Complementarity and Area-Efficiency in the Prioritization of the Global Protected Area Network.
Complementarity and cost-efficiency are widely used principles for protected area network design. Despite the wide use and robust theoretical underpinnings, their effects on the performance and patterns of priority areas are rarely studied in detail. Here we compare two approaches for identifying th...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4683007?pdf=render |
| _version_ | 1819090720617660416 |
|---|---|
| author | Peter Kullberg Tuuli Toivonen Federico Montesino Pouzols Joona Lehtomäki Enrico Di Minin Atte Moilanen |
| author_facet | Peter Kullberg Tuuli Toivonen Federico Montesino Pouzols Joona Lehtomäki Enrico Di Minin Atte Moilanen |
| author_sort | Peter Kullberg |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Complementarity and cost-efficiency are widely used principles for protected area network design. Despite the wide use and robust theoretical underpinnings, their effects on the performance and patterns of priority areas are rarely studied in detail. Here we compare two approaches for identifying the management priority areas inside the global protected area network: 1) a scoring-based approach, used in recently published analysis and 2) a spatial prioritization method, which accounts for complementarity and area-efficiency. Using the same IUCN species distribution data the complementarity method found an equal-area set of priority areas with double the mean species ranges covered compared to the scoring-based approach. The complementarity set also had 72% more species with full ranges covered, and lacked any coverage only for half of the species compared to the scoring approach. Protected areas in our complementarity-based solution were on average smaller and geographically more scattered. The large difference between the two solutions highlights the need for critical thinking about the selected prioritization method. According to our analysis, accounting for complementarity and area-efficiency can lead to considerable improvements when setting management priorities for the global protected area network. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T22:28:19Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-78baacf42c2a499d9b99882d95002f0a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T22:28:19Z |
| publishDate | 2015-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-78baacf42c2a499d9b99882d95002f0a2022-12-21T18:48:09ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-011012e014523110.1371/journal.pone.0145231Complementarity and Area-Efficiency in the Prioritization of the Global Protected Area Network.Peter KullbergTuuli ToivonenFederico Montesino PouzolsJoona LehtomäkiEnrico Di MininAtte MoilanenComplementarity and cost-efficiency are widely used principles for protected area network design. Despite the wide use and robust theoretical underpinnings, their effects on the performance and patterns of priority areas are rarely studied in detail. Here we compare two approaches for identifying the management priority areas inside the global protected area network: 1) a scoring-based approach, used in recently published analysis and 2) a spatial prioritization method, which accounts for complementarity and area-efficiency. Using the same IUCN species distribution data the complementarity method found an equal-area set of priority areas with double the mean species ranges covered compared to the scoring-based approach. The complementarity set also had 72% more species with full ranges covered, and lacked any coverage only for half of the species compared to the scoring approach. Protected areas in our complementarity-based solution were on average smaller and geographically more scattered. The large difference between the two solutions highlights the need for critical thinking about the selected prioritization method. According to our analysis, accounting for complementarity and area-efficiency can lead to considerable improvements when setting management priorities for the global protected area network.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4683007?pdf=render |
| spellingShingle | Peter Kullberg Tuuli Toivonen Federico Montesino Pouzols Joona Lehtomäki Enrico Di Minin Atte Moilanen Complementarity and Area-Efficiency in the Prioritization of the Global Protected Area Network. PLoS ONE |
| title | Complementarity and Area-Efficiency in the Prioritization of the Global Protected Area Network. |
| title_full | Complementarity and Area-Efficiency in the Prioritization of the Global Protected Area Network. |
| title_fullStr | Complementarity and Area-Efficiency in the Prioritization of the Global Protected Area Network. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Complementarity and Area-Efficiency in the Prioritization of the Global Protected Area Network. |
| title_short | Complementarity and Area-Efficiency in the Prioritization of the Global Protected Area Network. |
| title_sort | complementarity and area efficiency in the prioritization of the global protected area network |
| url | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4683007?pdf=render |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT peterkullberg complementarityandareaefficiencyintheprioritizationoftheglobalprotectedareanetwork AT tuulitoivonen complementarityandareaefficiencyintheprioritizationoftheglobalprotectedareanetwork AT federicomontesinopouzols complementarityandareaefficiencyintheprioritizationoftheglobalprotectedareanetwork AT joonalehtomaki complementarityandareaefficiencyintheprioritizationoftheglobalprotectedareanetwork AT enricodiminin complementarityandareaefficiencyintheprioritizationoftheglobalprotectedareanetwork AT attemoilanen complementarityandareaefficiencyintheprioritizationoftheglobalprotectedareanetwork |