Conservation planning with irreplaceability: does the method matter?

A number of systematic conservation planning tools are available to aid in making land use decisions. Given the increasing worldwide use and application of reserve design tools, including measures of site irreplaceability, it is essential that methodological differences and their potential effect on conservation planning outcomes are understood. We compared the irreplaceability of sites for protecting ecosystems within the Brigalow Belt Bioregion, Queensland, Australia, using two alternative reserve system design tools, Marxan and C-Plan. We set Marxan to generate multiple reserve systems that met targets with minimal area; the first scenario ignored spatial objectives, while the second selected compact groups of areas. Marxan calculates the irreplaceability of each site as the proportion of solutions in which it occurs for each of these set scenarios. In contrast, C-Plan uses a statistical estimate of irreplaceability as the likelihood that each site is needed in all combinations of sites that satisfy the targets. We found that sites containing rare ecosystems are almost always irreplaceable regardless of the method. Importantly, Marxan and C-Plan gave similar outcomes when spatial objectives were ignored. Marxan with a compactness objective defined twice as much area as irreplaceable, including many sites with relatively common ecosystems. However, targets for all ecosystems were met using a similar amount of area in C-Plan and Marxan, even with compactness. The importance of differences in the outcomes of using the two methods will depend on the question being addressed; in general, the use of two or more complementary tools is beneficial.

Achieving key dimensions of sustainability: Strategic visioning as a tourism destination planning tool

Tourism has had, and is continuing to have, a profound impact upon destinations, economically, environmentally and socially. The negative impacts of tourism have been attributed, among other things, to inadequate or non-existent planning frameworks for tourism development, and it has therefore been advocated that tourism planning is vital to offset some of these negative impacts. While several different approaches have been supported over the years, tourism planning based on the philosophies of sustainability has emerged as one ofthe most comprehensive approaches. However, two critical concepts have been identified as precursors to sustainable development: a strategic Qrientation towards tourism planning and enhanced levels of multiple stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process (Simpson 2001 ). While both strategic tourism planning and stakeholder participation and collaboration, have received considerable attention in the academic literature, there has been relatively little written about its practical application. However, the somewhat recent emergence of the strategic visioning concept as a destination planning tool may provide the necessary practical framework for incorporating stakeholder collaboration into destination strategic planning and management. This paper will provide a synthesis of the stakeholder collaboration, strategic planning and strategic visioning literatures, before conceptually examining the potential applicability._ of the strategic visioning process in achieving meaningful stakeholder participation and collaboration in destination planning.