Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2–4
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
Letter to the Editor
Can we determine conservation priorities without
objectives?
Wilhere et al. (2008) recently proposed a new index, ‘‘average
optimacity”, to guide investment in biodiversity conservation.
They suggested that average optimacity, by being goal-indepen-
dent, overcomes the subjectivity in target-based approaches. We
argue that conservation value cannot be informed by average opti-
macity because the notion of value is inherently goal-dependent.
We begin with a clarification of current terminology around con-
servation value, then give an illustration of how average optima-
city might actually confound decision-making.
Spatial conservation prioritization identifies areas for conserva-
tion action that collectively meet a set of explicit conservation
objectives (hereafter ‘‘targets”). Within this framework, value is
the contribution of an area to targets. ‘‘Irreplaceability” (Pressey
et al., 1993) is one measure of value. While Pressey et al. (1993)
were principally focused on representation targets, their defini-
tions of irreplaceability were broader: ‘‘the potential contribution
of a [n area] to a reservation goal” or ‘‘the extent to which the op-
tions for reservation are lost if the [area] is lost”.
Wilhere et al. correctly state that Marxan’s selection frequency
(Ball and Possingham, 2000) and C-Plan’s irreplaceability (Pressey
et al., 2009) are used synonymously, but are estimated differ-
ently. Marxan uses simulated annealing and incorporates hetero-
geneous costs and varying emphasis on spatial compactness.
C-Plan uses a statistical estimator, with constraints only on the
number of areas allowed in the solution. While we sympathize
with Wilhere et al.’s desire for semantic clarity, we believe that
a new term for Marxan’s estimate (‘‘optimacity”) creates an
unnecessary precedent. Since (and even before) its incorporation
into the conservation planning vernacular, irreplaceability has
been estimated with various techniques for diverse objectives
(Table 1). Using optimacity to refer to Marxan’s selection fre-
quency implies the need for separate terms for other estimation
techniques and objectives, and this would create much unneces-
sary confusion.
Wilhere et al. also argue that Marxan’s irreplaceability is a poor
measure of value because it changes with representation targets:
‘‘the fact that some [areas] go from zero optimacity to positive
optimacity demonstrates that this index is somewhat misleading
– at low representation targets, some [areas] are shown to have
no conservation value when they actually do (Wilhere et al.,
2008).” This argument misinterprets Marxan’s estimation
technique and the notion of value derived from targets. To select
representative areas, Marxan uses simulating annealing, an algo-
rithm that uses stochastic processes to find near-optimal solutions.
The stochastic search means that the irreplaceability estimate
depends on the number of solutions generated. As selection
frequency is derived from more solutions, areas containing conser-
0006-3207/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.014
clear vation features are more likely to have non-zero values. In a simple
example with 17 conservation features, 2000 areas and a target of
15% representation, we found that with 25 solutions (the number
used by Wilhere et al.), 28% of the areas had an estimated irre-
placeability of zero. This dropped to 15% with 100 runs and 2%
with 10,000 runs.
Regardless of the estimation technique, the critique itself is
more properly leveled at the target-based or minimum set ap-
proach to conservation planning. In its basic formulation, the
objective of the minimum set problem is to represent each feature
to its target amount while minimizing cost. After targets for fea-
tures have been achieved, areas with only those features provide
no additional value. Other formulations of the conservation plan-
ning problem that utilize continuous benefit functions address
the concerns of Wilhere et al. (Carwardine et al., 2009). In this
framework, any area that contains any occurrence of a feature of
interest will always have conservation value, no matter how much
is already protected.
To address the perceived problem of different objectives yield-
ing different estimates of value, Wilhere et al.’s average optimacity
is based on averaging selection frequency from Marxan solutions
with different conservation targets. They assert that the result is
efficient, objective, and meaningful. We disagree on all counts. Effi-
ciency relates to achieving a target at minimum cost or maximiz-
ing benefit within cost constraints and is undefined without
specific targets. However subjective targets might be, objectivity
does not emerge from their absence. Varying targets might be use-
ful to explore their implications for policy, but our experience is
that most decision-makers want advice on appropriate targets
rather than measures of something that purports to be ‘‘value”
without defined targets. More generally, the very meaning of value
is undefined without specific targets or other kinds of objectives.
One of the breakthroughs of systematic conservation planning
was to require planners to state what they mean to achieve. This
can be uncomfortable, but leads to meaningful estimates of value
and informed debate.
A related issue is whether average optimacity leads to different
patterns of value than irreplaceability derived from a single set of
targets. To explore this, we looked at the Cape Floristic Region in
South Africa. Pressey et al. (2003) formulated quantitative targets
there for 102 broad habitat units (BHUs), based on heterogeneity,
vulnerability, and extent of prior clearing (Pressey et al., 2003).
We built a Marxan database with these 102 BHUs as conservation
features, and calculated both irreplaceability using their 2003
targets and average optimacity. The spatial divergence in
conservation values (Fig. 1) would lead to dramatically different
allocations of resources. Only 20% of planning units with maxi-
mum irreplaceability using the 2003 targets appeared in the top
quartile of average optimacity. Average optimacity diverted atten-
tion from most of the areas containing severely depleted BHUs
and/or BHUs at risk from further loss of biodiversity. The result
 Letter to the Editor / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2–4 3

Table 1
Methods for measuring or estimating irreplaceability, and analogues of irreplaceability not based on achievement of quantitative targets.

Method Source
Exact measurement
All optimal representative sets of areas from exhaustive combinatorial enumeration Pressey et al. (1994)
All optimal representative sets of areas from integer programming Csuti et al. (1997)
All optimal representative sets of areas from exhaustive stepwise enumeration Tsuji and Tsubaki (2004)
Estimation
Statistical estimation based on frequency distributions of features Ferrier et al. (2000)
Stepwise calculation of maximum rarity of unrepresented features Pressey et al. (1994)
Subsets of representative combinations: random selection of representative sets Ferrier et al. (2000)
Subsets of representative combinations: multiple stepwise ‘‘minimum” setsa Tsuji and Tsubaki (2004)
Subsets of representative combinations: multiple stepwise ‘‘minimum” sets with random seed areasa Rebelo and Siegfried (1992)
Subsets of representative combinations: multiple stepwise ‘‘minimum” sets after random removal of areasa Linke et al. (2008)
Subsets of representative combinations: multiple ‘‘minimum” sets with simulated annealinga Ball and Possingham (2000)
Analogous measures and related concepts
Irreplaceability: difficulty of replacing a biological assemblage Coesel (1975)
Irreplaceability: degree of isolation of areas in multivariate space Belbin (1995)
Irreplaceability: lack of optional areas or features in terms of rarity or ecological function Cole and Landres (1996)
Irreplaceability: essential areas for solving the maximal covering problemb Kiester et al. (1996)
Irreplaceability: value of an area as source habitat, defined by population growth rate Noss et al. (2002)
Irreplaceability: essential areas to solve the set covering problem or the maximal covering problemb Jacobi et al. (2007)
a
None of these methods guarantee optimal or true minimum sets; sets of areas might vary in size from optimal to somewhat larger.
b
The maximal covering problem is to maximize the number of features represented in a set of areas that is too small to achieve all targets (Jacobi et al., 2007). Identifying
sets of areas that achieve targets is the set covering problem (Jacobi et al., 2007).

Fig. 1. Difference in relative conservation priority between average optimacity and irreplaceability based on targets from Pressey et al. (2003). Red values indicate higher
value with Pressey et al. targets. Green indicates higher value with average optimacity. ‘‘Average optimacity” was estimated with 10 ‘‘equal conservation intervals” for land
types (Wilhere et al., 2008). Existing protected areas are shown in black. We assessed relative value from each method as the percentile rank of the planning unit. We then
calculated difference in value as the percentile rank from Pressey et al. targets less the percentile rank from average optimacity. (For interpretation of the references to colour
in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

would be similar with priorities based on average optimacity embedded in the 2003 targets. We agree with Wilhere et al. that
combined with vulnerability (Wilhere et al., 2008). Average opti- prioritization demands tough choices. We add that average opti-
macity would bypass the expert judgment and policy advice macity allows planners to avoid them.
4 Letter to the Editor / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2–4

