UZH-Logo

Developing regional conservation priorities using red lists: a hypothetical example from the Swiss lowlands.


Pearman, P B (2002). Developing regional conservation priorities using red lists: a hypothetical example from the Swiss lowlands. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11(3):469-485.

Abstract

This paper investigates how different prioritizations of species for conservation can affect both the number of breeding individuals that receive protection and the distribution of conservation attention among different types of habitat. I use as a study example three red lists of the avifauna of Kanton Zürich in northern Switzerland. Species are weighted based on their placement in different red list categories to represent
differences in species’ relative conservation value. I examine howtheseweightings affect the number of breeding pairs benefiting from increasing conservation effort. Conservation effort is defined as the number of ranked land parcels that receive conservation attention, be it through habitat enhancement, protection, or other measures. I rank parcels’ conservation value based on the number of weighted breeding pairs estimated
for each parcel.Not surprisingly, the number of category-1, -2 and -3 breeding pairs that receive benefits varies greatly when different red lists are used. Changes in the relative conservation value of species in different categories influences both the number of breeding pairs and the number of parcels to receive conservation attention. The effect of increasing conservation effort on the number of breeding pairs and the proportion of each landscape type receiving attention also vary when different red lists and relative conservation values are used to determine conservation priorities. Use of the ‘official’ red list published by a governmental body (Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Bern, Switzerland) results in more emphasis on conservation in agricultural landscape than did use of either of the other two lists. The process of prioritization of
sites for conservation should evaluate the effects of variation in both the relative conservation value of species and species categorization that may arise due to incomplete data and variation in opinion.

This paper investigates how different prioritizations of species for conservation can affect both the number of breeding individuals that receive protection and the distribution of conservation attention among different types of habitat. I use as a study example three red lists of the avifauna of Kanton Zürich in northern Switzerland. Species are weighted based on their placement in different red list categories to represent
differences in species’ relative conservation value. I examine howtheseweightings affect the number of breeding pairs benefiting from increasing conservation effort. Conservation effort is defined as the number of ranked land parcels that receive conservation attention, be it through habitat enhancement, protection, or other measures. I rank parcels’ conservation value based on the number of weighted breeding pairs estimated
for each parcel.Not surprisingly, the number of category-1, -2 and -3 breeding pairs that receive benefits varies greatly when different red lists are used. Changes in the relative conservation value of species in different categories influences both the number of breeding pairs and the number of parcels to receive conservation attention. The effect of increasing conservation effort on the number of breeding pairs and the proportion of each landscape type receiving attention also vary when different red lists and relative conservation values are used to determine conservation priorities. Use of the ‘official’ red list published by a governmental body (Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Bern, Switzerland) results in more emphasis on conservation in agricultural landscape than did use of either of the other two lists. The process of prioritization of
sites for conservation should evaluate the effects of variation in both the relative conservation value of species and species categorization that may arise due to incomplete data and variation in opinion.

Citations

4 citations in Web of Science®
4 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:07 Faculty of Science > Institute of Zoology (former)
Dewey Decimal Classification:570 Life sciences; biology
590 Animals (Zoology)
Language:English
Date:2002
Deposited On:11 Feb 2008 12:14
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 12:13
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:0960-3115
Publisher DOI:10.1023/A:1014804516444

Download

Full text not available from this repository.View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations