Smith, Robert J., Bennun, Leon, Brooks, Thomas M., Butchart, Stuart HM, Cuttelod, Annabelle, Di Marco, Moreno, Ferrier, Simon, Fishpool, Lincoln DC, Joppa, Lucas, Juffe?Bignoli, Diego, and others. (2019) Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches. Conservation Letters, 12 (11). Article Number e12625. ISSN 1755-263X. (doi:10.1111/conl.12625) (KAR id:71267)
|
PDF (Early View)
Publisher pdf
Language: English 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
|
|
|
Download this file (PDF/488kB) |
Preview |
| Request a format suitable for use with assistive technology e.g. a screenreader | |
| Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12625 |
|
Abstract
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| DOI/Identification number: | 10.1111/conl.12625 |
| Uncontrolled keywords: | decision science, irreplaceability, Key Biodiversity Areas, spatial prioritization, systematic conservation planning, targets |
| Subjects: |
G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GF Human ecology. Anthropogeography Q Science > QH Natural history > QH75 Conservation (Biology) |
| Divisions: | Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > DICE (Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology) |
| Depositing User: | Bob Smith |
| Date Deposited: | 18 Dec 2018 15:32 UTC |
| Last Modified: | 04 Mar 2024 16:13 UTC |
| Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/71267 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
University of Kent Author Information
Smith, Robert J..
| Creator's ORCID: |
 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1599-9171
|
|---|---|
| CReDIT Contributor Roles: |
- Link to SensusAccess
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):
Altmetric
Altmetric
