当前位置: X-MOL 学术Conserv. Lett. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches
Conservation Letters ( IF 7.7 ) Pub Date : 2018-12-17 , DOI: 10.1111/conl.12625
Robert J Smith 1 , Leon Bennun 2, 3 , Thomas M Brooks 4 , Stuart HM Butchart 3, 5 , Annabelle Cuttelod 6 , Moreno Di Marco 7, 8 , Simon Ferrier 9 , Lincoln DC Fishpool 5 , Lucas Joppa 10 , Diego Juffe‐Bignoli 11 , Andrew T Knight 12, 13, 14, 15 , John F Lamoreux 16 , Penny Langhammer 17, 18, 19 , Hugh P Possingham 8, 20 , Carlo Rondinini 21 , Piero Visconti 22, 23 , James EM Watson 8, 24, 25 , Stephen Woodley 26 , Luigi Boitani 21 , Neil D Burgess 11 , Naamal Silva 27 , Nigel Dudley 25, 28 , Fabien Fivaz 29 , Edward T Game 8, 30 , Craig Groves 31 , Mervyn Lötter 32 , Jennifer McGowan 8, 20 , Andrew J Plumptre 33 , Anthony G Rebelo 34 , Jon Paul Rodriguez 35 , Carlos A de M Scaramuzza 36
Affiliation  

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.

中文翻译:

关键生物多样性领域与系统保护规划方法之间的协同作用

系统的保护规划和关键生物多样性区(KBA)是识别生物多样性重要地点的两种使用最广泛的方法。但是,对于保护政策的制定者和从业人员,何时以及如何将它们结合起来的建议很少。在这里,我们使用最新开发的KBA识别全球标准和决策科学语言的洞察力来审查和阐明它们的异同,从而提供此类指导。我们认为这两种方法大致相同,都设定了透明的环境目标并指定了行动。但是,所使用的数据和所涉及的行动之间存在更大的反差,因为高宝(KBA)方法仅使用生物多样性数据,并至少确定了监测和警惕行动的场所,而系统的保护规划则将生物多样性和与实施相关的数据结合起来,以指导管理行动。这种差异意味着组合方法有很大的余地,因此保护规划人员应在分析中使用KBA数据,为每种KBA类型设置特定于上下文的目标,而规划人员和捐赠者在为管理行动确定KBA之间的优先级时应使用系统的保护规划技术。这样一来,他们将通过KBA标准制定过程中形成的协作,从保护政策,实践和研究中受益。为每种KBA类型设置特定于上下文的目标,规划者和捐赠者在为管理行动确定KBA之间的优先次序时,应使用系统的保护性规划技术。这样一来,他们将通过KBA标准制定过程中形成的协作,从保护政策,实践和研究中受益。为每种KBA类型设置特定于上下文的目标,规划者和捐赠者在为管理行动确定KBA之间的优先次序时,应使用系统的保护性规划技术。这样一来,他们将通过KBA标准制定过程中形成的协作,从保护政策,实践和研究中受益。
更新日期:2018-12-17
down
wechat
bug