Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
A
proactive
reactive
B
proactive
reactive
EBA, CPD
MC, G200
BH
HBWA
FF
LW
CE
Vulnerability
Vulnerability
Note:
Codes as in Figure 2.1. (
A
) Purely reactive (prioritizing high vulnerability) and
purely proactive (prioritizing low vulnerability) approaches. (
B
) Approaches that do not
incorporate vulnerability as a criterion (all prioritize high irreplaceability).
Source:
Revised version of i gure originally published in Brooks et al. (2006).
Figure 2.3
Global biodiversity conservation priority templates placed
within the conceptual framework of irreplaceability and
vulnerability
provides a means of scheduling responses within such an overall frame-
work
(Mittermeier et al., 2003a). Triage, by contrast, has been interpreted
as writing threatened biodiversity of the conservation agenda as beyond
hope (Pimm, 2000) - discounting the high vulnerability components of the
framework.
Conceptually all nine templates of global biodiversity conservation
priority i t within the framework of conservation planning theory (Figure
2.3). Importantly, though, they map onto dif erent portions of the frame-
work - while most of the templates prioritize high irreplaceability, some
prioritize high and others low vulnerability. These dif erences are key to
understanding how, and why, the nine prioritizations dif er, yielding pri-
ority maps that cover from less than one-tenth to more than one-third of
Earth's land surface.
Measures of irreplaceability
Six of the nine templates of global conservation priority incorporate irre-
placeability - measures of spatial conservation options (Margules and
Pressey 2000; Pressey and Taf s, 2001). The most common measure of irre-
placeability is plant (WWF and IUCN, 1994-97; Mittermeier et al., 1997,
