CAP PROCESS MAPS:VIABILITY MAPS

During a CAP process, it can be useful to produce maps that show areas where viability or conservation status is better and less well off.

These maps can be generated by GIS staff by analyzing land-use information, monitoring data, etc. or can be generated in a workshop by participants who draw polygons based on their perceptions (and by using key ecological attributes as a reference for targets represented within an area).

The following slides present an example of such a map, and the type of information that can be shown on the map.

CAP PROCESS MAPS:EXAMPLE OF A VIABILITY SUMMARY OR CONSERVATION STATUS MAP

If maps are produced in Adobe Reader 9, users can turn various information layers on and off , which makes GIS information very user-friendly.

CAP PROCESS MAPS:EXAMPLE OF A VIABILITY SUMMARY OR CONSERVATION STATUS MAP

Title of document in which map is shown: e.g. Conservation Plan X

Symbols

Sources for base information

Viability status: e.g. Very Good, Good, Fair, PoorSources for viability informationBasic description of how viability was assessed.

Basic description of 4 viability values (VG, G, F, P):

Title of map: e.g. “Conservation status”

CAP PROCESS MAPS:EXAMPLE OF A VIABILITY SUMMARY OR CONSERVATION STATUS MAP

General location for reference

Context in which map was generated. E.g. “Map elaborated as part of the process for Conservation Plan X, promoted by the following institutions:

Logos of members of the core planning team (those who promote the process, who agreed to the CAP process charter)

Elaborated by:

Month and year

No. of polygon

Conservation target

Location reference

Key ecological attributes

Overall assigned

value (color) for

the polygon

Justification of assigned value

Reference materials or science needs

Source/year Level of certainty

• Assign a number to each polygon that's drawn on the map

• Target name

• Nearby settlement or reference point to help digitalize information later

• List of KEA (so your ranking on the map is based on KEA and not on other factors).

• Dark green = Very good; light green = good; yellow = fair; red = poor• If you need to change the color code, make sure you document what each color stands for

• Bearing in mind the KEAs of each target, how is the overall health within that polygon, and what are we basing our description on?

• Are there any studies, articles or thesis papers that describe this area?• If possible, document full reference and who has a physical copy• Is there a specific question that applied science should help us answer in this area (ie. to have more certainty about the values we assign, to determine baselines)?

• Who provided the information and when?

• How confident do we feel about the current viability ranking of that area?

Format example for documenting information from the target-viability mapping exercise for digitalization (ONE FORMAT PER TARGET)

CAP PROCESS MAPS: