Reserve Selection Algorithms and the Real World

Abstract

Prendergast et al. (1999) set out to examine the utility of reserve selection algorithms for those organizations and individuals charged with the difficult, practical task of acquiring or extending strict reserves or other conservation areas. Much of our work has involved the development and application of reserve selection algorithms (hereafter algorithms) and regular interaction with people making conservation decisions on the ground (hereafter managers). With experience in both the theory and practice of conservation planning, our reaction to the essay by Prendergast et al. (1999) is mixed. On one hand, we acknowledge there are undesirable gaps between the world views of many scientists and managers, and we agree with some of the explanations for these and the proposed solutions. On the other hand, we are concerned about four misconceptions in the essay and comment on these here: (1) algorithms and gap analysis are alternative approaches to conservation planning; (2) algorithms need data of higher quality than do other planning approaches; (3) the widespread application of algorithms must await their ability to deal with issues not presently amenable to analysis; and (4) pressing conservation problems are more effectively addressed by the pragmatism of managers than by the use of algorithms. These misconceptions, particularly the fourth, have the potential to encourage an artificial polarity and inhibit the emerging synergy between technical and pragmatic conservation planning. Most of our comments on these four issues are premised on a framework (Table 1) that we believe is the conceptual and practical basis for effective conservation planning. This process is not tied to a particular analytical method and allows and encourages both scientists and managers to make explicit, effective, and accountable decisions about the allocation of scarce conservation resources. Prendergast et al. (1999) distinguish between gap analysis and algorithms apparently because the former acknowledges existing reserves and the latter do not. They say that recommendations that stem from [gap