There are a number of different indicators used to evaluate the biodiversity of an area and its relative importance for protection and conservation – each method produces quite different outcomes. Using Japan as a case study, this presentation examines the different ways of evaluating biodiversity hotspots and proposes an additional methodology using range size and taxonomy that may help decision makers worldwide in determining hotspots for conservation. CIFOR scientist Ken Sugimura gave this presentation at the first Annual World Congress of Biodiversity: Today Eco-civilisation, Tomorrow Happiness, held in Xi’an, China on 25–28 April 2012.

1. Evaluating Bird Species Diversity based on
distribution area and taxonomic uniqueness
Ken Sugimura
Forestry & For. Prod. Res. Inst.; CIFOR

2. Goal and Objectives
Issue: Need to monitor and evaluate biodiversity
Setting up protected areas is considered as the most
effective means to protect biodiversity
What is necessary as a goal:
Develop a globally applicable means of species
diversity evaluation to identify hotspots
Specific objectives:
・Testify the utility of some different indicators for
diversity measurement
・ How can the proposed methodology be applied to
hotspots selection
・ Examine some ways of application

3. Not realistic to believe biodiversity
evaluation is possible
Landscape 1
Ecosystem α Ecosystem β
Species A Species βA, βB, βC,
Species C
Genetic Genetic βD, βE, βF, βG ……
diversity diversity ∞ Species diversity
Species B Species D Ecosystem γ
Genetic Genetic E, F, G ……… ∞ Species γA,
diversity diversity γB, γC, γD, γE,
γF, γG …… ∞
Ecosystem δ Ecosystem ε Ecosystem ζ Ecosystem η Ecosystem θ
Ecosystem diversity
Landscape 1, 2, 3, … (Landscape diversity)

4. Biodiversity is most frequently represented
by
1. Number of species
2. Endangered species
1. Emphasis on species richness: all species are
equally important => protect as many species
as possible
Contrasting approaches
2. Give greater weight on rare species
IUCN Red List is most commonly used

5. Database
Ministry of Environment, Biodiversity Center
10 x 10km grid-based
Forest birds
Breeding season
Whole country is divided into 2,899grids
Survey years: 1997－2002
Conducted by the Japanese Ornithologist Club
121 species that were likely to breed

6. Comparison between species richness
and evaluation by Red List
1. Species rich grids Ignore many
(<Top 50th) species rich
grids
Ignore many
grids with
endangered
species CR = 4
EN = 3 2. Red List：Top
VU = 2 score grids
NT = 1
(<50th)

7. Measurement that attempts to integrate
uniqueness by range size and taxonomy
A. Range size
The smaller the species range size is, the greater evaluation
Domestic rarity score ：A1＝Σ(D / ci)/10
D: Total area size over the nation
ci : area size occupied by species i
Domestic rarity score ： root (A1)＝Σ root (D / ci)
Regional rarity score： A2＝Σ(R / ci ’)/10
R is the total area size over a certain local region

8. Species Evaluation Evaluation of a species by its range size
A1＝Σ(D / ci)/10 A2＝Σ(R / ci)
Species range size Range size in a region
Evaluation
Variety in
√A1＝Σ√ (D / ci) scale
Division
Species range size

9. Grid Evaluation
Evaluation by species range size
High score grids
The grids selected as
hotspots vary depending
on the indicators

10. Measurement based on phylogenetic
uniqueness (T)
species
A1
A2
m (m+n+4)/(m+4)
…
…
l Am
B1
B2
k n .
. Not appropriate as an indicator
…
Bn
C (m+n+4)/2
Developed after May(1990)
Continental vs. Oceanic
Indicator：
Number of splits down to a species/Total #splits

11. Evaluation with a multi-criteria approach
Score in the area p:Vp ＝Σ(ak＊Ikp)
ak：coefficient to the parameter k Vp
Ikp：evaluation based on the
parameter k in the area p
A T (0.16)
Ikp = 
i
sikp Sikｐis the
evaluation A1 A2 (0.14)
for the parameter k and the
species i in the area p
A1 (0.4) root(A1) (0.3)
Each parameter is weighted after a questionnaire study with AHP

12. Selection of hotspots over the nation
180
Species
Mixed Evaluation
with 3 indicators
160
rich grids
140
評 120
価
100
値
80
60
40
Many range- 20
restricted 0
species 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
種数
Number of species

13. Comparison with evaluation by RED List
Mixed Evaluation
CR = 4
EN = 3
VU = 2
Evaluation by Red List
NT = 1

14. Highly evaluated grids by the
mixed indicator
（Top 100）
Located inside protected area
No means of protection
Primarily covered by
tree plantations
Many threatened
species

15. Application : Assessing impacts of
forest cutting
Vp # spp.
Logged area 4.65 6.0 Islands with
Young forests 15.9 10.3 many endemic
Mature forests 16.6 12.0 species
Primary forests 22.2 12.3

16. Application (2): Impacts of urban
development
#Avian spp. Eval. Score
Urban sprawl 34 6.5
27 1.6

17. Implications
1. There are a number of objective means of
evaluation. Each means can produce quite
different outcomes.
2. Which means to take depends on subjective
judgment by the decision-makers.
3. The proposed methodology may help to select
species-rich hotspots and those with relatively
many range-restricted species simultaneously.
4. Disturbed landscapes appear to reduce
relatively more unique species than wide-range
species.

18. Thanks for your attention.謝謝
Japan is one of
the hot spots
Hotspots designated by Conservation International
http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/pages/map.aspx