Spatial conservation prioritization inclusive of wilderness quality: A case study of Australia's biodiversity

Klein, C. J., Wilson, Kerrie A., Watts, M., Stein, Janet, Carwardine, J., Mackey, Brendan and Possingham, H.P. (2009) Spatial conservation prioritization inclusive of wilderness quality: A case study of Australia's biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 142 7: 1282-1290. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.035


Author Klein, C. J.
Wilson, Kerrie A.
Watts, M.
Stein, Janet
Carwardine, J.
Mackey, Brendan
Possingham, H.P.
Title Spatial conservation prioritization inclusive of wilderness quality: A case study of Australia's biodiversity
Journal name Biological Conservation   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0006-3207
Publication date 2009-07
Year available 2009
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.035
Volume 142
Issue 7
Start page 1282
End page 1290
Total pages 9
Editor Primack, R.B.
Place of publication Essex, England
Publisher Elsevier Publishing Co
Collection year 2010
Language eng
Subject C1
960805 Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity at Regional or Larger Scales
050202 Conservation and Biodiversity
Abstract There is considerable discussion about the relative importance of conserving high quality wilderness areas (i.e. large and intact landscapes) versus conserving areas with high biodiversity values. Places that are needed to achieve one aspect of biodiversity conservation are not necessarily optimal for another which can lead to conflict in assigning conservation priorities. However, both are important for biodiversity conservation, and carry social, economic, and ecological values. Investment in both (a) representation of elements of biodiversity (e.g. species, habitats) and (b) wilderness conservation is not only complementary but important for the long-term persistence of biodiversity. We develop two approaches to identify areas important for the conservation of biodiversity in terms of both wilderness quality and biodiversity representation, using Australia as a case study. We defined intact areas as sub-catchments with at least 70% or more vegetation that has not been subjected to extensive habitat loss and fragmentation as the result of land clearing. The first approach aims to achieve biodiversity representation goals in areas with intact native vegetation. The results of this approach would be extremely expensive to implement as they require a large portion of land. The second approach aims to achieve biodiversity representation goals anywhere across the landscape while placing a strong emphasis on identifying spatially compact intact areas. The results of this approach show the trade-offs between the economic costs of conservation and the size of conservation areas containing intact native vegetation. This manuscript provides a novel framework for identifying cost-effective biodiversity conservation priorities inclusive of wilderness quality.
Keyword Adequacy
Cape Floristic Region
Marxan
Protected area
Watershed
Trade-off
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code

 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 19 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 21 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 03 Sep 2009, 07:57:43 EST by Mr Andrew Martlew on behalf of School of Biological Sciences