The use, and usefulness, of spatial conservation prioritizations
Spatial conservation prioritization is used globally to guide decision making with the aim of delivering the best conservation gain per unit investment. However, despite many publications on the topic, the extent to which this approach is used by decision makers has been unclear. To investigate the...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Conservation letters 2018-11, Vol.11 (6), p.n/a |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | n/a |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | |
| container_title | Conservation letters |
| container_volume | 11 |
| creator | Sinclair, Samuel P. Milner‐Gulland, E.J. Smith, Robert J. McIntosh, Emma J. Possingham, Hugh P. Vercammen, Ans Knight, Andrew T. |
| description | Spatial conservation prioritization is used globally to guide decision making with the aim of delivering the best conservation gain per unit investment. However, despite many publications on the topic, the extent to which this approach is used by decision makers has been unclear. To investigate the degree to which prioritization has been adopted by practitioners to guide conservation implementation, we conducted an online survey, collecting data on the approaches used to develop prioritizations and the reported extent of translation to on‐the‐ground action. Using a cluster analysis, we identified two categories of prioritizations, those developed to advance the field (42% of responses) and those intended for implementation (58% of responses). Respondents reported 74% of the prioritizations intended for implementation had translated to on‐the‐ground action. Additionally, we identified strong collaboration between academics and practitioners in prioritization development, suggesting a bridging of the theory‐practice gap. We recommend continued collaboration and research into the effectiveness of prioritizations in delivering conservation impacts. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/conl.12459 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2266440500</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2266440500</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4039-e10df840b11a8c52b9ac8b1e8d685b3819dc1f78821605fd84fae151461903083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UMFKxDAQDaLgUvfiFxS8yXbNpEk2vSnFVWFxLyt4C2mbYJfa1KRV1q833Xrw5FzmPXjzZuYhdAl4CaFuSts2SyCUZSdoBivGEsLT19M_-BzNvd_jUCkRGaMzdLt70_Hg9SJWbTUCMzSt9n4RWxP7TvW1auJg7LX7DMS2cedq6-q-_j5Sf4HOjGq8nv_2CL2s73f5Y7LZPjzld5ukpDjNEg24MoLiAkCJkpEiU6UoQIuKC1akArKqBLMSggDHzFSCGqWBAeWQ4RSLNEJXk2_n7MegfS_3dnBtWCkJ4ZxSzMJXEbqeVKWz3jttZDj3XbmDBCzHkOQYkjyGFMQwib_qRh_-Ucp8-7yZZn4AfelorQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2266440500</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The use, and usefulness, of spatial conservation prioritizations</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Sinclair, Samuel P. ; Milner‐Gulland, E.J. ; Smith, Robert J. ; McIntosh, Emma J. ; Possingham, Hugh P. ; Vercammen, Ans ; Knight, Andrew T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sinclair, Samuel P. ; Milner‐Gulland, E.J. ; Smith, Robert J. ; McIntosh, Emma J. ; Possingham, Hugh P. ; Vercammen, Ans ; Knight, Andrew T.</creatorcontrib><description>Spatial conservation prioritization is used globally to guide decision making with the aim of delivering the best conservation gain per unit investment. However, despite many publications on the topic, the extent to which this approach is used by decision makers has been unclear. To investigate the degree to which prioritization has been adopted by practitioners to guide conservation implementation, we conducted an online survey, collecting data on the approaches used to develop prioritizations and the reported extent of translation to on‐the‐ground action. Using a cluster analysis, we identified two categories of prioritizations, those developed to advance the field (42% of responses) and those intended for implementation (58% of responses). Respondents reported 74% of the prioritizations intended for implementation had translated to on‐the‐ground action. Additionally, we identified strong collaboration between academics and practitioners in prioritization development, suggesting a bridging of the theory‐practice gap. We recommend continued collaboration and research into the effectiveness of prioritizations in delivering conservation impacts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1755-263X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1755-263X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/conl.12459</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Biodiversity ; Cluster analysis ; Collaboration ; Conservation ; Decision making ; Design ; Experts ; Grey literature ; land use planning ; marine spatial planning ; marxan ; Questionnaires ; research‐implementation gap ; science‐policy interface ; Software ; Stakeholders ; systematic conservation planning</subject><ispartof>Conservation letters, 2018-11, Vol.11 (6), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4039-e10df840b11a8c52b9ac8b1e8d685b3819dc1f78821605fd84fae151461903083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4039-e10df840b11a8c52b9ac8b1e8d685b3819dc1f78821605fd84fae151461903083</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fconl.12459$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fconl.12459$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sinclair, Samuel P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milner‐Gulland, E.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Robert J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McIntosh, Emma J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Possingham, Hugh P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vercammen, Ans</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knight, Andrew T.</creatorcontrib><title>The use, and usefulness, of spatial conservation prioritizations</title><title>Conservation letters</title><description>Spatial conservation prioritization is used globally to guide decision making with the aim of delivering the best conservation gain per unit investment. However, despite many publications on the topic, the extent to which this approach is used by decision makers has been unclear. To investigate the degree to which prioritization has been adopted by practitioners to guide conservation implementation, we conducted an online survey, collecting data on the approaches used to develop prioritizations and the reported extent of translation to on‐the‐ground action. Using a cluster analysis, we identified two categories of prioritizations, those developed to advance the field (42% of responses) and those intended for implementation (58% of responses). Respondents reported 74% of the prioritizations intended for implementation had translated to on‐the‐ground action. Additionally, we identified strong collaboration between academics and practitioners in prioritization development, suggesting a bridging of the theory‐practice gap. We recommend continued collaboration and research into the effectiveness of prioritizations in delivering conservation impacts.</description><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Cluster analysis</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Experts</subject><subject>Grey literature</subject><subject>land use planning</subject><subject>marine spatial planning</subject><subject>marxan</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>research‐implementation gap</subject><subject>science‐policy interface</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Stakeholders</subject><subject>systematic conservation planning</subject><issn>1755-263X</issn><issn>1755-263X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UMFKxDAQDaLgUvfiFxS8yXbNpEk2vSnFVWFxLyt4C2mbYJfa1KRV1q833Xrw5FzmPXjzZuYhdAl4CaFuSts2SyCUZSdoBivGEsLT19M_-BzNvd_jUCkRGaMzdLt70_Hg9SJWbTUCMzSt9n4RWxP7TvW1auJg7LX7DMS2cedq6-q-_j5Sf4HOjGq8nv_2CL2s73f5Y7LZPjzld5ukpDjNEg24MoLiAkCJkpEiU6UoQIuKC1akArKqBLMSggDHzFSCGqWBAeWQ4RSLNEJXk2_n7MegfS_3dnBtWCkJ4ZxSzMJXEbqeVKWz3jttZDj3XbmDBCzHkOQYkjyGFMQwib_qRh_-Ucp8-7yZZn4AfelorQ</recordid><startdate>201811</startdate><enddate>201811</enddate><creator>Sinclair, Samuel P.</creator><creator>Milner‐Gulland, E.J.</creator><creator>Smith, Robert J.</creator><creator>McIntosh, Emma J.</creator><creator>Possingham, Hugh P.</creator><creator>Vercammen, Ans</creator><creator>Knight, Andrew T.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201811</creationdate><title>The use, and usefulness, of spatial conservation prioritizations</title><author>Sinclair, Samuel P. ; Milner‐Gulland, E.J. ; Smith, Robert J. ; McIntosh, Emma J. ; Possingham, Hugh P. ; Vercammen, Ans ; Knight, Andrew T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4039-e10df840b11a8c52b9ac8b1e8d685b3819dc1f78821605fd84fae151461903083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Cluster analysis</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Experts</topic><topic>Grey literature</topic><topic>land use planning</topic><topic>marine spatial planning</topic><topic>marxan</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>research‐implementation gap</topic><topic>science‐policy interface</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Stakeholders</topic><topic>systematic conservation planning</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sinclair, Samuel P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milner‐Gulland, E.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Robert J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McIntosh, Emma J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Possingham, Hugh P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vercammen, Ans</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knight, Andrew T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Conservation letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sinclair, Samuel P.</au><au>Milner‐Gulland, E.J.</au><au>Smith, Robert J.</au><au>McIntosh, Emma J.</au><au>Possingham, Hugh P.</au><au>Vercammen, Ans</au><au>Knight, Andrew T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The use, and usefulness, of spatial conservation prioritizations</atitle><jtitle>Conservation letters</jtitle><date>2018-11</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>6</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>1755-263X</issn><eissn>1755-263X</eissn><abstract>Spatial conservation prioritization is used globally to guide decision making with the aim of delivering the best conservation gain per unit investment. However, despite many publications on the topic, the extent to which this approach is used by decision makers has been unclear. To investigate the degree to which prioritization has been adopted by practitioners to guide conservation implementation, we conducted an online survey, collecting data on the approaches used to develop prioritizations and the reported extent of translation to on‐the‐ground action. Using a cluster analysis, we identified two categories of prioritizations, those developed to advance the field (42% of responses) and those intended for implementation (58% of responses). Respondents reported 74% of the prioritizations intended for implementation had translated to on‐the‐ground action. Additionally, we identified strong collaboration between academics and practitioners in prioritization development, suggesting a bridging of the theory‐practice gap. We recommend continued collaboration and research into the effectiveness of prioritizations in delivering conservation impacts.</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/conl.12459</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1755-263X |
| ispartof | Conservation letters, 2018-11, Vol.11 (6), p.n/a |
| issn | 1755-263X 1755-263X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2266440500 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Access via Wiley Online Library; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection) |
| subjects | Biodiversity Cluster analysis Collaboration Conservation Decision making Design Experts Grey literature land use planning marine spatial planning marxan Questionnaires research‐implementation gap science‐policy interface Software Stakeholders systematic conservation planning |
| title | The use, and usefulness, of spatial conservation prioritizations |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T09%3A10%3A28IST&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=The%20use,%20and%20usefulness,%20of%20spatial%20conservation%20prioritizations&rft.jtitle=Conservation%20letters&rft.au=Sinclair,%20Samuel%20P.&rft.date=2018-11&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=6&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=1755-263X&rft.eissn=1755-263X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/conl.12459&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2266440500%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=2266440500&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |