z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches
Author(s) -
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,
JuffeBignoli 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.,
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.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
conservation letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.153
H-Index - 79
ISSN - 1755-263X
DOI - 10.1111/conl.12625
Subject(s) - biodiversity , environmental resource management , scope (computer science) , environmental planning , biodiversity conservation , context (archaeology) , identification (biology) , nature conservation , conservation science , business , computer science , geography , ecology , environmental science , biology , archaeology , programming language
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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here