Contributed Paper

Comparing Spatially Explicit Ecological and SocialValues for Natural Areas to Identify EffectiveConservation StrategiesBRETT ANTHONY BRYAN,∗‡ CHRISTOPHER MARK RAYMOND,† NEVILLE DAVID CROSSMAN,∗

AND DARRAN KING∗∗CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia†Centre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of South Australia, Enviroconnect Pty Ltd., P.O. Box 190,Stirling, South Australia 5152, Australia

Abstract: Consideration of the social values people assign to relatively undisturbed native ecosystems is

critical for the success of science-based conservation plans. We used an interview process to identify and map

social values assigned to 31 ecosystem services provided by natural areas in an agricultural landscape in

southern Australia. We then modeled the spatial distribution of 12 components of ecological value commonly

used in setting spatial conservation priorities. We used the analytical hierarchy process to weight these

components and used multiattribute utility theory to combine them into a single spatial layer of ecological

value. Social values assigned to natural areas were negatively correlated with ecological values overall, but

were positively correlated with some components of ecological value. In terms of the spatial distribution of

values, people valued protected areas, whereas those natural areas underrepresented in the reserve system

were of higher ecological value. The habitats of threatened animal species were assigned both high ecological

value and high social value. Only small areas were assigned both high ecological value and high social value

in the study area, whereas large areas of high ecological value were of low social value, and vice versa. We

used the assigned ecological and social values to identify different conservation strategies (e.g., information

sharing, community engagement, incentive payments) that may be effective for specific areas. We suggest

that consideration of both ecological and social values in selection of conservation strategies can enhance the

success of science-based conservation planning.

Keywords: biological diversity, conservation planning, environmental values, landscape, policy instruments,spatial prioritization

Comparacion de Valores Ecologicos y Sociales Espacialmente Explıcitos de Areas Naturales para la Identificacionde Estrategias de Conservacion Efectivas

Resumen: La consideracion de los valores sociales que la gente asigna a ecosistemas relativamente no

perturbado es crıtica para el exito de los planes de conservacion con bases cientıficas. Utilizamos un proceso de

entrevistas para identificar y mapear valores sociales asignados a 31 servicios del ecosistema proporcionados

por areas naturales en un paisaje agrıcola en el sur de Australia. Posteriormente modelamos la distribucion

espacial de 12 componentes de valor ecologico utilizados comunmente para establecer prioridades espaciales

de conservacion. Utilizamos el proceso de jerarquıa analıtica para ponderar esos componentes y usamos

la teorıa de utilidad multiatributos para combinarlos en una sola capa espacial de valor ecologico. Los

valores sociales asignados a las areas naturas se correlacionaron negativamente con los valores ecologicos

generales, pero se correlacionaron positivamente con algunos componentes de valor ecologico. En terminos

‡email brett.bryan@csiro.auPaper submitted November 13, 2009; revised manuscript accepted March 17, 2010.

172Conservation Biology, Volume 25, No. 1, 172–181C©2010 Society for Conservation BiologyDOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01560.x

Bryan et al. 173

de la distribucion espacial de los valores, la gente valoro las areas protegidas, mientras que esas areas

naturales representaron insuficientemente en el sistema de reservas tuvieron mayor valor ecologico. Los

habitats de especies animales amenazadas tuvieron alto valor tanto ecologico como social. En el area de

estudio le fueron asignados altos valores ecologicos y sociales solo a areas pequenas, mientras que las areas

extensas de alto valor ecologico tuvieron bajo valor social, y viceversa. Utilizamos los valores ecologicos y

sociales asignados para identificar diferentes estrategias de conservacion (e. g., informacion compartida,

involucramiento de la comunidad, pago de incentivos) que pueden ser efectivos para areas especıficas.

Sugerimos que la consideracion de valores tanto ecologicos como sociales en la seleccion de estrategias de

conservacion puede incrementar el exito de la planificacion con bases cientıficas.

Palabras Clave: diversidad biologica, instrumentos de polıtica, paisaje, planificacion de la conservacion, prior-izacion espacial, valores ambientales

Introduction

Conservation planners (Margules & Sarkar 2007; Moila-nen et al. 2009) have synthesized several key ecologi-cal pattern- and process-based principles for assessmentof the relative ecological value of natural areas. Theseprinciples include representation of species surrogates;species richness and rarity; spatial arrangement of naturalareas, including size, shape, connectivity, and fragmen-tation; and measures of the probability of species persis-tence (Margules & Pressey 2000; Wilson et al. 2009a).Economic cost is also considered in the efficient selec-tion of conservation areas (e.g., Naidoo et al. 2006; Ban& Klein 2009; Wilson et al. 2009b). Nevertheless, imple-menting conservation plans remains a challenge becausethe emphasis of conservation planning is on ecologicaland economic assessment rather than on the social andecological context of management (Knight et al. 2006a,2008; Carpenter et al. 2009).

