Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewpeer-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 journalReviewpeer-review

Harvard

Smith, RJ, Bennun, L, Brooks, TM, Butchart, SHM, Cuttelod, A, Di Marco, M, Ferrier, S, Fishpool, LDC, Joppa, L, Juffe-Bignoli, D, Knight, AT, Lamoreux, JF, Langhammer, P, Possingham, HP, Rondinini, C, Visconti, P, Watson, JEM, Woodley, S, Boitani, L, Burgess, ND, De Silva, N, Dudley, N, Fivaz, F, Game, ET, Groves, C, Lötter, M, McGowan, J, Plumptre, AJ, Rebelo, AG, Rodriguez, JP & Scaramuzza, CADM 2019, 'Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches', Conservation Letters, vol. 12, no. 1, e12625. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12625

APA

Smith, R. J., Bennun, L., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Cuttelod, A., Di Marco, M., Ferrier, S., Fishpool, L. D. C., Joppa, L., Juffe-Bignoli, D., Knight, A. T., Lamoreux, J. F., Langhammer, P., Possingham, H. P., Rondinini, C., Visconti, P., Watson, J. E. M., Woodley, S., Boitani, L., ... Scaramuzza, C. A. D. M. (2019). Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches. Conservation Letters, 12(1), [e12625]. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12625

Vancouver

Smith RJ, Bennun L, Brooks TM, Butchart SHM, Cuttelod A, Di Marco M et al. Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches. Conservation Letters. 2019;12(1). e12625. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12625

Author

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. / Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches. In: Conservation Letters. 2019 ; Vol. 12, No. 1.

Bibtex

@article{4e43b737cfa44fb4a80ee0b69c97ecdd,
title = "Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "decision science, irreplaceability, Key Biodiversity Areas, spatial prioritization, systematic conservation planning, targets",
author = "Smith, {Robert J.} and Leon Bennun and Brooks, {Thomas M.} and Butchart, {Stuart H.M.} and Annabelle Cuttelod and {Di Marco}, Moreno and Simon Ferrier and Fishpool, {Lincoln D.C.} and Lucas Joppa and Diego Juffe-Bignoli and Knight, {Andrew T.} and Lamoreux, {John F.} and Penny Langhammer and Possingham, {Hugh P.} and Carlo Rondinini and Piero Visconti and Watson, {James E.M.} and Stephen Woodley and Luigi Boitani and Burgess, {Neil D.} and {De Silva}, Naamal and Nigel Dudley and Fabien Fivaz and Game, {Edward T.} and Craig Groves and Mervyn L{\"o}tter and Jennifer McGowan and Plumptre, {Andrew J.} and Rebelo, {Anthony G.} and Rodriguez, {Jon Paul} and Scaramuzza, {Carlos A.de M.}",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1111/conl.12625",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
journal = "Conservation Letters",
issn = "1755-263X",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "1",

}

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