Structural factors influencing conservation decision-making: a case of species prioritisation in Australia
Prioritisation methods have been adopted for >20 years to inform resource allocation in species conservation. The academic literature on prioritisation focuses on technical matters, with little attention to the socio-political factors affecting the uptake of priorities. We investigated the policy...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of environmental planning and management 2017-11, Vol.60 (11), p.1923-1943 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1943 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 1923 |
| container_title | Journal of environmental planning and management |
| container_volume | 60 |
| creator | Kiatkoski Kim, Milena Evans, Louisa Fidelman, Pedro Scherl, Lea M. Marsh, Helene |
| description | Prioritisation methods have been adopted for >20 years to inform resource allocation in species conservation. The academic literature on prioritisation focuses on technical matters, with little attention to the socio-political factors affecting the uptake of priorities. We investigated the policy instruments employed to promote uptake, and the structural factors affecting the uptake of priorities, using as our case study a species prioritisation method adopted by the Queensland Government (Australia). We interviewed 79 key informants and analysed policy documents and plans. The Queensland Government relied on 'information delivery' as a policy instrument to foster uptake. We identified communication channels to assist 'information delivery' between Government and intended users, but also found that several structural factors limited their use: fragmentation of policies, the relative strength of alternative priorities and centralisation of power in decision-making. We discuss the results in relation to other conservation planning initiatives and suggest how structural barriers can be addressed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/09640568.2016.1268107 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_09640568_2016_1268107</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1933980328</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-beb80d08cdb4e91b2f119feb985cf222cba729684e16d890b549876344e98d43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kF1LwzAUhoMoOKc_QQh43XnStGnilWP4BQMv3H1I00Qyu2YmqeK_N6Pz1qsTOM_7nvAgdE1gQYDDLQhWQc34ogTCFqRknEBzgmaEMiigrsUpmh2Y4gCdo4sYtwBQU8JmaPuWwqjTGFSPrdLJh4jdYPvRDNoN71j7IZrwpZLzA-6MdjE_ip36yMs7rLBW0WBvcdznnYl4H5wPLrk4JdyAl2NMud2pS3RmVR_N1XHO0ebxYbN6LtavTy-r5brQtCGpaE3LoQOuu7YygrSlJURY0wpea1uWpW5VUwrGK0NYxwW0dSV4w2iVad5VdI5uptp98J-jiUlu_RiGfFESQangQEueqXqidPAxBmNl_vlOhR9JQB6syj-r8mBVHq3m3P2Uy5J82KlvH_pOJvXT-2CDytKipP9X_ALebYBG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1933980328</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Structural factors influencing conservation decision-making: a case of species prioritisation in Australia</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Taylor & Francis:Master (3349 titles)</source><creator>Kiatkoski Kim, Milena ; Evans, Louisa ; Fidelman, Pedro ; Scherl, Lea M. ; Marsh, Helene</creator><creatorcontrib>Kiatkoski Kim, Milena ; Evans, Louisa ; Fidelman, Pedro ; Scherl, Lea M. ; Marsh, Helene</creatorcontrib><description>Prioritisation methods have been adopted for >20 years to inform resource allocation in species conservation. The academic literature on prioritisation focuses on technical matters, with little attention to the socio-political factors affecting the uptake of priorities. We investigated the policy instruments employed to promote uptake, and the structural factors affecting the uptake of priorities, using as our case study a species prioritisation method adopted by the Queensland Government (Australia). We interviewed 79 key informants and analysed policy documents and plans. The Queensland Government relied on 'information delivery' as a policy instrument to foster uptake. We identified communication channels to assist 'information delivery' between Government and intended users, but also found that several structural factors limited their use: fragmentation of policies, the relative strength of alternative priorities and centralisation of power in decision-making. We discuss the results in relation to other conservation planning initiatives and suggest how structural barriers can be addressed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0964-0568</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1360-0559</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1268107</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Routledge</publisher><subject>Case studies ; Centralization ; Conservation ; conservation planning ; Constraints ; Decision making ; Organization theory ; Planning ; policy instruments ; Political communication ; Political factors ; Power ; Priorities ; prioritisation ; Prioritizing ; Resource allocation ; Segmentation ; social structures ; Sociopolitical factors ; Species ; Uptake ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>Journal of environmental planning and management, 2017-11, Vol.60 (11), p.1923-1943</ispartof><rights>2017 Newcastle University 2017</rights><rights>2017 Newcastle University</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-beb80d08cdb4e91b2f119feb985cf222cba729684e16d890b549876344e98d43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-beb80d08cdb4e91b2f119feb985cf222cba729684e16d890b549876344e98d43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09640568.2016.1268107$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2016.1268107$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27866,27924,27925,59647,60436</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kiatkoski Kim, Milena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, Louisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fidelman, Pedro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scherl, Lea M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marsh, Helene</creatorcontrib><title>Structural factors influencing conservation decision-making: a case of species prioritisation in Australia</title><title>Journal of environmental planning and management</title><description>Prioritisation methods have been adopted for >20 years to inform resource allocation in species conservation. The academic literature on prioritisation focuses on technical matters, with little attention to the socio-political factors affecting the uptake of priorities. We investigated the policy instruments employed to promote uptake, and the structural factors affecting the uptake of priorities, using as our case study a species prioritisation method adopted by the Queensland Government (Australia). We interviewed 79 key informants and analysed policy documents and plans. The Queensland Government relied on 'information delivery' as a policy instrument to foster uptake. We identified communication channels to assist 'information delivery' between Government and intended users, but also found that several structural factors limited their use: fragmentation of policies, the relative strength of alternative priorities and centralisation of power in decision-making. We discuss the results in relation to other conservation planning initiatives and suggest how structural barriers can be addressed.