A key aspect of this social and ecological context isthe diverse use and nonuse values (e.g., recreational, cul-tural, educational, bequest [desire to leave for future gen-erations], and intrinsic values) people assign to naturalareas. We refer to these as social values. Successful con-servation depends not only on identifying ecological andeconomic priorities for specific areas, but also on howthese priorities align with the social values assigned tothese areas by the community (Jepson & Canney 2003;Knight & Cowling 2007; Knight et al. 2009). By takinginto account the different ways in which humans un-derstand and value natural areas, the social acceptabilityof science-based conservation plans can be increased,the complexity of conservation values can be better un-derstood, and the uncertainty in conservation planningreduced (Cash et al. 2003; Berkes 2009). Understandingthe relations between ecological and social values couldhelp conservation professionals design strategies (e.g., in-formation exchange, incentive schemes, regulation) forspecific locations that are likely to be efficient and effec-tive (Perman et al. 2003; Sterner 2003).

Studies quantifying spatial priorities for conservationhave included elements of social values, such as recre-ation (Klein et al. 2008; Larsen et al. 2008), cultural

values (Janssen et al. 2005), and food provision (Banet al. 2009a). Nevertheless, the variety of social valuesconsidered within conservation planning studies is oftenlimited because of the challenge of integrating multiple,disparate social values with ecological and economic cri-teria (Ban & Klein 2009). In contrast, social scientistshave developed techniques for eliciting, integrating, andmapping a variety of social values for biological diver-sity (Brown 2005; Tyrvainnen et al. 2007; McIntyre et al.2008). For example, Brown (2005) synthesized the re-sults of five studies in which up to 14 different types ofsocial values (e.g., aesthetic, recreation, life-sustaining,educational, and intrinsic values) were mapped for con-servation areas. Raymond et al. (2009) mapped socialvalues for five natural capital assets and 31 ecosystemservices (the benefits people obtain from ecosystems), in-cluding provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supportingservices as defined in Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(2005).

Relations between ecological and social values for natu-ral areas have been used to inform conservation planningin several ways (Ban & Klein 2009). Typically, informa-tion on social values have been combined analyticallywith environmental and economic information through,for example, reserve-selection software (e.g., Ban et al.2009a) and multicriteria analyses (e.g., Portman 2007),to systematically identify cost-effective spatial conserva-tion priorities. Additionally, mapped social values havebeen compared with ecological values to refine spa-tial conservation priorities. Brown et al. (2004) founda moderate spatial overlap between Alaskan (U.S.A.) res-idents’ perceptions of biological value and biologicallysignificant areas identified by scientists. Raymond andBrown (2006) mapped social values and used this infor-mation in discriminant analysis to refine government pri-orities for expansion of a protected-area network. Alessaet al. (2008) identified moderate, positive spatial correla-tions between perceived value of biological diversity andnet primary productivity of terrestrial vegetation. Banet al. (2009b) discovered with kappa analysis that spa-tial conservation priorities identified by local people pro-vided a reasonable approximation of, and complementedpriorities identified through, quantitative, systematic,

Conservation Biology

Volume 25, No. 1, 2011

174 Spatial Comparison of Social and Ecological Values

Figure 1. Location map and land use in the South Australian Murray-Darling basin study area. Natural areas

include both remnant vegetation and protected areas.

science-based assessment. To the best of our knowledge,no one has quantified the relations among a diverse set ofspatially explicit ecological and social values for naturalareas for use in identifying conservation strategies thatmay be effective in specific areas.

We mapped and compared a range of ecological andsocial values for natural areas in the South AustralianMurray-Darling Basin. We used this information to de-termine where different conservation strategies (e.g.,information sharing, community engagement, incentivepayments) could be applied to achieve conservationobjectives.

Methods

Study Area

The South Australian Murray-Darling Basin study area cov-ers 5.6 million ha (Fig. 1). Natural areas, including rem-nant native woodlands, grasslands, and shrublands, cover

over 54% of the region and are concentrated in the driernorthern areas. In the south, natural areas are fragmentedand occur within a matrix of cereal crops and grazinglands. Some remnant native vegetation occurs along thefloodplains and wetlands of the River Murray. Substan-tial portions of the Murray-Darling Basin are subject toprocesses such as livestock grazing, non-native speciescolonizations, and fragmentation. Management actionsthat may mitigate these processes include fencing andlivestock management, fire management, the eradicationof invasive species, and ecological restoration.

