Integrating conservation, restoration and land-use planning in islands—An illustrative case study in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
 14
 
  Integrating conservation, restoration and land-use planning in islands—An illustrative case study in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean
Tags
Share
Transcript
  Please cite this article in press as: Lagabrielle, E., et al., Integrating conservation, restoration and land-use planning in islands—An illustrativecase study in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean). Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.004 ARTICLE IN PRESS GModelLAND-1976; No.of Pages11Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect LandscapeandUrbanPlanning  journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan Integrating conservation, restoration and land-use planning in islands—Anillustrative case study in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean) Erwann Lagabrielle a , b , c , ∗ , Mathieu Rouget d , e , Thomas Le Bourgeois c ,  j , Karine Payet c , e , f  ,Laurent Durieux g , Stéphane Baret h , Joël Dupont i , Dominique Strasberg c a Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Saasveld Campus, Private Bag X6531, George 6530, South Africa b Institute for Research and Development (IRD), UMR 128 ESPACE-DEV, IRD Réunion, BP 50172, 97492 Sainte-Clothilde Cedex, France c UMR PVBMT, CIRAD, Université de la Réunion, 7 chemin de l’IRAT, Ligne Paradis 97410, Saint-Pierre, France d South African National Biodiversity Institute, Private Bag X101, Pretoria 0001, South Africa e Department of Plant Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa f  Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa g Institute for Research and Development (IRD), UMR 128 ESPACE-DEV, IRD Brésil, CP 7091 – Lago Sul, 71619, 970 Brasilia (DF), Brazil h Parc national de La Réunion, 112 rue Sainte Marie, 97400 Saint-Denis, France i Société Réunionnaise d’Etude et de Protection de l’Environnement, 30 rue des Deux-Canons, 97490 Sainte-Clothilde, France  j UMR AMAP, CIRAD, TA A51/PS2, boulevard de la Lironde, 34730 Montpellier Cedex 5, France a r t i c l e i n f o  Article history: Received 21 April 2010Received in revised form 24 January 2011Accepted 5 February 2011 Available online xxx Keywords: BiodiversityGISCost optimisationCorridorsProtected areasInvasion a b s t r a c t This paper describes an operational protocol for integrating conservation and restoration with land-useplanning in islands. Conservation challenges are intensified in insular systems due to higher ecosystemvulnerability, limited spatial options, low data availability, rapid land-use change and, globally, short-termvisionplanning.Ouroperationalplanningprotocolintegratesecologicalandsocio-economicfactorsto identify the best spatial options for conserving and restoring biodiversity, inside and outside extantreserves,whileminimisingfutureland-useconflicts.Conservationandrestorationtargetsareformulatedfor species, habitats and ecological processes that support biodiversity. An optimal network of prioritysitesisselectedtoachievethosetargetsacrossthelandscape.TheprioritisationprocessintegratesaCon-servation Costs Index to optimise conservation and restoration investments. We discuss the outcomesof the planning protocol in terms of site prioritisation, stakeholders’ participation and general implica-tions for spatial planning in insular systems. As with many islands, the study area of Réunion Island hasexperiencedrapidurbanandagriculturalexpansion,whichthreatensitsuniquebiodiversity.Fortythreeper cent of the island is currently protected in a National Park but only half of this reserve network con-tributes to the achievement of targets. An additional 21% of land should be conserved mainly to ensurethe persistence of ecological connections between the marine, terrestrial and freshwater realms. Finallywe emphasize that our method doesn’t substitute the land-use planning debate but is aimed to betterprepare the conservation sector for negotiating future land-use allocation with other socio-economicsectors in islands. