It is generally acknowledges that one of the very best way to protect biodiversity is by setting aside areas of land in reserves and allowing natural processes to proceed largely uninterrupted. These reserves can be in a variety of forms including national parks, protected watershed, or on private property when the owner has agreed to set aside land for conservation easements. But when the time comes to decide what land should be protected, how much, and in what arrangements, different variables need to be taken into account. Here are some guidelines that are often considered when setting aside land for conservation.
1. It is generally better protect a complete ecosystem. If a whole watershed can be protected, that would be better than if part of the watershed was outside the reserve.
2. Larger reserves are generally better than small one. Large reserves are more likely to have many habitat types and hold larger populations of the species in those habitats. this means that if the choice is to set a side a small area off by itself or add to an already existing reserve, the existing reserve should be expanded.
3. Having a reserve that is unfragmented is better than having one that is fragmented. The fewer roads, power lines, etc. that pass through a reserve the more continuous the habitat will be and so have fewer edge effects.
4. Having more reserves is better than having few reserves.
5. Connecting reserves with corridors is better than having reserves that are isolated from one another. Corridors will be different for different species, for example Black Bears seem to like to use tunnels to get under a road, but Grizzly Bears prefer bridges over the road.
6. In the absents of corridors that connect reserves, creation of stepping-stone reserves can have similar effects. Stepping-stone reserves are smaller reserves that lie between larger reserves. These serve to reduce the total dispersal distance that organisms have to travel to find suitable habitat.
7. Protecting an area with many diverse habitats is generally better than protecting areas that have fewer habitats.
8. A reserve that has a more uniform shape will have fewer edge effects and more undisturbed interior area as compared to a reserve that is long and thin or irregular in shape.
9. Generally speaking, having a variety of large and small reserves in an area is better than having reserves that are all the same size.
10. Managing the reserves in an area jointly is better than managing each one individually. This allows for more specialized and targeted management and better biodiversity protection region-wide.
11. Allowing humans to enter and utilize some of a reserve while protecting a core area is better than excluding humans altogether. While counter-intuitive, if humans are allowed to visit parts of a reserve they are much more likely to support the continued protection of that reserve from future development. If humans are excluded completely, they tend to not realize how important a reserve is.
Now, of course these guidelines are subject to the real world. If there is only one areas of land that has been put up for sale, and the choice is to protect it, or protect nothing, then it is probably better to protect that land even if it is small and isolated from other reserves. But, when choices are available, these guidelines help to create areas that most effectively protect biodiversity.