The Experts below are selected from a list of 170232 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Hugh P Possingham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
progress in improving the Protection of Species and habitats in australia
Biological Conservation, 2016Co-Authors: Lissa M Barr, James E M Watson, Hugh P Possingham, Takuya Iwamura, Richard A FullerAbstract:Historically, protected areas were often designated using criteria other than biodiversity conservation as the primary objective. With the emergence of the science of systematic conservation planning, the designation of new protected areas is increasingly made with explicit conservation objectives in mind. However, assessments of the performance of protected area systems typically include all protected areas, regardless of when they were designated, potentially obscuring recent improvements in conservation planning decisions. Thus, it is often unclear to what extent systematic conservation planning principles have influenced the placement of new protected areas. Here, we compare recently designated protected areas in Australia with the protected area system that existed prior to the introduction of systematic conservation planning guidelines in 2000. We ask whether there is a difference between past and recent Protection in terms of (i) the size and spatial distribution of protected areas, (ii) the characteristics of broad regions in which Protection is concentrated, and (iii) the extent to which protected areas represent ecosystems and threatened Species in comparison with selecting protected areas at random. We find that the protected area system was historically biased toward areas with steep slopes and low human populations. In contrast, recent Protection is more likely to be allocated to regions with high human population and high numbers of threatened Species; we show that this effect is not simply a result of biases in the places now available for conservation. Despite this successful realignment of practice, we find that the increase in protected area coverage in poorly protected regions has occurred more slowly than expected if protected area selections were fully guided by systematic conservation planning principles. Our results demonstrate rapid progress in improving Australia's protected area system in the last decade, and highlight the importance of separating recent from historical additions to the protected area system when measuring the performance of conservation decision-making.
-
ecoregion based conservation planning in the mediterranean dealing with large scale heterogeneity
PLOS ONE, 2013Co-Authors: Sylvaine Giakoumi, Hugh P Possingham, Maria Sini, Vasilis Gerovasileiou, Tessa Mazor, Jutta Beher, Ameer Abdulla, Melih Ertan Cinar, Panagiotis DendrinosAbstract:Spatial priorities for the conservation of three key Mediterranean habitats, i.e. seagrass Posidonia oceanica meadows, coralligenous formations, and marine caves, were determined through a systematic planning approach. Available information on the distribution of these habitats across the entire Mediterranean Sea was compiled to produce basin-scale distribution maps. Conservation targets for each habitat type were set according to European Union guidelines. Surrogates were used to estimate the spatial variation of opportunity cost for commercial, non-commercial fishing, and aquaculture. Marxan conservation planning software was used to evaluate the comparative utility of two planning scenarios: (a) a whole-basin scenario, referring to selection of priority areas across the whole Mediterranean Sea, and (b) an ecoregional scenario, in which priority areas were selected within eight predefined ecoregions. Although both scenarios required approximately the same total area to be protected in order to achieve conservation targets, the opportunity cost differed between them. The whole-basin scenario yielded a lower opportunity cost, but the Alboran Sea ecoregion was not represented and priority areas were predominantly located in the Ionian, Aegean, and Adriatic Seas. In comparison, the ecoregional scenario resulted in a higher representation of ecoregions and a more even distribution of priority areas, albeit with a higher opportunity cost. We suggest that planning at the ecoregional level ensures better representativeness of the selected conservation features and adequate Protection of Species, functional, and genetic diversity across the basin. While there are several initiatives that identify priority areas in the Mediterranean Sea, our approach is novel as it combines three issues: (a) it is based on the distribution of habitats and not Species, which was rarely the case in previous efforts, (b) it considers spatial variability of cost throughout this socioeconomically heterogeneous basin, and (c) it adopts ecoregions as the most appropriate level for large-scale planning.
L Allison - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
improving the Protection of Species endangered in the united states by revising the distinct population segment policy
Social Science Research Network, 2010Co-Authors: Westfahl Kong, L AllisonAbstract:While one primary goal of the Endangered Species Act is to prevent the global extinction of Species, it is less clear whether the Act is intended, and can be used, to protect Species that are endangered solely within the United States. Although the global preservation of Species may be sufficient to achieve many of the goals of the Endangered Species Act, some goals may only be completely served by ensuring that certain populations of Species occur within the United States, even if the animals are abundant elsewhere. The current Distinct Population Segment Policy being used by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether to list domestic populations of Species as threatened or endangered only allows the agencies to protect these population segments if they are significant to the Species’ taxon as a whole. This Note argues that this policy should be changed because there are many compelling reasons to protect domestic populations of particular Species, even if these Species are abundant elsewhere, and suggests criteria that should be used to determine whether a particular population segment should be protected, including the Species’ conservation status and importance to the American people. It also demonstrates that this proposal would be consistent with the goals of the Endangered Species Act.
Mark H Carr - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation
Ecological Applications, 1998Co-Authors: Gary W Allison, Jane Lubchenco, Mark H CarrAbstract:The intensity of human pressure on marine systems has led to a push for stronger marine conservation efforts. Recently, marine reserves have become one highly advocated form of marine conservation, and the number of newly designated reserves has increased dramatically. Reserves will be essential for conservation efforts because they can provide unique Protection for critical areas, they can provide a spatial escape for intensely exploited Species, and they can potentially act as buffers against some management miscalculations and unforeseen or unusual conditions. Reserve design and effectiveness can be dramatically improved by better use of existing scientific understanding. Reserves are insufficient Protection alone, however, because they are not isolated from all critical impacts. Communities residing within marine reserves are strongly influenced by the highly variable conditions of the water masses that continuously flow through them. To a much greater degree than in terrestrial systems, the scales of fundamental processes, such as population replenishment, are often much larger than reserves can encompass. Further, they offer no Protection from some important threats, such as contamination by chemicals. Therefore, without adequate Protection of Species and ecosystems outside reserves, effectiveness of reserves will be severely compromised. We outline conditions under which reserves are likely to be effective, provide some guidelines for increasing their conservation potential, and suggest some research priorities to fill critical information gaps. We strongly support vastly increasing the number and size of marine reserves; at the same time, strong conservation efforts outside reserves must complement this effort. To date, most reserve design and site selection have involved little scientific justification. They must begin to do so to increase the likelihood of attaining conservation objectives.