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Spatial planning in islands must carefully balance ecosystempersistence requirements with insular development. Over thelast century, insular ecosystems have become some of the most ∗ Corresponding author at: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, SaasveldCampus, Private Bag X6531, George 6530, South Africa. Tel.: +00 262 262 29 99 01. E-mail addresses:  erwann.lagabrielle@gmail.com, erwann.lagabrielle@ird.fr (E. Lagabrielle),mathieu.rouget@up.ac.za(M.Rouget),thomas.le bourgeois@cirad.f r(T. Le Bourgeois), karine.kp@gmail.com (K. Payet), laurent.durieux@ird.fr (L. Durieux), stephane.baret@reunion-parcnational.fr (S. Baret), srepenreunion@wanadoo.fr (J. Dupont), dominique.strasberg@univ-reunion.fr (D. Strasberg). restricted and threatened in the world (Mueller-Dombois andLoope, 1990). For instance, more than 60% of documented verte- brate extinctions have occurred on islands (Diamond, 1989; Caseet al., 1992). Islands ecosystems are particularly rich in endemicspecies, and contribute disproportionately to global biodiversity(Stattersfield and Capper, 2000). Conservation and restoration in islands is a major challenge since 10 of the 34 terrestrial biodi-versity hotspots listed by Conservation International are whollycomprisedofislands(Mittermeieretal.,2005;Cooketal.,2006).To address this challenge, we developed and tested a spatial planningprotocol to optimise conservation and restoration investments inthelandscapewhileminimisingpotentialconflictswithotherland-uses in islands.Confounding ecological and anthropogenic factors 0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.004  Please cite this article in press as: Lagabrielle, E., et al., Integrating conservation, restoration and land-use planning in islands—An illustrativecase study in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean). Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.004 ARTICLE IN PRESS GModelLAND-1976; No.of Pages11 2  E. Lagabrielle et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning   xxx (2011) xxx–xxx have been cited to explain unprecedented rate of biodiversity lossinislands.Thisincludestherarityofspatialoptionsforbiodiversitypersistence(Simberloff,1995;Whittakeretal.,2001),ahighervul- nerabilityofecosystemstoinvasions(Mueller-DomboisandLoope,1990; Fritts and Rodda, 1998), and higher rates of land conversion (CudihhyandStone,1990).Poorspatialplanningininsularecosys- tems has led to disastrous, rapid and irreversible biodiversity loss(Dolisca et al., 2007). In addition, several factors hinder the imple- mentation of conservation actions in insular regions, i.e. poverty,poor knowledge and data, and, overall, insufficiently integratedconservation strategies.Conservation plans initiated in insular regions often focused onbiodiversity only and ignored socio-economic factors that guideeffective conservation (Veech, 2003). This often resulted in unsus- tainableconservationstrategiesduetoconflictsbetweenislanders’interests and conservation (Novy-Hildesley, 2001). For instance, such conflicts hindered conservation implementation in the Gala-pagos(Grenier,2000)andinNew-Zealand(Young,2004).Although islands share common social and ecological traits with continen-tal areas, many conservation challenges are intensified in insularsystems.Following systematic conservation planning principles(Balmford, 2003; Margules and Pressey, 2000), our protocol aims to identify  ex ante  the best spatial options for conservingand restoring a representative sample of biodiversity featuresand ecosystem processes inside and outside an extant reservesnetwork, while minimising conflicts with other land uses. Afterpresenting conservation challenges in Réunion Island (Section 2),we describe the planning protocol (Section 3): mapping habitats, speciesandbiodiversityprocesses(Section4),settingconservation and restoration targets (Section 5), identifying priority sites for conservation and restoration (Section 6). Outcomes of the plans are analysed in Section 7. Finally, we propose implementation mechanisms toward a better integration of conservation andrestoration issues within land-use planning in Réunion Island(Section 8), and more generally in insular regions (Section 9). 2. Conservation and land-use planning challenges inRéunion Island Réunion Island (2512km 2 ) is a small French island located inthe Indian Ocean, 200km South-West of Mauritius and 700km tothe East of Madagascar (Fig. 1). Its steep volcanic relief reaches 3070minthecentreoftheisland.Athirdofitsareasisstillcoveredby native vegetation ranging from lowland rainforest to subalpinegrassland (Strasberg et al., 2005).The island has long been recognised as a global priority forconservationowingtoitshighconcentrationofendemictaxa,espe-cially of plants. Forty six per cent of the 843 species of vascularplants species in Réunion Island are endemic to the Mascareneregion that is comprised of Mauritius and Rodrigues Island (Cadet,1980; Conservatoire Botanique National de Mascarin, 2008). Réu-nion Island is comprised in a terrestrial and a marine biodiversityhotspot (Roberts et al., 2002; Mittermeier et al., 2005). At present, more than 80% of the 802,000 inhabitants (INSEE,2009) live on the coastal fringe where most of the socio-economicactivities are concentrated. Population has been increasing at rateof 1.5% per year since 2000 and is predicted to reach 1 millioninhabitants in 2030 (INSEE, 2009). European Development Funds boosted the economy of the island since the 1990’s. Concomi-tantly, urban areas expanded by 189% over the period from 1989to 2002 (Durieux et al., 2008) and available land became a rare andcovetedresource.Below1000m,landscapesarenowexpectedto fulfil multiple functions (i.e. urbanisation, agriculture produc-tion and ecosystem conservation) and this causes conflicts amongstakeholders about their planning and management (van der Valk,2002).Since the European occupation of the island (in 1665), lowlandhabitats (<1000m) are almost fully transformed, except on harshslopes and ravines (Gigord et al., 1999) (Fig. 1). As with other insu- larregions,biodiversityinRéunionisfacingescalatingthreatsthathave already led to the extinction of 30 of 45 vertebrate species(Mourer-Chauvire et al., 1999). Habitat degradation by invasive alien species is an important threat to its endemic biodiversity(MacDonaldetal.,1991;Baretetal.,2006).Ecosystemconversions byurbanisationandagriculture(mainlysugarcaneandmarketgar-dening) are destroying remnant pristine vegetation patches in thelowlands,whileforestryandnativeforestclearingforcattlebreed-ingaremajorthreatstobiodiversityintheuplands(Strasbergetal.,2005).SincethecreationofaNationalParkin2007,43%oftheareaoftheislandisprotected(Table1).However,thereservenetworkis biasedtowardtheuplands:themeanaltitudeofreservesis1306mversus 873m for the whole island. With very few protected areasin the lowlands, the persistence of biodiversity in Réunion Islanddepends heavily on the successful integration of conservation andrestoration strategies with land-use planning.Future challenges for land-use planning in Réunion Islandfurther include the control of urban sprawl and the protectionof agricultural land from conversion by urbanisation. A  regionaldevelopment plan  (“Schémad’AménagementRégional”: hereafterreferred to as SAR) rules the allocation of land uses for the wholeisland.TheSARdevelopedin1995wasunderrevisionatthetimeof thisanalysis.Therefore,ourobjectivewastoproduceconservationand restoration recommendations that could inform the SAR revi-sionprocess.InadditiontherewasademandfromtheNationalParkauthorities to identify priority areas for conservation and restora-tion inside the National Park boundaries. 3. Planning protocol overview  Our conservation and restoration planning protocol is basedon systematic conservation planning principles (Margules andPressey, 2000). As a first step, the conservation and land-use chal-lenges were assessed and the institutional demand for spatialplanning was identified during preparatory meetings with stake-holders from the urban, agriculture and conservation sector andscientists(Section2).Asasecondstep,wegatheredspatialdataon biodiversityforthreedifferenttypesofbiodiversityfeatures,i.e.(1)pristine habitats, (2) endemic species and (3) spatial componentsof ecological and evolutionary processes (Section 4). Conservation and restoration targets were formulated for those features (Sec-tion 5). After assessing the level of target achievement in existing conservation areas (i.e. a “gap analysis”), we identified additionalpriority areas to meet targets while minimising costs associatedwith conservation implementation, management, restoration andcurrentandfutureland-usetrends(Section6).Thiswasdoneusing asiteselectionalgorithmembeddedinMARXANsoftware(BallandPossingham, 2000). The site selection process follows eight stages(Table 3) that achieve incremental conservation and restoration targetsintoaspatialnetworkofprioritysites(seeSection7).Finally, weidentifiedimplementationmechanismstobetterintegratecon-servation and restoration opportunities with land-use planning,inside and outside the existing reserve system (Section 8.4). The results of the site selection process plus the implementation rec-ommendations constitute what we refer to as the “conservationand restoration plan”.The plan was developed through a participatory process. Anadvisory team of 10 professionals, constituted mainly of scien-tists (i.e., geographer, anthropologist, agronomist, modeller andecologist), but also staff of the National Park authorities were  Please cite this article in press as: Lagabrielle, E., et al., Integrating conservation, restoration and land-use planning in islands—An illustrativecase study in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean). Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.004 ARTICLE IN PRESS GModelLAND-1976; No.of Pages11 E. Lagabrielle et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning   xxx (2011) xxx–xxx  3 Fig. 1.  Habitat transformation and reserves distribution in Réunion Island (from Strasberg et al., 2005).  Table 1 Protected areas categories in Réunion Island (terrestrial only). Spatial overlaps occur between protected areas.IUCN category type Protected areas category Area (km 2 ) (% of island’s area)Type I Biological forest reserve 278 11.0Type II Core area of the National Park (including cultivated and inhabited areas) 1048 41.7Type IV Nature reserve 38 1.5Biotope reserve 20 0.8Biological reserve of the National Forest Office 76 3.0Sites of the Conservatoire du Littoral (coastal conservation agency) 8 0.3Total 1071 42.6 consulted during workshops and individual interviews. Institu-tions involved in the land-use planning debate on the island wereinformed of the on-going conservation planning process through-out regular meetings and presentations. The strategy for theparticipationofstakeholdersisspecificallydiscussedinLagabrielleet al. (2010): they concluded that the participatory developmentof land-use simulation models should be promoted to explorealternativescenariosforbiodiversityconservationwithstakehold-ers. They also showed that this participatory planning approachshouldbegradualandsequentialtofitintopublicdecision-makingprocesses. 4. Mapping biodiversity  4.1. Habitats Inareaswhereavailabledataonbiodiversityarepoororlimited,a coarse-filter approach to mapping biodiversity is recommended  Please cite this article in press as: Lagabrielle, E., et al., Integrating conservation, restoration and land-use planning in islands—An illustrativecase study in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean). Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.004 ARTICLE IN PRESS GModelLAND-1976; No.of Pages11 4  E. Lagabrielle et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning   xxx (2011) xxx–xxx (MargulesandPressey,2000).Tothispurpose,habitatsactasgood surrogates for overall biodiversity (Lombard et al., 2003).To develop the habitat map in Réunion Island we integratedexpertjudgementswithremotesensingdataandGISanalysis.Pris-tine habitats were extracted from Strasberg et al. (2005). These weremodeledusingslope,altitudeandrainfalldatacombinedwithaerial photography analysis (Strasberg et al., 2005).Asweaimedtodevelopahabitatmapcompatiblewithconven-tional land-use products, we combined GIS data on urbanisationand agriculture by collaborating with institutions involved inthe land-use planning debate. The GIS layer on urban areaswas provided by the Regional Urban Planning Agency (AGO-RAH). GIS layers on agriculture (cane, other crops and pastures)were validated by the Regional Agriculture Council (ChambreRé-gionaled’Agriculture). We integrated those GIS datasets followingasetofrulesdefinedwiththeparticipants,withurbanareassuper-imposing all other features.Wemappedasystemof44habitatclasses,including21pristineclasses (Fig. 1). Habitat classes, their current and past extent, are detailed in Appendix A. Each habitat class – including urban and agricultural areas – was attributed a transformation status by con-servation experts (Table 2). The transformation status categories were derived from Strasberg et al. (2005) and Baret et al. (2006): extant   (i.e. pristine),  invaded  (pristine remnants but alien speciescovering more than 50% of the under storey and more than 90%of the canopy),  restorable  (secondary vegetation and agriculturalareas) and  irreversibly transformed  (urban areas). 4.2. Species Due to time and budgetary limitations, we only used existingspecies datasets. We concentrated our data collection effort onthreatened species. Unsurprisingly, these were distributed almostexclusively in lowlands where habitat transformation is the mostprominent in Réunion Island. The combination of distributionaldataonthreatenedspecieswithdataonpristinehabitatsinreserveselection is an efficient and satisfactory approach to overall bio-diversity representation (Payet et al., 2010). Payet et al. (2010) developed their study in Réunion Island using the dataset devel-oped for this conservation and restoration plan.We collected GIS layers on 25 indigenous species, includingeightendemicplants,thebreedingareasoffiveoceanicbirdspeciesand the distribution areas of nine endemic forest birds, two rep-tiles and one bat species (Appendix B). The threat status of species was assigned according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species(IUCN, 2006). The species data are representative of conservation priorities in the lowlands, although biased toward iconic bird andreptile species. 4.3. Ecological and evolutionary processes Biodiversity in insular regions is sustained and generated by awidearrayofecologicalprocesses(suchasmovementsofendemicspecies) and evolutionary processes (such as speciation processesalong altitudinal gradients) (Whittaker et al., 2001). Identify- ing, mapping and protecting areas supporting such processes areimportanttoguaranteethepersistenceandlong-termevolutionof ecosystems. This can be achieved by complementing the networkof protected areas by large-scale corridors that represent key eco-logicallinkagesbetweenmarine,freshwaterandterrestrialrealms.Corridors are aimed to capture the environmental gradients andmaintain landscape connectivity across spatial and temporal scale(Rouget et al., 2006). They facilitate biota movement and main- tain evolutionary processes such as geographic speciation (Moritz,2002).We used the recently developed map of   Spatial Components of BiodiversityProcesses (SCBPs)developedbyLagabrielleetal.(2009)in Réunion Island. SCBPs are landscape features supporting keybiodiversity processes, such a bird migration, plant dispersal andgeographicspeciation,alongenvironmentalgradientsorecologicalinterfaces (Rouget et al., 2006). Lagabrielle et al. (2009) proposed a methodtoidentifythosebiodiversityprocessesanddelineateanet-work of conservation corridors maximising their protection whileminimising current and future threats.SCBPs were mapped as surface elements aligned along lin-ear environmental interfaces or gradients. These comprisedoceanic–terrestrial interfaces, riverine corridors, macrohabitatinterfaces, topographic unit boundaries, and lowland–upland gra-dients. The mapping method involved consultation of experts, GISanalysis and an extensive literature review. The transformationstatus of SCBPs ranked from  extant   in pristine habitats, through restorable  in crop or secondary vegetation, to  irreversibly trans- formed  in urban areas.A regional network of 23 large-scale natural corridors linkingsea-level areas to the island summits were designed to encompassa maximum amount of SCBPs and pristine habitats while avoidingareasincompatibleswiththemaintenanceofecologicalconnectiv-ity (Lagabrielle et al., 2009). 5. Formulating conservation and restoration targets Formulating conservation and restoration targets for biodiver-sityfeaturesisanecessarysteptowardprioritizingactions(Desmetand Cowling, 2004). A conservation (or restoration) target is a quantitativeestimateoftheminimumportionofeachbiodiversityfeaturethatneedstoberepresentedintheconservation(orrestora-tion)protectedareanetworktoensuretheirlong-termpersistence(Pressey et al., 2003). Targetsforhabitatswereexpressedasapercentageoftheirindi-vidualsrcinalarea,i.e.beforehumantransformation.Targetswerecalculatedonsrcinalratherthancurrentextentsbecausehabitatsaretypicallyunequallyaffectedbyanthropogenicimpacts(Desmetand Cowling, 2004). Targets were then formulated into hectaresrequired per habitat type.Habitat targets were obtained by summing a  baseline target   of 20% and an  adjustment target   comprised between 0% and 30%. Thiscomposite approach, mixing a fixed and a variable target, is advo-cated by Rondini and Chiozza (2010). The  baseline target   of 20% isinlinewithinternationalconservationagreements(ConventiononBiologicalDiversity).The adjustmenttarget  isdrivenbylocaldataontheecologicalheterogeneityandnaturalrarityofhabitatstypes.Foreach habitat type, the  adjustment target   was calculated as the sumofthefollowingvariables(withvaluesscaledfrom0to10):speciesrichness,endemicspeciesrichnessandenvironmentalheterogene-ity. Species richness data were extracted from a previous study byStrasbergetal.(2005).Thecalculationoftheenvironmentalhetero-geneity was based on the following parameters: soil type diversity(data from Raunet, 1991) and coefficient of variation of altitude, slope and precipitation. Final habitat targets ( baseline + adjustment target  ) in Réunion rank from 24% to 45%. Given their uniquenessin the region, the entire current extent of untransformed wetlandsandlavaflowshabitatswastargeted(Fig.2).Whentheconservation target exceeded the pristine extent of a given habitat, the conser-vation target was truncated to that extent and the remaining areabecamethe restorationtarget  .Onlysixpristinehabitatsendedwitharestorationtarget:fivelowlandhabitatsalmostfullytransformedby urbanisation or agriculture and the  subalpine Sophora thicket  habitat recently transformed by cattle farming in the uplands.Conservation targets for species were defined as a fraction of distributional area or number of distributional sites. Targets were  Please cite this article in press as: Lagabrielle, E., et al., Integrating conservation, restoration and land-use planning in islands—An illustrativecase study in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean). Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.004 ARTICLE IN PRESS GModelLAND-1976; No.of Pages11 E. Lagabrielle et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning   xxx (2011) xxx–xxx  5  Table 2 Categories of habitat transformation in Réunion Island.Transformation status Description Reference Area (as % of total) * PristineExtant  26.9 Pristine Not invaded or presence of some alien plant individuals in anintact canopy and understorey (alien species <1%)Strasberg et al. (2005)Baret et al. (2006)7.7Lightly invaded Canopy intact (native species cover >90%) but understoreyinvaded (10–90%)Strasberg et al. (2005)Baret et al. (2006)19.3Invaded  25.3 Moderately invaded Canopy and understorey invaded(Native species cover between 50% and 90% in the canopy)Strasberg et al. (2005)Baret et al. (2006)12.8Highly invaded Canopy and understorey invaded(Native species cover between 10% and 50% in the canopy)Strasberg et al. (2005)Baret et al. (2006)12.5TransformedRestorable 36.3Secondary vegetation No native species Lagabrielle et al. (2009) 17.7Cultivated Crops including forestry Lagabrielle et al. (2009) 18.6Irreversibly transformed Urban areas Urban Planning Agency of Réunion Island (AGORAH) 9.9 * The transformation status of 1.6% of the island’s areas remains unknown. Fig. 2.  Conservation and restoration targets for pristine habitat in Réunion Island, expressed as a percentage of the total area of each habitat. set according to species status in the IUCN Red List of ThreatenedSpecies (IUCN, 2006): 100% for species seriously on the verge of  extinction (number of species=7) or threatened with extinction( n =4), 80% for vulnerable ( n =2), 60% for near threatened ( n =1)and 40% for least concern species ( n =11, including two speciesprotected by ministerial decree). Given the low availability of dataon species, those targets were arbitrary decided with conservationexperts.All extant and restorable sections of SCBPs and corridors wereattributed a 100% conservation or restoration target given. Thosespatial features are required to maintain functional ecosystems onthe island (Lagabrielle et al., 2009). 6. Identifying spatial priorities for conservation andrestoration 6.1. Site selection process Thesiteselectionprocessisaimedatidentifyingprioritysitesforconservationandrestoration,insideandoutsidetheextantreservesystem. This protocol integrates previous systematic conservationplanningproceduresproposedbyCowlingetal.(2003)andRouget etal.(2006),appendedwithasystematicrestorationplanningpro-cedure. A spatial algorithm is used to optimise the site selectionprocess.Theeightstagesofthesiteselectionprocessaredescribedin Table 3. 6.2. Conservation and restoration costs Asconservationresourcesarelimited,conservationandrestora-tioncostsneedtobeassessedandoptimallyallocated(NaidooandRicketts,2006).Toassessthosecosts,wedevelopedaConservation(and restoration) Costs Index (CCI). The CCI is calculated by sum-ming the following cost components:  conservation implementationcost   (the cost of implementing additional reserves),  conservationmanagementcost  (thecostofmanagingprotectedareas), restorationmanagementcost  (thecostofmanaginghabitatrestoration,inaddi-tiontoconservationmanagementcost)and transformationpressurecost   (the cost of trying to prevent future probable habitat transfor-mation or destruction by land conversion or invasive species). TheCCI variables are detailed in Table 4. CCI variables and overall val- ues were linearly rescaled from 0 to 100 to facilitate cost analysis,data combination and integration into MARXAN software.To calculate the  transformation pressure cost  , the outcomes of three predictive models were combined, i.e. on urbanisation, agri-cultural and plant invasion potentials. Urbanisation probabilitieswere derived from non-linear regression analysis on 12 factorsexplaining urban sprawl observed from 1989 to 2002 (Thinon
Related Search
Similar documents
View more
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks