National Responsibilities in European Species Conservation: a Methodological Review

Dirk Schmeller, Bernd Gruber, Eduardas Budrys, Erik Framstadt, Szabolcs Lengyel, Klaus Henle

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    65 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    One particular challenge in reducing the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as agreed on at the Earth Summit in 2002, is to assign conservation tasks to geographic or administrative entities (e.g., countries or regions) on different geographical scales. To identify conservation tasks, it is imperative to determine the importance of a specific area for the global survival of a species. So far, these national or subnational responsibilities for the conservation of species have been included differently in methods prioritizing conservation. We reviewed how 12 European and 3 non-European methods determined national conservation responsibilities and evaluated the international importance of a biological population. Different countries used different methodologies, which made a direct comparison of assessments of national responsibilities among countries extremely difficult. Differences existed in the importance criteria used. Criteria included population decline, range reduction, rarity status, degree of isolation of a population, endemism, proportional distribution, and geographic location. To increase comparability, it is imperative to develop criteria for which data are generally available and to standardize the methodology among countries. A standardized method would allow conservation decisions to be based on the conservation status of a species and on the responsibility of a geographic or administrative entity for the survival of a species. We suggest that such a method should use a scalable index of proportional distribution, taxonomic status, and the distribution pattern of a taxon or species as key elements. Such a method would allow for the creation of hierarchical lists and would be highly relevant for parts of the world with multiple political jurisdictions or state unions and for nations with regional governmental structures. Conservation priorities could then be reasonably set by combining national responsibility assessments with the international conservation status of a species.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)593-601
    Number of pages9
    JournalConservation Biology
    Volume22
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2008

    Fingerprint

    species conservation
    conservation status
    methodology
    United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
    rarity
    endemism
    population decline
    responsibility
    method
    biodiversity
    indigenous species
    distribution

    Cite this

    Schmeller, Dirk ; Gruber, Bernd ; Budrys, Eduardas ; Framstadt, Erik ; Lengyel, Szabolcs ; Henle, Klaus. / National Responsibilities in European Species Conservation: a Methodological Review. In: Conservation Biology. 2008 ; Vol. 22. pp. 593-601.
    @article{c6f46ef4df0c4b66ac2b9de69b07d017,
    title = "National Responsibilities in European Species Conservation: a Methodological Review",
    abstract = "One particular challenge in reducing the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as agreed on at the Earth Summit in 2002, is to assign conservation tasks to geographic or administrative entities (e.g., countries or regions) on different geographical scales. To identify conservation tasks, it is imperative to determine the importance of a specific area for the global survival of a species. So far, these national or subnational responsibilities for the conservation of species have been included differently in methods prioritizing conservation. We reviewed how 12 European and 3 non-European methods determined national conservation responsibilities and evaluated the international importance of a biological population. Different countries used different methodologies, which made a direct comparison of assessments of national responsibilities among countries extremely difficult. Differences existed in the importance criteria used. Criteria included population decline, range reduction, rarity status, degree of isolation of a population, endemism, proportional distribution, and geographic location. To increase comparability, it is imperative to develop criteria for which data are generally available and to standardize the methodology among countries. A standardized method would allow conservation decisions to be based on the conservation status of a species and on the responsibility of a geographic or administrative entity for the survival of a species. We suggest that such a method should use a scalable index of proportional distribution, taxonomic status, and the distribution pattern of a taxon or species as key elements. Such a method would allow for the creation of hierarchical lists and would be highly relevant for parts of the world with multiple political jurisdictions or state unions and for nations with regional governmental structures. Conservation priorities could then be reasonably set by combining national responsibility assessments with the international conservation status of a species.",
    keywords = "conservation methods, conservation priorities, Europe, national responsibility, species conservation.",
    author = "Dirk Schmeller and Bernd Gruber and Eduardas Budrys and Erik Framstadt and Szabolcs Lengyel and Klaus Henle",
    year = "2008",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00961.x",
    language = "English",
    volume = "22",
    pages = "593--601",
    journal = "Conservation Biology",
    issn = "0888-8892",
    publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

    }

    National Responsibilities in European Species Conservation: a Methodological Review. / Schmeller, Dirk; Gruber, Bernd; Budrys, Eduardas; Framstadt, Erik; Lengyel, Szabolcs; Henle, Klaus.

    In: Conservation Biology, Vol. 22, 2008, p. 593-601.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - National Responsibilities in European Species Conservation: a Methodological Review

    AU - Schmeller, Dirk

    AU - Gruber, Bernd

    AU - Budrys, Eduardas

    AU - Framstadt, Erik

    AU - Lengyel, Szabolcs

    AU - Henle, Klaus

    PY - 2008

    Y1 - 2008

    N2 - One particular challenge in reducing the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as agreed on at the Earth Summit in 2002, is to assign conservation tasks to geographic or administrative entities (e.g., countries or regions) on different geographical scales. To identify conservation tasks, it is imperative to determine the importance of a specific area for the global survival of a species. So far, these national or subnational responsibilities for the conservation of species have been included differently in methods prioritizing conservation. We reviewed how 12 European and 3 non-European methods determined national conservation responsibilities and evaluated the international importance of a biological population. Different countries used different methodologies, which made a direct comparison of assessments of national responsibilities among countries extremely difficult. Differences existed in the importance criteria used. Criteria included population decline, range reduction, rarity status, degree of isolation of a population, endemism, proportional distribution, and geographic location. To increase comparability, it is imperative to develop criteria for which data are generally available and to standardize the methodology among countries. A standardized method would allow conservation decisions to be based on the conservation status of a species and on the responsibility of a geographic or administrative entity for the survival of a species. We suggest that such a method should use a scalable index of proportional distribution, taxonomic status, and the distribution pattern of a taxon or species as key elements. Such a method would allow for the creation of hierarchical lists and would be highly relevant for parts of the world with multiple political jurisdictions or state unions and for nations with regional governmental structures. Conservation priorities could then be reasonably set by combining national responsibility assessments with the international conservation status of a species.

    AB - One particular challenge in reducing the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as agreed on at the Earth Summit in 2002, is to assign conservation tasks to geographic or administrative entities (e.g., countries or regions) on different geographical scales. To identify conservation tasks, it is imperative to determine the importance of a specific area for the global survival of a species. So far, these national or subnational responsibilities for the conservation of species have been included differently in methods prioritizing conservation. We reviewed how 12 European and 3 non-European methods determined national conservation responsibilities and evaluated the international importance of a biological population. Different countries used different methodologies, which made a direct comparison of assessments of national responsibilities among countries extremely difficult. Differences existed in the importance criteria used. Criteria included population decline, range reduction, rarity status, degree of isolation of a population, endemism, proportional distribution, and geographic location. To increase comparability, it is imperative to develop criteria for which data are generally available and to standardize the methodology among countries. A standardized method would allow conservation decisions to be based on the conservation status of a species and on the responsibility of a geographic or administrative entity for the survival of a species. We suggest that such a method should use a scalable index of proportional distribution, taxonomic status, and the distribution pattern of a taxon or species as key elements. Such a method would allow for the creation of hierarchical lists and would be highly relevant for parts of the world with multiple political jurisdictions or state unions and for nations with regional governmental structures. Conservation priorities could then be reasonably set by combining national responsibility assessments with the international conservation status of a species.

    KW - conservation methods

    KW - conservation priorities

    KW - Europe

    KW - national responsibility

    KW - species conservation.

    U2 - 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00961.x

    DO - 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00961.x

    M3 - Article

    VL - 22

    SP - 593

    EP - 601

    JO - Conservation Biology

    JF - Conservation Biology

    SN - 0888-8892

    ER -