Setting conservation priorities

Wilson, K. A., Carwardine, J. and Possingham, H. P. (2009) Setting conservation priorities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1162 The year in ecology and conservation biology 2009: 237-264. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04149.x

Author Wilson, K. A.
Carwardine, J.
Possingham, H. P.
Title Setting conservation priorities
Journal name Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0077-8923
ISBN 978-1-57331-753-5
Publication date 2009-04-01
Year available 2009
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04149.x
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 1162
Issue The year in ecology and conservation biology 2009
Start page 237
End page 264
Total pages 28
Editor Douglas Braaten
Place of publication Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.
Publisher Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2009
Language eng
Subject 0502 Environmental Science and Management
050202 Conservation and Biodiversity
050211 Wildlife and Habitat Management
050205 Environmental Management
960805 Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity at Regional or Larger Scales
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
Keyword Conservation prioritization
Marine Protected Areas
Threatened species
Focal species
Systematic conservation planning
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 121 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 145 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 03 Sep 2009, 18:05:50 EST by Mr Andrew Martlew on behalf of School of Biological Sciences