The South Australian Murray-Darling Basin NaturalResources Management Board (hereafter board) is acommunity-based regional agency that manages natu-ral resources on both public and private lands in thestudy area. Their major conservation initiatives includeinformation provision and extension, coordination ofcommunity-based conservation groups, and develop-ment and implementation of programs for managing nat-ural resources.

Conservation Biology

Volume 25, No. 1, 2011

Bryan et al. 175

Mapping Social Values

Social values were mapped during interviews with 56community members who had knowledge of natural re-source management in the study area. Participants wereselected through nonproportional quota sampling (seeCast et al. [2008] and Raymond et al. [2009] for full de-tails). Half of the participants were selected from theboard or its advisory groups. The Millennium EcosystemAssessment (2005) ecosystem services framework wastailored to the study area (Raymond et al. 2009). Themodified framework consisted of four natural capital as-sets (land, water, biota, atmosphere) and 31 provisioning,regulating, cultural, and supporting services (Raymondet al. 2009).

Participants were asked to locate and map the spatialextent of places in the study area they valued for theexistence of natural capital assets and the production ofecosystem services, and to indicate the intensity of thevalue (Raymond et al. 2009). Participants were each given40 tokens to place in areas they valued on a topographicmap of the study area (1:325,000 scale A0 [841 × 1189mm]). They could place one or more tokens on an areato represent a value-intensity score. Participants wereasked to identify the natural capital assets and ecosystemservices they valued in each of the areas delineated.

The spatial extent of each area valued was digitizedin a geographic information system (GIS), converted toraster format, and linked to information about the typeand intensity of the values assigned. In this study, weoverlaid the areas valued for the biota (Raymond et al.2009) in a GIS and summed the value-intensity scores tocreate a social values layer. We focused on the values thatcoincided with natural areas (Fig. 1).

Mapping Ecological Values

Our selection of 12 components of ecological value wasguided by ecological restoration and conservation princi-ples (Margules & Sarkar 2007; Lindenmayer et al. 2008;Wilson et al. 2009a; Crossman et al. 2010), local knowl-edge, and the priorities of the board (Supporting Infor-mation). We grouped the components into five cate-gories: climate change (one component, priority areasfor species threatened by climate change), patch met-rics (patch size, patch shape, fragmentation), protec-tion status (level of protection of vegetation commu-nities), species (species richness of non-native plants,species richness of native plants, species richness ofthreatened plants, habitat for threatened animals), andthe proportion of each climate zone, pre-European veg-etation community, and soil type supporting nativevegetation.

We used several methods to develop individual rasterlayers that characterized the spatial distribution of thecomponents of ecological value (Supporting Informa-tion). These layers were linearly transformed to integer

values between 0 and 1000 to remove bias in numericalcombination and speed computation.

Two main approaches for combining the compo-nents of ecological value exist: complementarity-basedapproaches and scoring approaches. Complementarity-based approaches identify reserve networks that effi-ciently achieve conservation targets (Justus & Sarkar2002; Margules & Sarkar 2007; Ferrier & Wintle 2009).Scoring approaches are simple to use, transparent, andenable the ranking of sites when the consideration ofmultiple, often conflicting, criteria is important, as iscommon in conservation planning (Moffett & Sarkar2006; Regan et al. 2007). Nevertheless, scoring ap-proaches are likely to be inefficient for selection of con-servation networks to achieve minimum representationtargets because they consider each candidate area indi-vidually rather than the overall contribution of the systemof selected areas to achieving targets (Kati et al. 2004).Despite this limitation, we used a scoring approach be-cause it allowed us to assess the relations between socialvalues and the multiple components of ecological value.

We used a multicriteria analysis approach (e.g., Phua &Minowa 2005; Portman 2007; Samu et al. 2008) to com-bine the 12 layers of ecological value. In a meeting withan experienced ecologist from the board, we used theanalytical hierarchy process (Saaty 1980) to weight thecontribution of each component to the overall ecologicalvalue. We made an iterative series of trade-offs betweenpairs of components to derive these weights. To ensureconsistency in weights, we reexamined trade-offs whenthe consistency ratio exceeded 0.1 (Saaty 1980). Us-ing multiattribute utility theory (Keeney & Raiffa 1976),we created a composite layer of ecological values as aweighted sum of the component layers S = ∑

j∈ J w j Z j ,where J is the set of 12 components, Zj is the linearlytransformed raster component layer, and wj is the weightfor component j.

Comparing Social and Ecological Values

We calculated the spatial autocorrelation (Goodchild1986) of the spatially explicit social and ecological val-ues to guide the selection of data points for comparisonof those values. We aimed to minimize the degree ofspatial autocorrelation in the data while still providinga large enough sample for robust correlation analyses.We used models fitted to empirical semivariograms foreach layer to assess the separation distances needed toreduce spatial autocorrelation. We also built spatial co-variance models to quantify the effect of separation dis-tance on the correlation between social and ecologicalvalues.

We calculated the correlation R between the socialvalues and the composite ecological values, and betweenthe social values and each of the 12 component layers of

Conservation Biology

Volume 25, No. 1, 2011

176 Spatial Comparison of Social and Ecological Values

ecological value as

R =∑i∈N

(Xi − X

) (Yi − Y

)√∑

i∈N

(Xi − X

)2√∑

i∈N

(Yi − Y

)2, (1)

where N is the set of grid cells in each random sample,Xi and Yi are the values of cell i for grid X and Y , respec-tively, and X and Y are the grid means for the randomsample (Goodchild 1986). We calculated the correlationR between each of the 13 pairs of layers for 1000 randomsamples. To quantify the uncertainty in the correlationstatistic, we calculated the mean and standard deviationof R over the 1000 samples.

Identifying Areas for Alternative Conservation Strategies

To enable the selection of conservation strategies for spe-cific areas, we delineated areas of high and low socialvalue and areas of high and low ecological value. Forboth the ecological and social values layers, we nomi-nally defined high-value areas as the 20% of the area ofremnant vegetation with the highest value scores andlow-value areas as the 20% of the area with the lowestvalue scores. We used a combinatorial overlay operationin a GIS to identify areas that had unique value combi-nations (i.e., high ecological value and high social value,high ecological value and low social value, low ecologicalvalue and high social value, and low ecological value andlow social value). We then used these areas to illustratehow alternative conservation strategies could be targetedin our study area.

Results

Social and Ecological Values

Of the 881 individual mapped areas valued by the 56interview participants (Raymond et al. 2009), 485 areashad values assigned to biota and these were used in thisstudy. Participants assigned cultural services the highestsocial values, followed by provisioning, regulating, andsupporting services. Of these ecosystem services, par-ticipants valued bequest, intrinsic, and existence values;recreation and tourism; food provisioning; water regu-lation; and water purification and waste treatment themost. The services least valued were disease regulationand provisioning of biochemicals, energy, and geneticresources (Supporting Information).

Areas with the highest social values were along theRiver Murray and in the Chowilla floodplain (Fig. 2).Participants considered the large protected areas in thenortheast and the Billiat and Ngarkat conservation parksto be of moderately high social value. Participants as-signed low value to the small, highly fragmented, pri-vately owned natural areas in the southern part of thestudy area and the larger fragmented remnant areas inthe central west (Fig. 2).

When we combined the 12 components to create asingle layer of ecological value, the proportion of pre-European vegetation communities that supported nativevegetation (wj = 0.243) was weighted highest, followedby species richness of native plants (wj = 0.213) andthe level of protection of vegetation communities (wj =0.169) (Fig. 3). Patch shape (wj = 0.004) and fragmenta-tion (wj = 0.017) were weighted lowest.

Figure 2. Distribution and

concentration of social and

ecological values for natural areas.

Conservation Biology

Volume 25, No. 1, 2011

Bryan et al. 177

Figure 3. Weighting (wj ) of

the relative importance of

the 12 components of

ecological value j for the

study area. Higher values

indicate higher relative

importance.

The smaller, fragmented patches along the westernboundary and central western parts of the study area,and the floodplain and wetland ecosystems along theRiver Murray (Fig. 2), were assigned the highest eco-logical value (Fig. 2). These areas had low proportionsof pre-European vegetation communities, climate zones,and soil types that supported native vegetation; were ahigh priority for species threatened by climate change;had higher species richness of native plants; and had lesscomplex patch shapes (Supporting Information). Despitepatches being large in area and having low levels of frag-mentation and species richness of non-native plants, nat-ural areas in the drier northeast were of lower ecologicalvalue. These areas had a higher level of protection andproportion of pre-European vegetation communities, cli-mate zones, and soil types that supported native vegeta-tion; had lower species richness of native plants; were oflower priority for species threatened by climate change;and had more complex shapes (Fig. 2; Supporting Infor-mation).

Relations between Social and Ecological Values

Both the social and ecological value layers were highlyautocorrelated (Moran’s I = 0.943 and 0.974, respec-tively). Investigation of the semivariograms and covari-ance of the social and ecological values suggested thatspatial autocorrelation decreased beyond a separationdistance of about 100 km (Supporting Information).We selected a random sample size of 40 grid cells(76 km mean separation distance) so we could reduceautocorrelation and still have a robust sample for corre-lation analyses.

Social and ecological values were significantly (α =0.05) and negatively correlated (Table 1). Social valueswere also significantly and negatively correlated withfive components of ecological value: level of protectionof vegetation communities; species richness of nativeplants; proportion of soil types and pre-European vegeta-tion communities that supported native vegetation; andpatch shape. Social values were significantly and posi-tively correlated with three components of ecological

value: habitat of threatened animal species, fragmenta-tion, and patch size (Table 1).

Areas for Alternative Conservation Strategies

There was a small area (23,442 ha) of high social valueand high ecological value located in the Chowilla flood-plain and River Murray National Park (Fig. 4). Anothersmall area (25,348 ha) immediately north of the RiverMurray between Morgan and Loxton was of low social

Table 1. Correlation (R) between spatially explicit social values andecological values for natural areas and between social values and eachcomponent of ecological value.

Meancorrelation SD

Ecological values −0.438a 0.104Priority areas for species

threatened by climatechange

−0.087 0.119

Patch size 0.257a 0.104Patch shape −0.236a 0.095Fragmentation 0.355a 0.103Level of protection of

vegetation communities−0.470 0.107

Species richness ofnon-native plants

0.240 0.151

Species richness of nativeplants

−0.381a 0.084

Species richness ofthreatenedb plants

−0.006 0.137

Habitat for threatenedc

animal species0.413a 0.166

Proportion of climate zonessupporting nativevegetation

−0.197 0.119

Proportion of pre-Europeanvegetation communitiessupporting nativevegetation

−0.270a 0.136

Proportion of soil typessupporting nativevegetation

−0.356a 0.116

aSignificantly different from zero (α = 0.05).bState and national legislation.cNational legislation.

Conservation Biology

Volume 25, No. 1, 2011

178 Spatial Comparison of Social and Ecological Values

Figure 4. Areas with different combinations of social

and ecological value.

value and low ecological value. Areas of high social valueand low ecological value and areas of low social valueand high ecological value were much larger (318,713and 333,954 ha, respectively). The areas of fragmented,privately owned woodland and grassland in the south,central, and northwest were of low social value but highecological value. The large protected areas in the north-east that are in Dangalli Conservation Park and BookmarkBiosphere Reserve were of high social value but low eco-logical value (Fig. 4).

Discussion

We sought to examine the spatial relations between a di-verse set of social and ecological values for use in identify-ing strategies likely to achieve conservation objectives inspecific areas. In contrast to the results of others (Brownet al. 2004; Alessa et al. 2008; Ban et al. 2009b), we foundthat although there are some areas of convergence be-tween social and ecological values in the study area, therewere large areas for which social and ecological valuesdiverged. Only a small proportion of the total area thatwas of high ecological value was also of high social value.This presents challenges for conservation planners who

Table 2. Decision rules for use in selecting conservation strategieson the basis of the relations between ecological and social value.

Low ecological High ecologicalvalue value

Low socialvalue

reallocate agencyresources awayfrom these areas

community-basededucation andawareness raisingabout the ecologicalvalue of these areasincentive schemes toencourage uptake ofconservation practices

High socialvalue

programsestablished forresearchers tolisten to andincrease theirunderstandingof communityvalues for theseareas

implementcommunity-basedconservationprograms (e.g.,fencing and livestockmanagement, invasivespecies eradication,ecological restor-ation); minimaladditional communityengagement required

need to consider social, political, and ecological criteriain their decision making. If conservation is only aimed atareas that have both high social value and high ecolog-ical value, large areas of high ecological value may notbe managed to maintain that value. Similarly, if commu-nity interests and lobby groups have a strong influence onconservation-investment decisions, conservation fundingmay be directed to areas of high social value, the majorityof which were not of high ecological value.

Our method allows the integration of ecological andsocial values into conservation planning at the regionalscale and supports the selection of conservation strate-gies for specific areas. Simple decision rules (e.g.,Table 2) can be used to select strategies depending onthe nature of social and ecological values to support com-munity engagement in conservation.

Conservation actions in areas of high ecological valueand high social value require minimal additional com-munity engagement for success. In our study area, theseareas are already being conserved and managed (e.g.,Chowilla floodplain is under formal protection and nat-ural inundation regimes are being restored). Conversely,decision makers and the community may wish to divertconservation funding away from areas of both low ecolog-ical and social value given limited conservation budgets.In our study area, areas of both low ecological and socialvalue were small and no known conservation programsare operating in them.

Conservation of areas that are of high ecologicalvalue and low social value requires strategies that in-crease the involvement of local communities (Table 2).Education and awareness-raising strategies could beused to inform local communities about the ecological

Conservation Biology

Volume 25, No. 1, 2011

Bryan et al. 179

components of value that they do not currently recog-nize, such as those negatively correlated with social value(Table 1). Fine-resolution relations between individualcomponents of ecological and social value could guidethe content of education and awareness programs. Forexample, in areas of high ecological value and low socialvalue, education and awareness-raising efforts could fo-cus on ecological values such as the level of protectionof vegetation communities, proportion of pre-Europeanvegetation communities that support native vegetation,and species richness of native plants. Incentive programs(e.g., grants, payments for ecosystem services, auctionsfor conservation contracts) could complement educationand awareness-raising strategies to further support con-servation actions by landholders and local communities.Incentive programs could be applied where conservationaction is needed to protect components of ecologicalvalue.

Nevertheless, the engagement process needs to betwo-way. In areas of low ecological value and high so-cial value, ecologists need to be prepared to listen toand learn from local communities. Participants in thisstudy valued ecosystem services not usually considered inconservation planning studies, including bequest, intrin-sic, and existence values and recreation, tourism, food-provisioning, and water-regulation services (SupportingInformation). These values coincided with protected ar-eas and were correlated with the ecological values ofhabitat of threatened animal species, low levels of frag-mentation, and large patch size. Conservation actions inthese areas may receive wide community support (e.g.,through community-based friends-of-parks groups) andbe more successful than similar programs in areas oflower social value. Opportunistic conservation actionsimplemented in these areas (Knight & Cowling 2007)may provide inexpensive contributions to conservationobjectives, although it may be challenging to reconcileecological priorities with these conservation opportuni-ties (Pressey & Bottrill 2008).

One way of achieving a two-way engagement processis through adaptive comanagement and social-learningprocesses that engage both scientists and local commu-nity members (Armitage et al. 2009). These processesadd to existing knowledge-integration approaches (e.g.,Armitage et al. 2009; Berkes 2009) by moving beyondthe normative grounds (e.g., governance structures andsocial learning processes) of comanagement to provi-sion of evidence-based and empirical tools for coman-agement decisions. Key ingredients to this social-learningprocess suggested by Knight et al. (2006b; see also Cowl-ing et al. 2008 for more information) include the designof processes, collaboration with and building capacityof stakeholders, and mainstreaming of scientific informa-tion (e.g., enhanced communication with communitiesthrough maps, scenarios). For example, our Figs. 2–4and Supporting Information could be used as a tool in

a workshop setting to engage communities and increasethe success of conservation implementation.

It is practical to incorporate economic costs of conser-vation at a spatial scale finer than that assessed in thisstudy. For example, for incentive programs in areas ofhigh ecological value and low social value, which mostlyoccur on private land, the economic cost of particularconservation actions may be efficiently revealed throughthe engagement of landholders in market-based policy in-struments such as conservation auctions (Sterner 2003).The economic cost of management actions (e.g., fenc-ing, weed removal) can be considered along with theecological value of sites (Fig. 2) to prioritize sites for con-servation investment (Connor et al. 2008). Conservationstrategies that consider the social values of an area canresult in increased cost-sharing, volunteerism, and partici-pation in community-based conservation (Gruber 2010).Hence, conservation is likely to be more effective, effi-cient, and successful because individual landholders andlocal communities are involved in on-the-ground conser-vation actions in areas for which they assign greater socialvalue.

We used a scoring approach to make explicit the com-ponents of ecological value and social value that were cor-related in a given area. Consideration of the interactionbetween social and ecological values can be extended tocomplementarity-based conservation assessments if theefficient achievement of minimum representation targetsis considered important.

Traditionally, conservation planning is based on a sys-tematic and scientific assessment of patterns and pro-cesses within ecological systems. We found that areas ofhigh ecological value were likely to be of low social value,and vice versa. Conservation and engagement strategiesthat are sensitive to the interaction between social andecological values can be applied to specific locations toincrease the success of conservation implementation.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the contributions of S. Lance, A. Cast,S. Strathearn, T. Kalivas, A. Grandgirard, D. Hatton Mac-Donald, D. King, and D. Frahm, and for the funding andsupport by the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Nat-ural Resources Management Board, and CSIRO’s Waterfor a Healthy Country and Sustainable Agriculture Flag-ships. We are also grateful for the constructive reviewsof A. Zerger, I. Gordon, three anonymous reviewers, andthe journal editors.

