planning have been developed over the past twenty years. These tools implement algorithms designed to identify conservation area networks for the representation and persistence of biodiversity features. Budgetary, ethical, and other sociopolitical constraints dictate that the prioritized sites represent biodiversity with minimum impact on human interests. Planning tools are typically also used to satisfy these criteria. This chapter reviews both the concepts and technical choices that underlie the development of these tools. Conservation planning problems can be formulated as optimization problems, and we evaluate the suitability of different algorithms for their solution. Finally, we also review some key issues associated with the use of these tools, such as computational efficiency, the effectiveness of taxa and abiotic parameters at choosing surrogates for biodiversity, the process of setting explicit targets of representation for biodiversity surrogates, and dealing with multiple criteria. The review concludes by identifying areas for future research, including the scheduling of conservation action over extensive time periods and incorporating data about site vulnerability.
|
|
|
Users who read this review also read:
| Donald R. Nelson, W. Neil Adger, Katrina Brown Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Volume 32, Page 395-419, Nov 2007 Abstract
| Full Text
| PDF (329 KB)
|
Add to Favorites
| Related | |
| Enric Sala, Nancy Knowlton Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Volume 31, Page 93-122, Nov 2006 Abstract
| Full Text
| PDF (179 KB)
|
Add to Favorites
| Related | |
| Kate A. Brauman, Gretchen C. Daily, T. Ka’eo Duarte, Harold A. Mooney Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Volume 32, Page 67-98, Nov 2007 Abstract
| Full Text
| PDF (442 KB)
|
Add to Favorites
| Related | |
| Ambuj D. Sagar, Sivan Kartha Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Volume 32, Page 131-167, Nov 2007 Abstract
| Full Text
| PDF (425 KB)
|
Add to Favorites
| Related | |
|
|