</description><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Centralization</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>conservation planning</subject><subject>Constraints</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Organization theory</subject><subject>Planning</subject><subject>policy instruments</subject><subject>Political communication</subject><subject>Political factors</subject><subject>Power</subject><subject>Priorities</subject><subject>prioritisation</subject><subject>Prioritizing</subject><subject>Resource allocation</subject><subject>Segmentation</subject><subject>social structures</subject><subject>Sociopolitical factors</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Uptake</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>0964-0568</issn><issn>1360-0559</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kF1LwzAUhoMoOKc_QQh43XnStGnilWP4BQMv3H1I00Qyu2YmqeK_N6Pz1qsTOM_7nvAgdE1gQYDDLQhWQc34ogTCFqRknEBzgmaEMiigrsUpmh2Y4gCdo4sYtwBQU8JmaPuWwqjTGFSPrdLJh4jdYPvRDNoN71j7IZrwpZLzA-6MdjE_ip36yMs7rLBW0WBvcdznnYl4H5wPLrk4JdyAl2NMud2pS3RmVR_N1XHO0ebxYbN6LtavTy-r5brQtCGpaE3LoQOuu7YygrSlJURY0wpea1uWpW5VUwrGK0NYxwW0dSV4w2iVad5VdI5uptp98J-jiUlu_RiGfFESQangQEueqXqidPAxBmNl_vlOhR9JQB6syj-r8mBVHq3m3P2Uy5J82KlvH_pOJvXT-2CDytKipP9X_ALebYBG</recordid><startdate>20171102</startdate><enddate>20171102</enddate><creator>Kiatkoski Kim, Milena</creator><creator>Evans, Louisa</creator><creator>Fidelman, Pedro</creator><creator>Scherl, Lea M.</creator><creator>Marsh, Helene</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171102</creationdate><title>Structural factors influencing conservation decision-making: a case of species prioritisation in Australia</title><author>Kiatkoski Kim, Milena ; Evans, Louisa ; Fidelman, Pedro ; Scherl, Lea M. ; Marsh, Helene</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-beb80d08cdb4e91b2f119feb985cf222cba729684e16d890b549876344e98d43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Centralization</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>conservation planning</topic><topic>Constraints</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Organization theory</topic><topic>Planning</topic><topic>policy instruments</topic><topic>Political communication</topic><topic>Political factors</topic><topic>Power</topic><topic>Priorities</topic><topic>prioritisation</topic><topic>Prioritizing</topic><topic>Resource allocation</topic><topic>Segmentation</topic><topic>social structures</topic><topic>Sociopolitical factors</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Uptake</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kiatkoski Kim, Milena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, Louisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fidelman, Pedro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scherl, Lea M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marsh, Helene</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of environmental planning and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kiatkoski Kim, Milena</au><au>Evans, Louisa</au><au>Fidelman, Pedro</au><au>Scherl, Lea M.</au><au>Marsh, Helene</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Structural factors influencing conservation decision-making: a case of species prioritisation in Australia</atitle><jtitle>Journal of environmental planning and management</jtitle><date>2017-11-02</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>60</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1923</spage><epage>1943</epage><pages>1923-1943</pages><issn>0964-0568</issn><eissn>1360-0559</eissn><abstract>Prioritisation methods have been adopted for >20 years to inform resource allocation in species conservation. The academic literature on prioritisation focuses on technical matters, with little attention to the socio-political factors affecting the uptake of priorities. We investigated the policy instruments employed to promote uptake, and the structural factors affecting the uptake of priorities, using as our case study a species prioritisation method adopted by the Queensland Government (Australia). We interviewed 79 key informants and analysed policy documents and plans. The Queensland Government relied on 'information delivery' as a policy instrument to foster uptake. We identified communication channels to assist 'information delivery' between Government and intended users, but also found that several structural factors limited their use: fragmentation of policies, the relative strength of alternative priorities and centralisation of power in decision-making. We discuss the results in relation to other conservation planning initiatives and suggest how structural barriers can be addressed.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/09640568.2016.1268107</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0964-0568 |
| ispartof | Journal of environmental planning and management, 2017-11, Vol.60 (11), p.1923-1943 |
| issn | 0964-0568 1360-0559 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_09640568_2016_1268107 |
| source | PAIS Index; Taylor & Francis:Master (3349 titles) |
| subjects | Case studies Centralization Conservation conservation planning Constraints Decision making Organization theory Planning policy instruments Political communication Political factors Power Priorities prioritisation Prioritizing Resource allocation Segmentation social structures Sociopolitical factors Species Uptake Wildlife conservation |
| title | Structural factors influencing conservation decision-making: a case of species prioritisation in Australia |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T22%3A05%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Structural%20factors%20influencing%20conservation%20decision-making:%20a%20case%20of%20species%20prioritisation%20in%20Australia&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20environmental%20planning%20and%20management&rft.au=Kiatkoski%20Kim,%20Milena&rft.date=2017-11-02&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1923&rft.epage=1943&rft.pages=1923-1943&rft.issn=0964-0568&rft.eissn=1360-0559&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/09640568.2016.1268107&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1933980328%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1933980328&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |