Action Site Ranking

Hawaiian High Islands Ecoregion
This page last revised 24 August 2006 -- S.M.Gon III

Home
Introduction
Ecoregion
Conservation Targets
Viability
Goals
Portfolio
TNC Action Sites
Threats
Strategies
Acknowledgements
▫
Tables
Maps & Figures
CPT Database
Appendices
Glossary
Sources

Botanical, vertebrate, and invertebrate biodiversity varies among sites.

Action Sites

Setting Priorities

Although all portfolio sites in the Hawaiian ecoregion have conservation value, identifying a subset of sites for immediate action provides priorities under conditions of limited capacity and urgent threats. Ideally, we want to focus attention soonest on those sites bearing a combination of: 1) highest biodiversity value, 2) urgent, but addressable threats, and 3) greatest feasibility and leverage.

Raw species diversity contributes to conservation value of a site.

Conservation Value

The conservation value of sites is not equal across the archipelago. Some conservation areas, such as Kaua‘i, bear much higher overall endemic species diversity, while others might bear higher ecological system diversity (e.g., Kona). We analyzed three factors of conservation value to arrive at a summary rank:

Biodiversity Richness -- overall numbers of species, natural communities, ecological systems, and special features. Some areas with great botanical richness (e.g., Wai‘anae) scored much lower in ecological system, natural community, and special feature richness.
Biodiversity Health -- indication of overall site viability, derived largely from overall ecological system target viability scores. Health scores were typically inversely proportional to level of threat to conservation targets of the area.
Complementarity -- ability of sites to contribute to overall ecoregion biodiversity, as percent additions of selected species (flowering plants), natural communities, and ecological systems.

Numerical values were assigned to each of the above factors and entered into spreadsheets for analysis and ranking. Analysis details may be accessed via the appendices. Summary conservation value ranks are shown in the table below:

Managers can feel very small when facing huge challenges

Feasibility of doing conservation work at a site is determined by many factors that affect opportunity costs.

Feasibility/Opportunity

Feasibility and opportunity can change according to many factors, including practical logistics of management access, current landowners/managers, political and social incentives and disincentives, public support for conservation actions, pertinent policies and laws mandating protection, history of conservation effort, regional economic health, and capacity of conservation partners. Analyses of these factors are continually underway by conservation planners.

Current Action Sites

Using conservation value as a primary driver, with some adaptation for feasibility and opportunity differences among the conservation areas, the action sites that emerged as highest priorities for The Nature Conservancy are as follows, arranged by Stratification Unit:

KAUA‘I:
Kaua‘i Conservation Area

O‘AHU:
No Conservation Area selected

MAUI NUI:
East Maui Conservation Area
East Moloka‘i Conservation Area

HAWAI‘I:
Ka‘ū-Kapāpala Conservation Area
Kona Conservation Area

Remaining sites within the portfolio are approached as partnership sites, recognizing their conservation value, and driven by opportunity. We are committed to their protection and management, but look to conservation partners to lead efforts while we play a more supportive role in the appropriate partnership efforts.

Whether priority action sites, portfolio sites, or other areas of conservation value, the driving conservation issue is management and abatement of threats to species, communities, and ecological systems.

Continue to Threats to Conservation Targets

Conservation Value of the Portfolio Conservation Areas: Assessments of biodiversity richness, health, and complementarity across the conservation areas of the ecoregion portfolio.