Systematic conservation planning: a review of perceived limitations and an illustration of the benefits, using a case study from Maputaland, South Africa

Robert J. Smith, Peter S. Goodman and Wayne S. MatthewsAbstract Systematic conservation planning is widelyconsidered the most effective approach for designingprotected area and other ecological networks.However, many conservation practitioners still ignorethese methods and we suggest that five perceivedlimitations of this process are affecting its uptake.These perceptions are that (1) systematic conservationplanning software is difficult to use, (2) the processrequires extensive biodiversity distribution data, (3)setting targets for representing conservation features isnot possible, (4) the advantages of systematic con-servation planning do not outweigh the costs, and (5)the resulting plans often identify unsuitable areas.Here we review these perceived limitations and arguethey are all misplaced, although we recognize diffi-culties in the target setting process. We then illustratethe value of systematic conservation planning topractitioners using a case study that describes a low-cost exercise from Maputaland, South Africa. Thispreliminary conservation assessment measured theeffectiveness of the existing reserve system andidentified a number of candidate areas that could bethe focus of community- or privately-run ecotourismor game ranching ventures. Our results also empha-size both the importance of producing planningoutputs that are specifically targeted for stakeholders,and the role of systematic conservation planning inproviding a framework for integrating differentprovincial, national and transnational conservationinitiatives.Keywords Conservation planning, ecologicalnetworks, implementation, Maputaland, protectedareas, South Africa.IntroductionMost reserve networks fail to conserve importantbiodiversity elements (Pressey, 1994) and a variety ofplanning techniques have been proposed to improvethis situation. One such approach is systematic con-servation planning, which is a target-driven process fordesigning reserved systems and other ecological net-works. It involves working with a range of stakeholdersto (1) set broad conservation goals for a planning region,(2) map valued conservation features, (3) set numerictargets for how much of each conservation featureshould be protected, (4) identify where new conser-vation areas should be established to meet thesetargets, and (5) develop an implementation strategy forachieving results (Margules & Pressey, 2000). Theprocess of identifying new areas, together with measur-ing existing levels of protection, is called a conservationassessment (Knight et al., 2006). This generally involvesusing specific conservation planning computer softwareto identify reserve networks that meet representationtargets whilst minimizing costs. Many conservationassessments are based on minimizing the area of thereserve network but a range of more relevant socio-economic and threat data are also increasingly used(Wilson et al., 2005).These planning techniques are generally now con-sidered the most appropriate for designing reservednetworks (Pressey & Cowling, 2001) but this has notresulted in widespread uptake by practitioners(Prendergast et al., 1999; Jackson et al., 2004; Knightet al., 2006). Use of these techniques is largely restrictedto Australia, South Africa, North America and projectsundertaken by several non-governmental organizations(Pressey, 1999; Balmford, 2003). Here we argue, basedon a review of the literature and our experience ofworking with a number of conservation practitioners,that five perceived limitations of systematic conserva-tion planning are preventing greater uptake. We arguethat all of these five perceptions are incorrect, and we