MINI-REVIEW Spatial socioeconomic data as a cost in systematic marine conservation planning Natalie Corinna Ban 1 & Carissa Joy Klein 2 1 Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia 2 The University of Queensland, Centre for Applied Environmental Decision Analysis, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia Keywords Conservation area design; human activities; marine conservation; marine protected areas; marine reserves; socioeconomic data; systematic conservation planning. Correspondence Natalie Corinna Ban, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia. Tel: +617 4781 6067; fax: +617 4781 6722. E-mail: natalie.ban@jcu.edu.au Received: 19 February 2009; accepted 26 August 2009. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00071.x Abstract A common objective in identifying conservation areas is to minimize conser- vation costs while achieving a set of conservation targets. Recent literature highlights the importance of incorporating socioeconomic costs into conserva- tion planning. Here, we review how costs have been used in systematic marine conservation planning. Four approaches emerged from the literature: (1) uni- form cost or area as a proxy for human use, (2) opportunity costs, (3) multiple socioeconomic costs, and (4) measures of naturalness or ecological impact of human activities. Most marine systematic conservation planning projects that used a spatially explicit socioeconomic cost focused on fisheries as the opportu- nity cost. No study has incorporated transaction or management costs into the design of marine protected areas using systematic conservation planning soft- ware. Combining multiple costs into one cost is one of the primary challenges of incorporating socioeconomic costs into conservation planning decision sup- port tools. Combining many costs is feasible when each cost is measured in the same unit (e.g., dollars), but this information is rarely available in marine planning. Where the objective of the planning exercise is to minimize impacts on multiple stakeholder groups, the use of separate scenarios or multi-zone software may be a viable option. Introduction In planning for conservation, planners and scientists have focused on the biological benefits of conservation plans (i.e., Naidoo et al. 2006). There is increasing recognition that conservation objectives must be achieved efficiently because of limited conservation resources. Hence, socioe- conomic costs must be integrated into conservation plan- ning (Naidoo et al. 2006; Carwardine et al. 2008b), where “cost” is intended to reflect the socioeconomic impacts of conservation areas. There has been an influx of initia- tives to promote the design and implementation of ma- rine protected areas (MPAs) around the globe (Spalding et al. 2008) and many marine planners are seeking guid- ance on how to use socioeconomic data. By explicitly in- corporating socioeconomic costs into systematic marine conservation planning, we can avoid costly conservation mistakes. Systematic conservation planning is an approach that guides the location and design of conservation areas that achieve explicit biodiversity objectives (Margules & Pressey 2000). Application of this approach to real-world conservation assessments is supported by decision sup- port tools, e.g., Marxan (Ball & Possingham 2000; Poss- ingham et al. 2000), C-Plan (Pressey et al. 2009), Zonation (Moilanen et al. 2005), and ResNet (Kelley et al. 2002). These tools were designed to support, not make, decisions on the location of conservation areas; they provide the basis for discussions but do not provide an answer that is to be unequivocally accepted (Possingham et al. 2006). A common problem planners aim to solve is to mini- mize the cost of conservation areas while achieving quan- titative representation targets (Airam ´ e et al. 2003; Stewart & Possingham 2005; Naidoo et al. 2006; Possingham et al. 2006; Klein et al. 2008b). The Marxan software was de- signed to solve this problem. 206 Conservation Letters 2 (2009) 206–215 Copyright and Photocopying: c  2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.