Global trends in geospatial conservation planning: a review of priorities and missing dimensions

IntroductionBiodiversity underpins resilient ecosystems that sustain life. Despite international conservation efforts, biodiversity is still declining due to ongoing anthropogenic threats. Protected areas have been widely adopted as a strategy for conserving biodiversity. The use of spatial conserva...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gemma Cobb, Johanna Nalau, Alienor L. M. Chauvenet
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2024-01-01
Series:Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2023.1209620/full
_version_ 1797356967662977024
author Gemma Cobb
Johanna Nalau
Alienor L. M. Chauvenet
author_facet Gemma Cobb
Johanna Nalau
Alienor L. M. Chauvenet
author_sort Gemma Cobb
collection DOAJ
description IntroductionBiodiversity underpins resilient ecosystems that sustain life. Despite international conservation efforts, biodiversity is still declining due to ongoing anthropogenic threats. Protected areas have been widely adopted as a strategy for conserving biodiversity. The use of spatial conservation planning, which prioritizes areas for protection based on geo-referenced biodiversity and ecological information as well as cost of action and their feasibility, has gained popularity in the conservation discipline in the last few decades. However, there remain gaps between plans and implementation, and negative social impacts on local communities can occur, such as tension and conflict between differing priorities, perspectives, and views.MethodsTo better understand the state of the spatial conservation field and support translating research into practice, a mixed-method approach of bibliometric (n=4133 documents) and content analysis (n=2456 documents) was used to analyze and identify key research priorities, collaborative networks, and geographic and thematic patterns.ResultsWe identified that research conducted by westernized nations dominated the field, with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia being responsible for almost two-thirds of the research globally, with research interest exponentially growing since 2010. Additionally, while there has been some refinement over time of algorithms and models, Zonation and Marxan methods developed in the 2000s remain the predominant choices of software, with a majority focus on marine ecosystems, birds, and mammals. We found a major gap in the use of social dimensions in spatial conservation case studies (only n=146; 6%).DiscussionThis gap highlights a lack of collaboration in conservation science between researchers and local communities who are affected by management decisions. We recommend including spatially explicit social dimensions from the onset of projects through participatory approaches, along with the acknowledgement by researchers of the importance of including diverse views in conservation planning to enhance implementation and outcomes that are relevant in local contexts. We suggest an increased reflection on types of data used for conservation but also on researchers’ personal values, biases, and positionality to encourage more ethical, applicable, and collaborative conservation science.
first_indexed 2024-03-08T14:37:30Z
format Article
id doaj.art-a85eaff56f5a4863b6b9a7a9d2e86979
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2296-701X
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-08T14:37:30Z
publishDate 2024-01-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
spelling doaj.art-a85eaff56f5a4863b6b9a7a9d2e869792024-01-12T04:34:11ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution2296-701X2024-01-011110.3389/fevo.2023.12096201209620Global trends in geospatial conservation planning: a review of priorities and missing dimensionsGemma Cobb0Johanna Nalau1Alienor L. M. Chauvenet2Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security, Griffith University, Nathan, AustraliaAdaptation Science Research Group, Cities Research Institute and School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Southport, AustraliaCentre for Planetary Health and Food Security, Griffith University, Nathan, AustraliaIntroductionBiodiversity underpins resilient ecosystems that sustain life. Despite international conservation efforts, biodiversity is still declining due to ongoing anthropogenic threats. Protected areas have been widely adopted as a strategy for conserving biodiversity. The use of spatial conservation planning, which prioritizes areas for protection based on geo-referenced biodiversity and ecological information as well as cost of action and their feasibility, has gained popularity in the conservation discipline in the last few decades. However, there remain gaps between plans and implementation, and negative social impacts on local communities can occur, such as tension and conflict between differing priorities, perspectives, and views.MethodsTo better understand the state of the spatial conservation field and support translating research into practice, a mixed-method approach of bibliometric (n=4133 documents) and content analysis (n=2456 documents) was used to analyze and identify key research priorities, collaborative networks, and geographic and thematic patterns.ResultsWe identified that research conducted by westernized nations dominated the field, with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia being responsible for almost two-thirds of the research globally, with research interest exponentially growing since 2010. Additionally, while there has been some refinement over time of algorithms and models, Zonation and Marxan methods developed in the 2000s remain the predominant choices of software, with a majority focus on marine ecosystems, birds, and mammals. We found a major gap in the use of social dimensions in spatial conservation case studies (only n=146; 6%).DiscussionThis gap highlights a lack of collaboration in conservation science between researchers and local communities who are affected by management decisions. We recommend including spatially explicit social dimensions from the onset of projects through participatory approaches, along with the acknowledgement by researchers of the importance of including diverse views in conservation planning to enhance implementation and outcomes that are relevant in local contexts. We suggest an increased reflection on types of data used for conservation but also on researchers’ personal values, biases, and positionality to encourage more ethical, applicable, and collaborative conservation science.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2023.1209620/fullconservationreview - systematicspatial prioritizationVOSviewersocial dimensions
spellingShingle Gemma Cobb
Johanna Nalau
Alienor L. M. Chauvenet
Global trends in geospatial conservation planning: a review of priorities and missing dimensions
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
conservation
review - systematic
spatial prioritization
VOSviewer
social dimensions
title Global trends in geospatial conservation planning: a review of priorities and missing dimensions
title_full Global trends in geospatial conservation planning: a review of priorities and missing dimensions
title_fullStr Global trends in geospatial conservation planning: a review of priorities and missing dimensions
title_full_unstemmed Global trends in geospatial conservation planning: a review of priorities and missing dimensions
title_short Global trends in geospatial conservation planning: a review of priorities and missing dimensions
title_sort global trends in geospatial conservation planning a review of priorities and missing dimensions
topic conservation
review - systematic
spatial prioritization
VOSviewer
social dimensions
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2023.1209620/full
work_keys_str_mv AT gemmacobb globaltrendsingeospatialconservationplanningareviewofprioritiesandmissingdimensions
AT johannanalau globaltrendsingeospatialconservationplanningareviewofprioritiesandmissingdimensions
AT alienorlmchauvenet globaltrendsingeospatialconservationplanningareviewofprioritiesandmissingdimensions