Conservation planning in a changing world.

By R. Pressey, M. Cabeza, Matthew E. Watts, Richard M. Cowling, K. Wilson. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2007

1,111 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/808890b12583f2b5d4b94cca4062b45caf2521f1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning (2012, background): “They can be specific to individual features in individual areas as different features may be impacted by different threats (Pressey et al., 2007).”
Tree species compositional change and conservation implications in the white‐water flooded forests of the Brazilian Amazon (2012, background): “Systematic conservation planning methods have been extensively refined in recent years, making it possible to account explicitly for spatially variable costs of conservation, spatial configurations, uncertainties and threats (Cabeza et al., 2004; Moilanen & Wintle, 2006; Pressey et al., 2007).”
Defining conservation priorities for freshwater fishes according to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity (2011, background): “…such as negative interactions between functionally similar species within lineages reducing functional diversity relative to phylogenetic diversity (Prinzing et al. 2008), environmental factors independently altering different diversity components (Webb et al. 2002), and clumped occupation of…”
Spatial socioeconomic data as a cost in systematic marine conservation planning (2009, background): “Incorporating future uses would require the prediction of the spatial distribution (expansion or contraction) of relevant activities in the future (Pressey et al. 2007), so that siting algorithms can adequately represent user groups now and into the future when prioritizing areas for conservation.”
Review of the literature on the links between biodiversity and climate change: impacts, adaptation and mitigation. (2009, background): “The likely effects of climate change on protected areas systems raises the question of whether these networks should be regarded as fixed in space and time, or whether provision should be made for movement of protected areas boundaries (Pressey et al. 2007; Hannah 2008).”
Additive effects of climate change on connectivity between marine protected areas and larval supply to fished areas (2015, background): “In addition to representing adequately and comprehensively the spatial distribution of present biodiversity, conservation planning should also aim at protecting the processes that will maintain diversity in the future (Pressey et al., 2007; Almany et al., 2009).”
Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. (2009, background): “The spatial arrangement of this remnant tree cover can be just as important as its total amount, as demonstrated by the importance of pre-existing spatial environmental heterogeneities in driving the high conservation value of scattered forest remnants (e.g. Raheem et al. 2008).”
Managing for change: wetland transitions under sea‐level rise and outcomes for threatened species (2011, methodology): “While population models have limitations, these are the only practical means of testing the effects of climatic shifts (Ozgul et al., 2010) or management actions on populations across broad scales (Pressey et al., 2007).”
Species in a dynamic world: Consequences of habitat network dynamics on conservation planning (2012, background): “However, the importance of accounting for habitat dynamics inside conservation networks in the planning process has been emphasised (e.g. Opdam and Steingröver, 2008; Possingham et al., 2009; Pressey et al., 2007).”
Building evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change (2010, background): “…climate change While the need to include evolutionary processes that maintain genetic diversity and adaptive potential in protected area planning and management has been advocated for some time (Pressey et al. 2007; Mace and Purvis 2008), there is as yet little guidance about how this might occur.”
Conserving potential coral reef refuges at high latitudes (2014, background): “As static conservation areas will not protect shifting species (Hobday, 2011) or dynamic ecosystem responses (Pressey et al., 2007), they may not be sufficient for dealing with threats associated with climate change, necessitating strategic adaptation of conservation approaches.”
Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation (2013, background): “A reserve network could be planned for immediate implementation or for recurrent yearly operations (Costello and Polasky, 2004; Pressey et al., 2007).”
High and Far: Biases in the Location of Protected Areas (2009, background): “Indeed, it is now common to claim that PAs need to be in systematically chosen places [37].”
Biologically representative and well‐connected marine reserves enhance biodiversity persistence in conservation planning (2018, neutral): “Conservation planning has focused primarily on representation of biodiversity patterns (Pressey et al., 2007), usually through reserve selection algorithms such as Marxan (Possingham, Ball, & Andelman, 2000) and Zonation (Moilanen et al., 2005) to identify priority areas that protect a proportion…”