Howe Caroline - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Evidence shortfalls in the recommendations and guidance underpinning ecological mitigation for infrastructure developments
British Ecological Society, 2021Co-Authors: Hunter Sara, Zu Ermgassen, Sophus O.s.e., Downey Harriet, Griffiths, Richard A., Howe CarolineAbstract:1. In the UK and European Union, legal Protection of Species from the impacts of infrastructure development depends upon a number of ecological mitigation and compensation (EMC) measures to moderate the conflict between development and conservation. However, the scientific evidence supporting their effectiveness has not yet been comprehensively assessed. 2. This study compiled the measures used in practice, identified and explored the guidance that informed them and, using the Conservation Evidence database, evaluated the empirical evidence for their effectiveness. 3. In a sample of 50 UK housing applications, we identified the recommendation of 446 measures in total, comprising 65 different mitigation measures relating to eight taxa. Although most (56%) measures were justified by citing published guidance, exploration of the literature underpinning this guidance revealed that empirical evaluations of EMC measure effectiveness accounted for less than 10% of referenced texts. Citation network analysis also identified circular referencing across bat, amphibian and reptile EMC guidance. Comparison with Conservation Evidence synopses showed that over half of measures recommended in ecological reports had not been empirically evaluated, with only 13 measures assessed as beneficial. 4. As such, most EMC measures recommended in practice are not evidence-based. The limited reference to empirical evidence in published guidance, as well as the circular referencing, suggests potential ‘evidence complacency’, in which evidence is not sought to inform recommendations. In addition, limited evidence availability indicates a thematic gap between conservation research and mitigation practice. More broadly, absence of evidence on the effectiveness of EMC measures calls into question the ability of current practice to compensate for the impact of development on protected Species, thus highlighting the need to strengthen requirements for impact avoidance. Given the recent political drive to invest in infrastructure expansion, high-quality, context-specific evidence is urgently needed to inform decision-making in infrastructure development
-
Evidence shortfalls in the recommendations and guidance underpinning ecological mitigation for infrastructure developments
'Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)', 2021Co-Authors: Hunter, Sara B., Downey Harriet, Griffiths, Richard A., Zu Ermgassen, Sophus O. S. E, Howe CarolineAbstract:Abstract: In the United Kingdom and European Union, legal Protection of Species from the impacts of infrastructure development depends upon a number of ecological mitigation and compensation (EMC) measures to moderate the conflict between development and conservation. However, the scientific evidence supporting their effectiveness has not yet been comprehensively assessed. This study compiled the measures used in practice, identified and explored the guidance that informed them and, using the Conservation Evidence database, evaluated the empirical evidence for their effectiveness. In a sample of 50 U.K. housing applications, we identified the recommendation of 446 measures in total, comprising 65 different mitigation measures relating to eight taxa. Although most (56%) measures were justified by citing published guidance, exploration of the literature underpinning this guidance revealed that empirical evaluations of EMC measure effectiveness accounted for less than 10% of referenced texts. Citation network analysis also identified circular referencing across bat, amphibian and reptile EMC guidance. Comparison with Conservation Evidence synopses showed that over half of measures recommended in ecological reports had not been empirically evaluated, with only 13 measures assessed as beneficial. As such, most EMC measures recommended in practice are not evidence based. The limited reference to empirical evidence in published guidance, as well as the circular referencing, suggests potential ‘evidence complacency’, in which evidence is not sought to inform recommendations. In addition, limited evidence availability indicates a thematic gap between conservation research and mitigation practice. More broadly, absence of evidence on the effectiveness of EMC measures calls into question the ability of current practice to compensate for the impact of development on protected Species, thus highlighting the need to strengthen requirements for impact avoidance. Given the recent political drive to invest in infrastructure expansion, high‐quality, context‐specific evidence is urgently needed to inform decision‐making in infrastructure development
Richard Frankham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
correlations among extinction risks assessed by different systems of threatened Species categorization
Conservation Biology, 2004Co-Authors: Julian J Ogrady, Mark A Burgman, David A Keith, Lawrence L Master, Sandy J Andelman, Barry W Brook, Geoffrey Hammerson, Tracey J Regan, Richard FrankhamAbstract:Many different systems are used to assess levels of threat faced by Species. Prominent ones are those used by the World Conservation Union, NatureServe, and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (now the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). These systems assign taxa a threat ranking by assessing their demographic and ecological characteristics. These threat rankings support the legislative Protection of Species and guide the placement of conservation programs in order of priority. It is not known, however, whether these assessment systems rank Species in a similar order. To resolve this issue, we assessed 55 mainly vertebrate taxa with widely differing life histories under each of these systems and determined the rank correlations among them. Moderate, significant positive correlations were seen among the threat rankings provided by the three systems (correlations 0.58-0.69). Further, the threat rankings for taxa obtained using these systems were significantly correlated to their rankings based on predicted probability of extinction within 100 years as determined by population viability analysis (correlations 0.28-0.37). The different categorization systems, then, yield related but not identical threat rankings, and these rankings are associated with predicted extinction risk.
