Setting Conservation Priorities
A generic framework for setting conservation priorities based on the principles of classic decision theory is provided. This framework encapsulates the key elements of any problem, including the objective, the constraints, and knowledge of the system. Within the context of this framework the broad a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2009-04, Vol.1162 (1), p.237-264 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 264 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 237 |
container_title | Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences |
container_volume | 1162 |
creator | Wilson, Kerrie A. Carwardine, Josie Possingham, Hugh P. |
description | A generic framework for setting conservation priorities based on the principles of classic decision theory is provided. This framework encapsulates the key elements of any problem, including the objective, the constraints, and knowledge of the system. Within the context of this framework the broad array of approaches for setting conservation priorities are reviewed. While some approaches prioritize assets or locations for conservation investment, it is concluded here that prioritization is incomplete without consideration of the conservation actions required to conserve the assets at particular locations. The challenges associated with prioritizing investments through time in the face of threats (and also spatially and temporally heterogeneous costs) can be aided by proper problem definition. Using the authors’ general framework for setting conservation priorities, multiple criteria can be rationally integrated and where, how, and when to invest conservation resources can be scheduled. Trade‐offs are unavoidable in priority setting when there are multiple considerations, and budgets are almost always finite. The authors discuss how trade‐offs, risks, uncertainty, feedbacks, and learning can be explicitly evaluated within their generic framework for setting conservation priorities. Finally, they suggest ways that current priority‐setting approaches may be improved. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04149.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67250992</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>20540559</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5049-60c7478059feda5126d3e989bb337e8983b540cc2b885d101b0042bb860893ac3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkF1PwjAUhhujEUT_gnLl3eZpu67tlTEoaEJQg0b0ptlHMcWxYTsU_r0bI3ipvWmTvud5cx6Euhh8XJ2LmY95IL0wpMQnANKHAAfSX-2h9u5jH7UBOPeEJLSFjpybAWAiAn6IWlgGlIQMt9HZWJelyd-7vSJ32n5FpSny7oM1hTWl0e4YHUyjzOmT7d1Bz_2bp96tN7wf3PWuhl7CoC6EhAdcAJNTnUYMkzClWgoZx5RyLaSgMQsgSUgsBEsx4BggIHEsQhCSRgntoPOGu7DF51K7Us2NS3SWRbkulk6FnDCQ1Sp_BQlURYzJKiiaYGIL56yeqoU188iuFQZVW1QzVctStSxVW1Qbi2pVjZ5uO5bxXKe_g1ttVeCyCXybTK__DVaj16vx5l0RvIZgXKlXO0JkP6pVKWfqZTRQj2-T60l_AIrQHxyRjdA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>20540559</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Setting Conservation Priorities</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Wilson, Kerrie A. ; Carwardine, Josie ; Possingham, Hugh P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Kerrie A. ; Carwardine, Josie ; Possingham, Hugh P.</creatorcontrib><description>A generic framework for setting conservation priorities based on the principles of classic decision theory is provided. This framework encapsulates the key elements of any problem, including the objective, the constraints, and knowledge of the system. Within the context of this framework the broad array of approaches for setting conservation priorities are reviewed. While some approaches prioritize assets or locations for conservation investment, it is concluded here that prioritization is incomplete without consideration of the conservation actions required to conserve the assets at particular locations. The challenges associated with prioritizing investments through time in the face of threats (and also spatially and temporally heterogeneous costs) can be aided by proper problem definition. Using the authors’ general framework for setting conservation priorities, multiple criteria can be rationally integrated and where, how, and when to invest conservation resources can be scheduled. Trade‐offs are unavoidable in priority setting when there are multiple considerations, and budgets are almost always finite. The authors discuss how trade‐offs, risks, uncertainty, feedbacks, and learning can be explicitly evaluated within their generic framework for setting conservation priorities. Finally, they suggest ways that current priority‐setting approaches may be improved.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0077-8923</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1749-6632</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1930-6547</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04149.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19432651</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>Biodiversity ; Conservation of Natural Resources - economics ; conservation prioritization ; costs ; Decision Making ; decision theory ; Ecosystem ; feedbacks ; focal species ; hotspot ; likelihood of success ; reserve design ; risk ; Risk Factors ; surrogates ; systematic conservation planning ; threatened species ; threats ; Uncertainty ; vulnerability</subject><ispartof>Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2009-04, Vol.1162 (1), p.237-264</ispartof><rights>2009 New York Academy of Sciences</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5049-60c7478059feda5126d3e989bb337e8983b540cc2b885d101b0042bb860893ac3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5049-60c7478059feda5126d3e989bb337e8983b540cc2b885d101b0042bb860893ac3</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%2Fj.1749-6632.2009.04149.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1749-6632.2009.04149.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19432651$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Kerrie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carwardine, Josie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Possingham, Hugh P.