Smith, R.J. and Goodman, P.S. and Matthews, W.S. (2006) Systematic conservation planning: a review of perceived limitations and an illustration of the benefits, using a case study from Maputaland, South Africa. Oryx, 40 (4). pp. 400-410. ISSN 0030-6053.
|The full text of this publication is not available from this repository. (Contact us about this Publication)|
Systematic conservation planning is widely considered the most effective approach for designing protected area and other ecological networks. However, many conservation practitioners still ignore these methods and we suggest that five perceived limitations of this process are affecting its uptake. These perceptions are that (1) systematic conservation planning software is difficult to use, (2) the process requires extensive biodiversity distribution data, (3) setting targets for representing conservation features is not possible, (4) the advantages of systematic conservation planning do not outweigh the costs, and (5) the resulting plans often identify unsuitable areas. Here we review these perceived limitations and argue they are all misplaced, although we recognize difficulties in the target setting process. We then illustrate the value of systematic conservation planning to practitioners using a case study that describes a low-cost exercise from Maputaland, South Africa. This preliminary conservation assessment measured the effectiveness of the existing reserve system and identified a number of candidate areas that could be the focus of community- or privately-run ecotourism or game ranching ventures. Our results also emphasize both the importance of producing planning outputs that are specifically targeted for stakeholders, and the role of systematic conservation planning in providing a framework for integrating different provincial, national and transnational conservation initiatives.
|Additional information:||130XU Times Cited:3 Cited References Count:40|
|Uncontrolled keywords:||conservation planning; ecological; networks; implementation; Maputaland; protected areas; South Africa|
|Subjects:||G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences
G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GN Anthropology
|Divisions:||Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > DICE (Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology)|
|Depositing User:||C.G.W.G. van-de-Benderskum|
|Date Deposited:||09 Sep 2008 09:59|
|Last Modified:||14 Jan 2010 14:38|
|Resource URI:||http://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/10072 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)|
- Depositors only (login required):