Open AccessWilderness and future conservation priorities in Australia
Author(s) -
Watson James E.M.,
Fuller Richard A.,
Watson Alexander W. T.,
Mackey Brendan G.,
Wilson Kerrie A.,
Grantham Hedley S.,
Turner Matthew,
Klein Carissa J.,
Carwardine Josie,
Joseph Lia.,
Possingham Hugh P.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
diversity and distributions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.918
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1472-4642
pISSN - 1366-9516
DOI - 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00601.x
Subject(s) - wilderness , threatened species , wilderness area , biodiversity , geography , prioritization , environmental resource management , nature reserve , ecology , environmental planning , iucn protected area categories , habitat , protected area , conservation biology , endemism , endangered species , environmental protection , environmental science , business , biology , process management , archaeology
Aim Most approaches to conservation prioritization are focused on biodiversity features that are already threatened. While this is necessary in the face of accelerating anthropogenic threats, there have been calls to conserve large intact landscapes, often termed ‘wilderness’, to ensure the long‐term persistence of biodiversity. In this study, we examine the consequences of directing conservation expenditure using a threat‐based framework for wilderness conservation. Location The Australian continent. Methods We measured the degree of congruence between the extent of wilderness and the Australian protected area network in 2000 and 2006, which was established using a threat‐based systematic planning framework. We also assessed priority areas for future reserve acquisitions identified by the Australian government under the current framework. Results In 2000, 14% of Australia’s wilderness was under formal protection, while the protected area network covered only 8.5% of the continent, suggesting a historical bias towards wilderness protection. However, the expansion of the reserve system from 2000 to 2006 was biased towards non‐wilderness areas. Moreover, 90% of the wilderness that was protected over this period comprised areas not primarily designated for biodiversity conservation. We found a significant ( P < 0.05) negative relationship between bioregions considered to be a priority for future reserve prioritization and the amount of wilderness they contain. Main conclusions While there is an urgent need to overcome past biases in reserve network design so as to better protect poorly represented species and habitats, prioritization approaches should not become so reactive as to ignore the role that large, intact landscapes play in conserving biodiversity, especially in a time of human‐induced climate change. This can be achieved by using current or future threats rather than past threats to prioritize areas, and by incorporating key ecological processes and costs of acquisition and management within the planning framework.