Incorporating climate change into spatial conservation prioritisation: a review

Jones, Kendall R., Watson, James E. M., Possingham, Hugh P. and Klein, Carissa J. (2016) Incorporating climate change into spatial conservation prioritisation: a review. Biological Conservation, 194 121-130. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.008

Author Jones, Kendall R.
Watson, James E. M.
Possingham, Hugh P.
Klein, Carissa J.
Title Incorporating climate change into spatial conservation prioritisation: a review
Journal name Biological Conservation   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0006-3207
Publication date 2016-02-01
Year available 2015
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.008
Open Access Status Not Open Access
Volume 194
Start page 121
End page 130
Total pages 10
Place of publication Amsterdam, Netherlands
Publisher Elsevier
Language eng
Subject 1105 Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
2309 Nature and Landscape Conservation
Abstract To ensure the long-term persistence of biodiversity, conservation strategies must account for the entire range of climate change impacts. A variety of spatial prioritisation techniques have been developed to incorporate climate change. Here, we provide the first standardised review of these approaches. Using a systematic search, we analysed peer-reviewed spatial prioritisation publications (n = 46) and found that the most common approaches (n = 41, 89%) utilised forecasts of species distributions and aimed to either protect future species habitats (n = 24, 52%) or identify climate refugia to shelter species from climate change (n = 17, 37%). Other approaches (n = 17, 37%) used well-established conservation planning principles to combat climate change, aimed at broadly increasing either connectivity (n = 11, 24%) or the degree of heterogeneity of abiotic factors captured in the planning process (n = 8, 17%), with some approaches combining multiple goals. We also find a strong terrestrial focus (n = 35, 76%), and heavy geographical bias towards North America (n = 8, 17%) and Australia (n = 11, 24%). While there is an increasing trend of incorporating climate change into spatial prioritisation, we found that serious gaps in current methodologies still exist. Future research must focus on developing methodologies that allow planners to incorporate human responses to climate change and recognise that discrete climate impacts (e.g. extreme events), which are increasing in frequency and severity, must be addressed within the spatial prioritisation framework. By identifying obvious gaps and highlighting future research needs this review will help practitioners better plan for conservation action in the face of multiple threats including climate change.
Keyword Spatial prioritisation
Climate change
Extreme events
Conservation planning
Indirect effects
Direct effects
Human response
Biodiversity conservation
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Grant ID DP140100733
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management Publications
Official 2016 Collection
School of Biological Sciences Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 20 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: Tue, 12 Jan 2016, 10:21:47 EST by System User on behalf of School of Geography, Planning & Env Management