Agreeing that maps can disagree: Moving away from map confusion in conservation

Area of Science:

• Conservation Science
• Spatial Planning
• Biodiversity Management

Background:

• Prioritizing areas for biodiversity conservation is complex, exacerbated by numerous available spatial prioritization maps.
• The proliferation of maps can lead to perceived scientific uncertainty and conflicting conservation strategies.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the agreement between different biodiversity conservation prioritization maps.
• To highlight the importance of understanding the underlying principles and user intentions behind conservation maps.

Main Methods:

• Overlay analysis of priority areas identified by a subset of biodiversity conservation maps.
• Quantitative comparison of the spatial extent of map unions and intersections.

Main Results:

• The union of analyzed maps covered 73% of the contiguous United States, indicating broad, but potentially uncoordinated, spatial coverage.
• The intersection of all maps covered only 3.5% of the contiguous United States, revealing minimal consensus on core priority areas.
• Discrepancies underscore the need to scrutinize map origins and methodologies.

Conclusions:

• Effective use of conservation maps requires a deep understanding of their foundational principles, premises, and specific objectives.
• Developing science-based guidance is essential to help scientists, policymakers, and managers select and apply appropriate maps for biodiversity conservation.
• Addressing biodiversity loss necessitates informed map selection to support practical, on-the-ground conservation actions.