Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Information pyramids for informed biodiversity conservation

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We discuss a paradigm for informed ecosystem management that provides a quantitative and rigorous foundation for informing conservation decisions and sustainable ecosystem management. Information pyramids incorporate conceptual and technological advances in ecosystem depiction and provide a framework for the integration and generalization of raw data into forms that are spatially extensive and at the appropriate level of generalization for a particular use. The basic tenets of the pyramid are: (1) Higher levels of the pyramid are entirely derived from a foundation of underlying data. (2) The process of generalization and integration upward should be objective and explicit. (3) Pyramids for different purposes often overlap, with common data and common methods for integration. (4) All levels of the pyramid should be developed together, including base data, methods and kinds of integration, and algorithms for using the information for planning and decision-making. Information pyramids are a powerful approach to organizing research science, and provide a mechanism by which research, data collection, storage and generalization can be focused on conservation outcomes. Common data and methods lead to increased efficiency, while also allowing for separate disciplines and programs. A case study of an integrated pyramid from New Zealand is discussed, which illustrates the characteristics of information pyramids. Components of this pyramid are discussed that provide examples of integration and generalization at various levels of the pyramid, from base data, to derived data, to spatial predictions and classifications, to a method of integrating this information into conservation decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Belbin L. 1993. Environmental representativeness: regional partitioning and reserve selection. Biological Conservation 66: 223–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burley J. 1998. Joining the revolution: a strategy for the standardization integration and dissemination of biodiversity information – as a prospective model for the management of other kinds of environmental information. Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cawsey E.M., Austin M.P. and Baker B.L. 2002. Regional vegetation mapping in Australia: a case study in the practical use of statistical modelling. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 2239–2274 (this issue).

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen N.L., Bartuska A.M., Brown J.H., Carpenter S., D'Antonio C, Francis R., Franklin J.F., Mac-Mahon J.A., Noss R.F., Parsons D.J., Peterson C.H., Turner M.G. and Woodmansee R.G. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6: 665–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough P., Barnett J. and Gale S. 1998. The marginal value of conservation. Report for The Treasury and Department of Conservation by New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (Inc.), Wellington, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clout C. and Ericksen K. 2000. Anatomy of a disastrous success: the brushtail possum as an invasive species. In: Montague T.L. (ed.), The Bushtail Possum: Biology, Impact and Management of an Introduced Marsupial. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand, pp. 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen R. 1995. Output measurement for evaluation of ecosystem protection programmes. University of Stirling, Ecological Economics Discussion Paper 95/6.

  • Cullen R. 1999. Biodiversity protection: measurement of output. Proceedings of AARES Conference 20– 22 January 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand.

  • Davis F.W., Stoms D.M. and Andelman S. 1999. Systematic reserve selection in the USA: an example from the Columbia Plateau ecoregion. Parks 9: 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith D.P. and Walker P.A. 1996. Environmental diversity: on the best possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 399–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier S., Watson G., Pearce J. and Drielsma M. 2002a. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. I. Species-level modelling. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 2275–2307 (this issue).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier S., Drielsma M., Manion G. and Watson G. 2002b. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. II. Community-level modelling. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 2309–2338 (this issue).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimmons A.K. 1999. Defending Illusions: Federal Protection of Ecosystems. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin J. 1995. Predictive vegetation mapping: geographical modelling of biospatial patterns in relation to environmental gradients. Progress in Physical Geography 19: 474–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowdy J.M. 1997. The value of biodiversity: markets, society and ecosystems. Land Economics 73: 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove W.W. and Hoffman F.M. 2000. An analytical assessment tool for predicting changes in a species distribution, map following changes in environmental conditions. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling (GIS/EM4): Problems, Prospects and Research Needs. Banff, Alberta, Canada.

  • Hargrove W.W., Hoffman F.M. and Sterling T. 2001. The do-it-yourself supercomputer. Scientific American 265: 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley P. 1997. Conservation Strategies for New Zealand. The Business Round Table, Wellington, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick J.R. 1998. Are New Zealand's Nothofagus species in equilibrium with their environment? Journal of Vegetation Science 9: 719–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick J.R. 2001. New Zealand's potential forest pattern as predicted from current species-environment relationships. New Zealand Journal of Botany 39: 447–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick J.R. 2002. Intra-generic competition among Nothofagus in New Zealand's primary indigenous forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 2177–2187 (this issue).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick J.R. and Austin M.P. 2001. Competitive interactions between tree species in New Zealand's old growth indigenous forests. Ecology 82: 2560–2573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick J.R. and Stephens R.T.T. 1998. Climate surfaces for New Zealand. Contract Report LC9798/126, Landcare Research, Hamilton, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick J.R. and Whitehead D. 2001. Soil and atmospheric water deficits, and the distributions of New Zealand's indigenous tree species. Functional Ecology 15: 233–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick J.R., Overton J.McC., Emmett D., McLeod M. and Lynn I.H. 2001. Environmental domains for the Canterbury and Waikato Regions: a case study in the definition of spatial classifications for biodiversity management in New Zealand. vironmental Performance Indicators, Technical Paper No. 68 Biodiversity. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann A., Leathwick J.R. and Overton J.Mc.C. 2002. Assessing New Zealand fern diversity from spatial predictions of species assemblages. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 2217–2238 (this issue).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann A., Overton J.McC. and Leathwick J.R. 2002. GRASP: generalized regression analysis and spatial prediction. Ecological Modelling 157: 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey B.G., Nix H.A., Hutchinson M.F., McMahon J.P. and Fleming P.M. 1988. Assessing representativeness of places for conservation reservation and heritage listing. Environmental Management 12: 501–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules C.R. and Pressey R.L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHarg I.L. 1969. Design with Nature. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie N.J. and Ryan P.J. 1999. Spatial prediction of soil properties using environmental correlation. Geoderma 89: 67–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metric A. and Weitzman M.L. 1998. Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12: 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for the Environment 1997. Environmental Performance Indicators: Proposals for Air, Freshwater and Land. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newsome P.F.J. 1992. New Zealand Resource Inventory. ARC/INFO data manual. DSIR.

  • Noss R.F., Strittholt J.R., Vance-Borland K., Carroll C. and Frost P.A. 1999. A conservation plan for the Klamath–Siskiyou ecoregion. Natural Areas Journal 19: 392–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill R.O. 2001. Is it time to bury the ecosystems concept? (with full military honors, of course!). Ecology 82: 3275–3284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overton J.McC., Leathwick J.R. and Lehmann A. 2000. Predict first, classify later – a new paradigm of spatial classification for environmental management: a revolution in the mapping of vegetation, soil, land cover, and other environmental information. In: 4th International Conference on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modelling (GIS/EM4), Banff, Alberta, Canada.

  • Overton J.McC. and Leathwick J.R. 2001. Measuring environmental distinctiveness. Science for Conservation 174: 20 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters D. and Thackway R. 1998. A new biogeographic regionalisation for Tasmania. Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service GIS section.

  • Shepherd J. and Dymond J. 2000. BRDF Correction of Vegetation in Avhrr Imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 74: 397–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd J. and Dymond J. (in press) Correcting satellite imagery for the variance of reflectance and illumination with Topography. International Journal of Remote Sensing.

  • Stephens R.T.T. 1999. Measuring conservation achievement. In: Blaschke P.M. and Green K. (eds), Biodiversity Now! Joint Societies Conference, Wellington, 1997. Selected papers. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 13–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens R.T.T., Brown D.J. and Thornley N.J. 2002. Measuring conservation achievement: concepts and their application over the Twizel area. Science for Conservation 200: 114 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warburton B. 2000. Monitoring possum populations. In: Montague T.L. (ed.), The Bushtail Possum: Biology, Impact and Management of an Introduced Marsupial. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand, pp. 132–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman M.L. 1998. The Noah's ark problem. Econometrica 66: 1279–1298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiser S.K., Bellingham P.J. and Burrows L.E. 2001. Managing biodiversity information: development of New Zealand's National vegetation Survey databank. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 25: 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Landcare Research, Private Bag 3127, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Jacob McC. Overton & John R. Leathwick

  2. Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 112, Hamilton, New Zealand

    R.T. Theo Stephens

  3. Swiss Center for the Cartography of Fauna, Terreaux 14, CH-2000, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Anthony Lehmann

Authors
  1. Jacob McC. Overton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R.T. Theo Stephens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John R. Leathwick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anthony Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Overton, J.M., Theo Stephens, R., Leathwick, J.R. et al. Information pyramids for informed biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 11, 2093–2116 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021386426790

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021386426790

Search

Navigation