Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › peer-review
Standard
Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches. / Smith, Robert J.; Bennun, Leon; Brooks, Thomas M.; Butchart, Stuart H.M.; Cuttelod, Annabelle; Di Marco, Moreno; Ferrier, Simon; Fishpool, Lincoln D.C.; Joppa, Lucas; Juffe-Bignoli, Diego; Knight, Andrew T.; Lamoreux, John F.; Langhammer, Penny; Possingham, Hugh P.; Rondinini, Carlo; Visconti, Piero; Watson, James E.M.; Woodley, Stephen; Boitani, Luigi; Burgess, Neil D.; De Silva, Naamal; Dudley, Nigel; Fivaz, Fabien; Game, Edward T.; Groves, Craig; Lötter, Mervyn; McGowan, Jennifer; Plumptre, Andrew J.; Rebelo, Anthony G.; Rodriguez, Jon Paul; Scaramuzza, Carlos A.de M.
In: Conservation Letters, Vol. 12, No. 1, e12625, 2019.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches
AU - Smith, Robert J.
AU - Bennun, Leon
AU - Brooks, Thomas M.
AU - Butchart, Stuart H.M.
AU - Cuttelod, Annabelle
AU - Di Marco, Moreno
AU - Ferrier, Simon
AU - Fishpool, Lincoln D.C.
AU - Joppa, Lucas
AU - Juffe-Bignoli, Diego
AU - Knight, Andrew T.
AU - Lamoreux, John F.
AU - Langhammer, Penny
AU - Possingham, Hugh P.
AU - Rondinini, Carlo
AU - Visconti, Piero
AU - Watson, James E.M.
AU - Woodley, Stephen
AU - Boitani, Luigi
AU - Burgess, Neil D.
AU - De Silva, Naamal
AU - Dudley, Nigel
AU - Fivaz, Fabien
AU - Game, Edward T.
AU - Groves, Craig
AU - Lötter, Mervyn
AU - McGowan, Jennifer
AU - Plumptre, Andrew J.
AU - Rebelo, Anthony G.
AU - Rodriguez, Jon Paul
AU - Scaramuzza, Carlos A.de M.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - Systematic conservation planning and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are the two most widely used approaches for identifying important sites for biodiversity. However, there is limited advice for conservation policy makers and practitioners on when and how they should be combined. Here we provide such guidance, using insights from the recently developed Global Standard for the Identification of KBAs and the language of decision science to review and clarify their similarities and differences. We argue the two approaches are broadly similar, with both setting transparent environmental objectives and specifying actions. There is however greater contrast in the data used and actions involved, as the KBA approach uses biodiversity data alone and identifies sites for monitoring and vigilance actions at a minimum, whereas systematic conservation planning combines biodiversity and implementation-relevant data to guide management actions. This difference means there is much scope for combining approaches, so conservation planners should use KBA data in their analyses, setting context-specific targets for each KBA type, and planners and donors should use systematic conservation planning techniques when prioritizing between KBAs for management action. In doing so, they will benefit conservation policy, practice and research by building on the collaborations formed through the KBA Standard's development.
AB - Systematic conservation planning and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are the two most widely used approaches for identifying important sites for biodiversity. However, there is limited advice for conservation policy makers and practitioners on when and how they should be combined. Here we provide such guidance, using insights from the recently developed Global Standard for the Identification of KBAs and the language of decision science to review and clarify their similarities and differences. We argue the two approaches are broadly similar, with both setting transparent environmental objectives and specifying actions. There is however greater contrast in the data used and actions involved, as the KBA approach uses biodiversity data alone and identifies sites for monitoring and vigilance actions at a minimum, whereas systematic conservation planning combines biodiversity and implementation-relevant data to guide management actions. This difference means there is much scope for combining approaches, so conservation planners should use KBA data in their analyses, setting context-specific targets for each KBA type, and planners and donors should use systematic conservation planning techniques when prioritizing between KBAs for management action. In doing so, they will benefit conservation policy, practice and research by building on the collaborations formed through the KBA Standard's development.
KW - decision science
KW - irreplaceability
KW - Key Biodiversity Areas
KW - spatial prioritization
KW - systematic conservation planning
KW - targets
U2 - 10.1111/conl.12625
DO - 10.1111/conl.12625
M3 - Review
AN - SCOPUS:85058523609
VL - 12
JO - Conservation Letters
JF - Conservation Letters
SN - 1755-263X
IS - 1
M1 - e12625
ER -
ID: 242418365