A GIS-based policy support tool to determine national responsibilities and priorities for biodiversity conservation

2. Jenkins R Jr. Information Management for the Conservation of Biodiversity. In: Wilson EO, Peter FM, editors. Biodiversity. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), Chapter 27; 1988 [cited 2020 November 20]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219306/ 3. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). IUCN Red List Catego- ries and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cam- bridge, UK; 2001. p. ii + 30. 4. Schnittler M, Ludwig G, Pretscher P, Boye P. Konzeption der Roten Listen der in Deutschland gefa¨hrde- ten Tier- und Pflanzenarten—unter Beru¨cksichtigung der neuen internationalen Kategorien. Natur und Landschaft 1994; 69: 451–459 5. Schnittler M, Gu¨nther KF. Central European vascular plants requiring priority conservation measures: an analysis from national Red Lists and distribution maps. Biodiversity and Conservation 1999; 8: 891– 925. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008828704456 6. Schnittler M. Verantwortlichkeitsanalyse: Wie lassen sich Theorie und Naturschutzpraxis vereinen. Nat- urschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 2004; 8: 39–52. 7. Schmeller DS, Maier A, Evans D, Henle K. National responsibilities for conserving habitats–a freely scalable method. Nature Conservation 2012; 3: 21–44. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.3. 3710 8. Ga¨rdenfors U. Population viability analysis in the classification of threatened species: problems and potentials. Ecological Bulletins 2000; 48: 181–190.

9. Ga¨rdenfors U. Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2001; 16: 511–516. 10. Ga¨rdenfors U, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM, Rodrı´guez JP. The application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels. Conservation Biology 2001; 15: 1206–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001. 00112.x 11. Mehlman DW, Rosenberg KV, Wells JV, Robertson B. A comparison of North American avian conser- vation priority ranking systems. Biological Conservation 2004; 120: 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2004.03.013 12. Eaton MA, Gregory RD, Noble DG. Regional IUCN red listing: the process as applied to birds in the United Kingdom. Conservation Biology 2005; 19(5): 1557–1570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739. 2005.00213.x 13. Schmeller DS, Gruber B, Budrys E, Framsted E, Lengyel S, Henle K. National responsibilities in Euro- pean species conservation: a methodological review. Conservation Biology 2008; 22(3): 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00961.x PMID: 18577089 14. Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB, Gerlach J, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF, et al. Global bio- diversity conservation priorities. Science 04 July 2006; 313(5783): 58–61. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1127609 PMID: 16825561 15. Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham H. Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press; 2009 16. Lehtoma¨ki J, Moilanen A. Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation.

Environmental Modelling & Software 2013; 47: 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.05.001 17. Watts ME, Ball IR, Stewart RS, Klein CJ, Wilson K, Steinback C, et al. Marxan with Zones: Software for optimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning. Environmental Modelling & Software 2009; 24: 1513–1521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.06.005 18. Watts ME, Stewart RR, Martin TG, Klein CJ, Carwardine J, Possingham HP. Systematic Conservation Planning with Marxan. In: Gergel S, Turner M(eds) Learning Landscape Ecology. New York, NY: Springer; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6374-4 19. Delavenne J, Metcalfe K, Smith RJ, Vaz S, Martin CS, Dupuis L, et al. Systematic conservation planning in the eastern English Channel: comparing the Marxan and Zonation decision-support tools. ICES Jour- nal of Marine Science 2011; 69: 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsr180 20. Arponen A. Prioritizing species for conservation planning. Biodivers Conserv 2012; 21: 875–893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0242-1 21. Meller L., Cabeza M., Pironon S., Barbet-Massin M., Maiorano L., Georges D, et al. Ensemble distribu- tion models in conservation prioritization: from consensus predictions to consensus reserve networks. Diversity Distrib. 2014; 20: 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12162 PMID: 24791145 22. Kujala H, Moilanen A, Gordon A. Spatial characteristics of species distributions as drivers in conserva- tion prioritization. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018; 9: 1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12939

23. Leathwick JR, Moilanen A, Ferrier S, Julian K. Complementarity-based conservation prioritization using a community classification, and its application to riverine ecosystems. Biological Conservation 2010; 143: 984–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.012 PLOS ONE GIS-based policy support tool to determine national responsibilities for biodiversity conservation PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243135 December 3, 2020 20 / 23