</creatorcontrib><title>Setting Conservation Priorities</title><title>Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences</title><addtitle>Ann N Y Acad Sci</addtitle><description>A generic framework for setting conservation priorities based on the principles of classic decision theory is provided. This framework encapsulates the key elements of any problem, including the objective, the constraints, and knowledge of the system. Within the context of this framework the broad array of approaches for setting conservation priorities are reviewed. While some approaches prioritize assets or locations for conservation investment, it is concluded here that prioritization is incomplete without consideration of the conservation actions required to conserve the assets at particular locations. The challenges associated with prioritizing investments through time in the face of threats (and also spatially and temporally heterogeneous costs) can be aided by proper problem definition. Using the authors’ general framework for setting conservation priorities, multiple criteria can be rationally integrated and where, how, and when to invest conservation resources can be scheduled. Trade‐offs are unavoidable in priority setting when there are multiple considerations, and budgets are almost always finite. The authors discuss how trade‐offs, risks, uncertainty, feedbacks, and learning can be explicitly evaluated within their generic framework for setting conservation priorities. Finally, they suggest ways that current priority‐setting approaches may be improved.</description><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources - economics</subject><subject>conservation prioritization</subject><subject>costs</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>decision theory</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>feedbacks</subject><subject>focal species</subject><subject>hotspot</subject><subject>likelihood of success</subject><subject>reserve design</subject><subject>risk</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>surrogates</subject><subject>systematic conservation planning</subject><subject>threatened species</subject><subject>threats</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><subject>vulnerability</subject><issn>0077-8923</issn><issn>1749-6632</issn><issn>1930-6547</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkF1PwjAUhhujEUT_gnLl3eZpu67tlTEoaEJQg0b0ptlHMcWxYTsU_r0bI3ipvWmTvud5cx6Euhh8XJ2LmY95IL0wpMQnANKHAAfSX-2h9u5jH7UBOPeEJLSFjpybAWAiAn6IWlgGlIQMt9HZWJelyd-7vSJ32n5FpSny7oM1hTWl0e4YHUyjzOmT7d1Bz_2bp96tN7wf3PWuhl7CoC6EhAdcAJNTnUYMkzClWgoZx5RyLaSgMQsgSUgsBEsx4BggIHEsQhCSRgntoPOGu7DF51K7Us2NS3SWRbkulk6FnDCQ1Sp_BQlURYzJKiiaYGIL56yeqoU188iuFQZVW1QzVctStSxVW1Qbi2pVjZ5uO5bxXKe_g1ttVeCyCXybTK__DVaj16vx5l0RvIZgXKlXO0JkP6pVKWfqZTRQj2-T60l_AIrQHxyRjdA</recordid><startdate>200904</startdate><enddate>200904</enddate><creator>Wilson, Kerrie A.</creator><creator>Carwardine, Josie</creator><creator>Possingham, Hugh P.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200904</creationdate><title>Setting Conservation Priorities</title><author>Wilson, Kerrie A. ; Carwardine, Josie ; Possingham, Hugh P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5049-60c7478059feda5126d3e989bb337e8983b540cc2b885d101b0042bb860893ac3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources - economics</topic><topic>conservation prioritization</topic><topic>costs</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>decision theory</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>feedbacks</topic><topic>focal species</topic><topic>hotspot</topic><topic>likelihood of success</topic><topic>reserve design</topic><topic>risk</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>surrogates</topic><topic>systematic conservation planning</topic><topic>threatened species</topic><topic>threats</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><topic>vulnerability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Kerrie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carwardine, Josie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Possingham, Hugh P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wilson, Kerrie A.</au><au>Carwardine, Josie</au><au>Possingham, Hugh P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Setting Conservation Priorities</atitle><jtitle>Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences</jtitle><addtitle>Ann N Y Acad Sci</addtitle><date>2009-04</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>1162</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>237</spage><epage>264</epage><pages>237-264</pages><issn>0077-8923</issn><eissn>1749-6632</eissn><eissn>1930-6547</eissn><abstract>A generic framework for setting conservation priorities based on the principles of classic decision theory is provided. This framework encapsulates the key elements of any problem, including the objective, the constraints, and knowledge of the system. Within the context of this framework the broad array of approaches for setting conservation priorities are reviewed. While some approaches prioritize assets or locations for conservation investment, it is concluded here that prioritization is incomplete without consideration of the conservation actions required to conserve the assets at particular locations. The challenges associated with prioritizing investments through time in the face of threats (and also spatially and temporally heterogeneous costs) can be aided by proper problem definition. Using the authors’ general framework for setting conservation priorities, multiple criteria can be rationally integrated and where, how, and when to invest conservation resources can be scheduled. Trade‐offs are unavoidable in priority setting when there are multiple considerations, and budgets are almost always finite. The authors discuss how trade‐offs, risks, uncertainty, feedbacks, and learning can be explicitly evaluated within their generic framework for setting conservation priorities. Finally, they suggest ways that current priority‐setting approaches may be improved.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><pmid>19432651</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04149.x</doi><tpages>28</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0077-8923 |
ispartof | Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2009-04, Vol.1162 (1), p.237-264 |
issn | 0077-8923 1749-6632 1930-6547 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67250992 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Biodiversity Conservation of Natural Resources - economics conservation prioritization costs Decision Making decision theory Ecosystem feedbacks focal species hotspot likelihood of success reserve design risk Risk Factors surrogates systematic conservation planning threatened species threats Uncertainty vulnerability |
title | Setting Conservation Priorities |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T06%3A14%3A53IST&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=Setting%20Conservation%20Priorities&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20the%20New%20York%20Academy%20of%20Sciences&rft.au=Wilson,%20Kerrie%20A.&rft.date=2009-04&rft.volume=1162&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=237&rft.epage=264&rft.pages=237-264&rft.issn=0077-8923&rft.eissn=1749-6632&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04149.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E20540559%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=20540559&rft_id=info:pmid/19432651&rfr_iscdi=true |