Designing Systematic Conservation Assessments that Promote Effective Implementation: Best Practice from South Africa

Abstract:  Systematic conservation assessment and conservation planning are two distinct fields of conservation science often confused as one and the same. Systematic conservation assessment is the technical, often computer-based, identification of priority areas for conservation. Conservation planning is composed of a systematic conservation assessment coupled with processes for development of an implementation strategy and stakeholder collaboration. The peer-reviewed conservation biology literature abounds with studies analyzing the performance of assessments (e.g., area-selection techniques). This information alone, however, can never deliver effective conservation action; it informs conservation planning. Examples of how to translate systematic assessment outputs into knowledge and then use them for "doing" conservation are rare. South Africa has received generous international and domestic funding for regional conservation planning since the mid-1990s. We reviewed eight South African conservation planning processes and identified key ingredients of best practice for undertaking systematic conservation assessments in a way that facilitates implementing conservation action. These key ingredients include the design of conservation planning processes, skills for conservation assessment teams, collaboration with stakeholders, and interpretation and mainstreaming of products (e.g., maps) for stakeholders. Social learning institutions are critical to the successful operationalization of assessments within broader conservation planning processes and should include not only conservation planners but also diverse interest groups, including rural landowners, politicians, and government employees.     

Knowing But Not Doing: Selecting Priority Conservation Areas and the Research–Implementation Gap

Abstract: Conservation assessment is a rapidly evolving discipline whose stated goal is the design of networks of protected areas that represent and ensure the persistence of nature (i.e., species, habitats, and environmental processes) by separating priority areas from the activities that degrade or destroy them. Nevertheless, despite a burgeoning scientific literature that ever refines these techniques for allocating conservation resources, it is widely believed that conservation assessments are rarely translated into actions that actually conserve nature. We reviewed the conservation assessment literature in peer‐reviewed journals and conducted survey questionnaires of the authors of these studies. Two‐thirds of conservation assessments published in the peer‐reviewed scientific literature do not deliver conservation action, primarily because most researchers never plan for implementation. This research–implementation gap between conservation science and real‐world action is a genuine phenomenon and is a specific example of the “knowing–doing gap” that is widely recognized in management science. Given the woefully inadequate resources allocated for conservation, our findings raise questions over the utility of conservation assessment science, as currently practiced, to provide useful, pragmatic solutions to conservation planning problems. A reevaluation of the conceptual and operational basis of conservation planning research is urgently required. We recommend the following actions for beginning a process for bridging the research–implementation gap in conservation planning: (1) acknowledge the research–implementation gap is real, (2) source research questions from practitioners, (3) situate research within a broader conservation planning model, (4) expand the social dimension of conservation assessments, (5) support conservation plans with transdisciplinary social learning institutions, (6) reward academics for societal engagement and implementation, and (7) train students in skills for “doing” conservation.     

Comparing and Integrating Community-Based and Science-Based Approaches to Prioritizing Marine Areas for Protection

Abstract:  We compared and integrated marine protected areas proposed through community and scientific assessments in 2 regions of British Columbia, Canada. The community priorities were identified during individual and group interviews with knowledgeable resource users. The scientific priorities were developed with abiotic and biotic data in Marxan, a decision-support tool. The resulting maps of community-based and science-based priorities were very similar for the inshore areas, which lent credibility to both approaches. The resource users thought the science-based maps were fairly good at highlighting areas important for conservation, but preferred the scenarios that integrated the 2 maps to either constituent map. Incorporating spatial variation in human impacts on the marine areas and commercial fishing, which are both costs of protection, into our Marxan analyses led to scenarios that were different from either constituent map. Our results show the value of integrating community-based and science-based approaches in conservation planning to achieve community acceptance and conservation utility. They also reveal that people's assessments on the basis of their traditional ecological knowledge may serve as a reasonable proxy for scientific approaches in selecting areas of ecological value.     

Use of Population Viability Analysis to Evaluate CITES Trade‐Management Options for Threatened Marine Fishes

Abstract: Achieving multiple conservation objectives can be challenging, particularly under high uncertainty. Having agreed to limit seahorse (Hippocampus) exports to sustainable levels, signatories to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) were offered the option of a single 10‐cm minimum size limit (MSL) as an interim management measure for all Hippocampus species (≥34). Although diverse stakeholders supported the recommended MSL, its biological and socioeconomic implications were not assessed quantitatively. We combined population viability analysis, model sensitivity analysis, and economic information to evaluate the trade‐off between conservation threat to and long‐term cumulative income from these exploited marine fishes of high conservation concern. We used the European long‐snouted seahorse (Hippocampus guttulatus) as a representative species to compare the performance of MSLs set at alternative biological reference points. Our sensitivity analyses showed that in most of our scenarios, setting the MSL just above size at maturity (9.7 cm in H. guttulatus) would not prevent exploited populations from becoming listed as vulnerable. By contrast, the relative risk of decline and extinction were almost halved—at a cost of only a 5.6% reduction in long‐term catches—by increasing the MSL to the size reached after at least one full reproductive season. On the basis of our analysis, a precautionary increase in the MSL could be compatible with sustaining fishers' livelihoods and international trade. Such management tactics that aid species conservation and have minimal effects on long term catch trends may help bolster the case for CITES trade management of other valuable marine fishes.