Supporting Information

Methods used to create ecological value components(Appendix S1), a breakdown of social values for ecosys-tem services (Appendix S2), maps of ecological value

Conservation Biology

Volume 25, No. 1, 2011

180 Spatial Comparison of Social and Ecological Values

components (Appendix S3), and empirical semivari-ograms and covariance of social and ecological values(Appendix S4) are available online. The authors are solelyresponsible for the content and functionality of thesematerials. Queries (other than absence of the material)should be directed to the corresponding author.

Literature Cited

Alessa, L., A. Kliskey, and G. Brown. 2008. Social-ecological hotspotsmapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning 85:27–39.

Armitage, D., et al. 2009. Adaptive co-management for social-ecologicalcomplexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:95–102.

Ban, N. C., and C. J. Klein. 2009. Spatial socioeconomic data as a costin systematic marine conservation planning. Conservation Letters2:206–215.

Ban, N. C., G. J. A. Hansen, M. Jones, and A. C. J. Vincent. 2009a.Systematic marine conservation planning in data-poor regions: so-cioeconomic data is essential. Marine Policy 33:794–800.

Ban, N. C., C. R. Picard, and A. C. J. Vincent. 2009b. Comparing andintegrating community-based and science-based approaches to pri-oritizing marine areas for protection. Conservation Biology 23:899–910.

Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge gen-eration, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Envi-ronmental Management 90:1692–1702.

Brown, G. 2005. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for nat-ural resource management: methods and applications. Society andNatural Resources 18:17–39.

Brown, G., C. Smith, L. Alessa, and A. Kliskey. 2004. A comparison ofperceptions of biological value with scientific assessment of biolog-ical importance. Applied Geography 24:161–180.

Carpenter, S. R., et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem ser-vices: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America106:1305–1312.

Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D. H.Guston, J. Jager, and R. B. Mitchel. 2003. Knowledge systems forsustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America 100:8086–8091.

Cast, A., D. Hatton MacDonald, A. Grandgirard, T. Kalivas, S. Strathearn,M. Sanderson, B. A. Bryan, and D. Frahm. 2008. South AustralianMurray Darling Basin environmental values report. CSIRO, Adelaide,Australia. Available from http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycountry/2008/wfhc-MDB-Environmental-Values.pdf (accessed April 2010).

Connor, J. D., J. Ward, and B. A. Bryan. 2008. Exploring the cost ef-fectiveness of land conservation auctions and payment policies.The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics52:303–319.

Cowling, R. M., B. Egoh, A. T. Knight, P. J. O’Farrell, B. Reyers, M.Rouget, D. J. Roux, A. Welz, and A. Wilhelm-Rechman. 2008. Anoperational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for imple-mentation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America 105:9483–9488.

Crossman, N. D., B. A. Bryan, and D. A. Cooke. 2010. An invasive plantand climate change threat index for weed risk management: inte-grating habitat distribution pattern and dispersal process. EcologicalIndicators DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.10.011.

Ferrier, S., and B. A. Wintle. 2009. Quantitative approaches to spatialconservation prioritization: matching the solution to the need. Pages1–15 in A. Moilanen, K. A. Wilson, and H. P. Possingham, editors.Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and com-putational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Goodchild, M. F. 1986. Spatial autocorrelation. Catmog 47, Geo Books,Norwich.

Gruber, J. S. 2010. Key principles of community-based natural resourcemanagement: a synthesis and interpretation of identified effectiveapproaches for managing the commons. Environmental Manage-ment 45:52–66.

Justus, J., and S. Sarkar. 2002. The principle of complementarity in thedesign of reserve networks to conserve biodiversity: a preliminaryhistory. Journal of Biosciences 27:421–435.

Janssen, R., H. Goosen, M. L. Verhoeven, J. T. A. Verhoeven, A.Q. A. Omtzigt, and E. Maltby. 2005. Decision support for inte-grated wetland management. Environmental Modelling and Soft-ware 20:215–29.

Jepson, P., and S. Canney. 2003. Values-led conservation. Global Ecol-ogy & Biogeography 12:271–274.

Kati, V., P. Devillers, M. Dufrene, A. Legakis, D. Vokou, and P. Lebrun.2004. Hotspots, complementarity or representativeness? Designingoptimal small-scale reserves for biodiversity conservation. BiologicalConservation 120:471–480.

Keeney, R. L., and H. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives:preferences and value tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Klein, C. J., A. Chan, L. Kircher, A. J. Cundiff, N. Gardner, Y. Hrovat,A. Scholz, B. E. Kendall, and S. Airame. 2008. Striking a balancebetween biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic viability inthe design of marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 22:691–700.

