Top-Down vs. Bottom Up: Working Towards Consensus ... - CASIOPA

TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM UP? WORKING TOWARDS CONSENSUSON SYSTEMATIC PROTECTED AREAS PLANNING IN ONTARIOprotected areas (for example size class analysis). Recent advances in the C-PLAN software haveintroduced a linkage to the MARXAN planning software, which allows design criteria such as totalreserve perimeter to influence the selection process, preferentially selecting areas that are adjacent topreviously selected or protected areas. The key limitation is that they are qualitative; these criteriacannot be used to produce specific and explicit design requirements for particular processes in particularregions. Planning without quantitative goals can be very difficult: How big does a reserve need to be?How can we combine competing design criteria?3. Quantitative design criteriaWith quantitative targets, systematic reserve design is more rigorous. The advantage is that these targetsprovide explicit stopping criteria, and allow direct evaluation of the success of conservation effort.Without these, conservation simply becomes a matter of selecting areas, and either celebrating thesuccess or lamenting the failure of the protected area design. With explicit targets, even failures can beinformative, and in turn ensure that further effort has greater success. Species-specific life historycharacteristics can be used to produce spatial or geographic targets. These quantitative targets caninclude size, shape (perimeter/edge ratios, fractal dimension, and geometry), connectivity (defined innumerous ways dependent on species-specific movement ability), alignment (affects solar insolation andother climatic considerations, as well as impacting connectivity and migratory suitability), andreplication (targets derived from metapopulation theory). Quantitative design can be addressed in threestages:Stage 1 (essential): Interpret requirements of processes as quantitative targets for design criteriaStage 2 (highly desirable): Map the options for achieving design targets across the regionStage 3 (desirable): Dynamic link between software for planning and software for modellingpersistence of processes (e.g., population viability analyses [PVAs] for selected focal – perhapsumbrella – species, but see Simberloff 1998; Hager et al. 2006).There are several steps, not necessarily sequential (Box 2, hereinafter “Pressey Steps”), to planning forconservation, and software plays different roles at each stage.Box 2. Steps in Conservation Planning – “Pressey Steps”1. Scoping and Costing2. Identification and involvement of stakeholders3. Identification of goals4. Compile data5. Set conservation targets6. Assess existing conservation areas7. Select new conservation areas8. Implement conservation action9. Maintain and monitor new and existing conservation areas52 | P a g e