References Pressey, R.L., Johnson, I.R., Wilson, P.D., 1994. Shades of irreplaceability – towards a
measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodiversity and
Conservation 3, 242–262.
Ball, I.R., Possingham, H.P. 2000. MARXAN (V1.8.2): Marine Reserve Design Using
Pressey, R.L., Watts, M.E., Barrett, T.W., Ridges, M.J., 2009. The C-Plan conservation
Spatially Explicit Annealing, A Manual.
planning system: origins, applications, and possible futures. In: Moilanen, A.,
Belbin, L., 1995. A multivariate approach to the selection of biological reserves.
Wilson, K.A., Possingham, H.P. (Eds.), Spatial Models for Conservation. Oxford
Biodiversity and Conservation 4, 951–963.
University Press, Oxford.
Carwardine, J., Klein, C.J., Wilson, K.A., Pressey, R.L., Possingham, H.P., 2009. Hitting
Rebelo, A.G., Siegfried, W.R., 1992. Where should nature-reserves be located in the
the target and missing the point: target-based conservation planning in
Cape floristic region, South-Africa – models for the spatial configuration of a
context. Conservation Letters 2, 4–11.
reserve network aimed at maximizing the protection of floral diversity.
Coesel, P.F.M., 1975. The relevance of desmids in the biological typology and
Conservation Biology 6, 243–252.
evaluation of fresh waters. Aquatic Ecology 9, 93–101.
Tsuji, N., Tsubaki, Y., 2004. Three new algorithms to calculate the irreplaceability
Cole, D.N., Landres, P.B., 1996. Threats to wilderness ecosystems: impacts and
index for presence/absence data. Biological Conservation 119, 487–494.
research needs. Ecological Applications 6, 168–184.
Wilhere, G.F., Goering, M., Wang, H., 2008. Average optimacity: an index to guide
Csuti, B., Polasky, S., Williams, P.H., Pressey, R.L., Camm, J.D., Kershaw, M., Kiester,
site prioritization for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 141,
A.R., Downs, B., Hamilton, R., Huso, M., Sahr, K., 1997. A comparison of reserve
770–781.
selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biological
Conservation 80, 83–97.
Ferrier, S., Pressey, R.L., Barrett, T.W., 2000. A new predictor of the irreplaceability of Daniel B. Segan
areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, Josie Carwardine
and a research agenda for further refinement. Biological Conservation 93, 303– Carissa Klein
325.
Hedley Grantham
Jacobi, S.K., ReVelle, C.S., Pressey, R.L., Williams, J.C., 2007. Novel operations
research methods for efficiently determining irreplaceable sites for The Ecology Centre,
conservation. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 12, 91–103. The University of Queensland,
Kiester, A.R., Scott, J.M., Csuti, B., Noss, R.F., Butterfield, B., Sahr, K., White, D., 1996. St. Lucia, QLD 4072,
Conservation prioritization using GAP data. Conservation Biology 10, 1332– Australia
1342.
Tel.: +61 7 3365 2769; fax: +61 7 3365 1655
Linke, S., Norris, R.H., Pressey, R.L., 2008. Irreplaceability of river networks: towards
catchment-based conservation planning. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 1486– E-mail address: d.segan@uq.edu.au (D.B. Segan)
1495.
Robert L. Pressey
Noss, R.F., Carroll, C., Vance-Borland, K., Wuerthner, G., 2002. A multicriteria
assessment of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the Greater Australian Research Council
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 16, 895–908. Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies,
Pressey, R.L., Cowling, R.M., Rouget, M., 2003. Formulating conservation targets for James Cook University,
biodiversity pattern and process in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Townsville, QLD 4811,
Biological Conservation 112, 99–127.
Pressey, R.L., Humphries, C.J., Margules, C.R., Vanewright, R.I., Williams, P.H., 1993.
Australia
Beyond opportunism – key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 8, 124–128. Available online 14 October 2009