Knight, A. T., and R. M. Cowling. 2007. Embracing opportunism inthe selection of priority conservation areas. Conservation Biology21:1124–1126.

Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, and B. M. Campbell. 2006a. An operationalmodel for implementing conservation action. Conservation Biology20:408–419.

Knight, A. T., et al. 2006b. Designing systematic conservation assess-ments that promote effective implementation: best practice fromSouth Africa. Conservation Biology 20:739–750.

Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, M. Rouget, A. Balmford, A. T. Lombard,and B. M. Campbell. 2008. Knowing but not doing: selecting priorityconservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conserva-tion Biology 22:610–617.

Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, H. P. Possingham, and K. A. Wilson.2009. From theory to practice: designing and situating spatial pri-oritization approaches to better implement conservation action.Pages 249–259 in A. Moilanen, K. A. Wilson, and H. P. Possingham,editors. Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methodsand computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UnitedKingdom.

Larsen, F. W., A. H. Petersen, N. Strange, M. P. Lund, and C. Rahbek.2008. A quantitative analysis of biodiversity and the recreationalvalue of potential national parks in Denmark. Journal of Environ-mental Management 41:685–695.

Lindenmayer, D., et al. 2008. A checklist for ecological management oflandscapes for conservation. Ecology Letters 11:78–91.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Margules C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation plan-ning. Nature 405:243–253.

Margules, C. R., and S. Sarkar. 2007. Systematic conservation planning.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

McIntyre, N., J. Moore, and M. Yuan. 2008. A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on Canadian crownlands. Society and Natural Resources 21:657–670.

Moffett, A., and S. Sarkar. 2006. Incorporating multiple criteria into thedesign of conservation area networks: a minireview with recom-mendations. Diversity and Distributions 12:135–137.

Moilanen, A., K. A. Wilson, and H. P. Possingham. 2009. Spatial conser-vation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools.Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Conservation Biology

Volume 25, No. 1, 2011

Bryan et al. 181

Naidoo, R., A. Balmford, P. J. Ferraro, S. Polasky, T. H. Ricketts, and M.Rouget. 2006. Integrating economic costs into conservation plan-ning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:681–687.

Perman, R., Y. Ma, J. McGilvray, and M. Common. 2003. Natural re-source and environmental economics. 3rd edition. Harlow, Essex,United Kingdom.

Phua, M. H., and M. Minowa. 2005. A GIS-based multi criteria decisionmaking approach to forest conservation planning at a landscapescale: a case study of the Kinabalu area, Sabah, Malaysia. Landscapeand Urban Planning 71:207–222.

Portman, M. E. 2007. Zoning design for cross-border marine protectedareas: the Red Sea Marine Peace Park case study. Ocean and CoastalManagement Journal 50:499–522.

Pressey, R. L., and M. C. Bottrill. 2008. Opportunism, threats, and theevolution of systematic conservation planning. Conservation Biol-ogy 22:1340–1345.

Raymond, C.M., and G. Brown. 2006. A method for assessing protectedarea allocations using a typology of landscape values. Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management 49:797–812.

Raymond, C. M., B. A. Bryan, D. Hatton MacDonald, A. Cast, S. Strat-hearn, A. Grandgirard, and T. Kalivas. 2009. Mapping communityvalues for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Eco-nomics 68:1301–1315.

Regan, H., F. Davis, S. Andelman, A. Widyanata, and M. Freese.2007. Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation inconservation planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:2715–2728.

Saaty, T. 1980. The analytical hierarchy process: planning, priority set-ting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Samu, F., P. Csontos, and C. Szinetar. 2008. From multi-criteria ap-proach to simple protocol: assessing habitat patches for conserva-tion value using species rarity. Biological Conservation 141:1310–1320.

Sterner, T. 2003. Policy instruments for environmental and natural re-source management. RFF Press, Washington, D.C.

Tyrvainnen, L., K. Makinen, and J. Schipperijn. 2007. Tools for mappingsocial values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscapeand Urban Planning 79:5–19.

Wilson, K. A., M. Cabeza, and C. J. Klein. 2009a. Fundamental conceptsof spatial conservation planning. Pages 16–27 in A. Moilanen, K.A. Wilson, and H. P. Possingham, editors. Spatial conservation pri-oritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Wilson, K. A., J. Carwardine, and H. P. Possingham. 2009b. Settingconservation priorities. Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology1162:237–264.

Conservation Biology

Volume 25, No. 1, 2011