Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
We also thank
(2007)
Measuring threat magnitude: a comparison of existing systems and a proposal for a standard system
(2005)
Taxonomies of direct threats and conservation actions
Threats authority file. Version 2.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission
A. Pullin, G. Stewart (2006)
Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental ManagementConservation Biology, 20
U. Epa (1998)
Guidelines for ecological risk assessment
W. Sutherland, A. Pullin, P. Dolman, T. Knight (2004)
The need for evidence-based conservation.Trends in ecology & evolution, 19 6
Conservation action planning: developing strategies, taking action, and measuring success at any scale
N. Salafsky, R. Margoluis, K. Redford, John Robinson (2002)
Improving the Practice of Conservation: a Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda for Conservation ScienceConservation Biology, 16
N. Salafsky, D. Salzer, J. Ervin, Wayne Ostlie (2003)
Conventions for Defining, Naming, Measuring, Combining, and Mapping Threats in Conservation An Initial Proposal for a Standard System
Abstract: An essential foundation of any science is a standard lexicon. Any given conservation project can be described in terms of the biodiversity targets, direct threats, contributing factors at the project site, and the conservation actions that the project team is employing to change the situation. These common elements can be linked in a causal chain, which represents a theory of change about how the conservation actions are intended to bring about desired project outcomes. If project teams want to describe and share their work and learn from one another, they need a standard and precise lexicon to specifically describe each node along this chain. To date, there have been several independent efforts to develop standard classifications for the direct threats that affect biodiversity and the conservation actions required to counteract these threats. Recognizing that it is far more effective to have only one accepted global scheme, we merged these separate efforts into unified classifications of threats and actions, which we present here. Each classification is a hierarchical listing of terms and associated definitions. The classifications are comprehensive and exclusive at the upper levels of the hierarchy, expandable at the lower levels, and simple, consistent, and scalable at all levels. We tested these classifications by applying them post hoc to 1191 threatened bird species and 737 conservation projects. Almost all threats and actions could be assigned to the new classification systems, save for some cases lacking detailed information. Furthermore, the new classification systems provided an improved way of analyzing and comparing information across projects when compared with earlier systems. We believe that widespread adoption of these classifications will help practitioners more systematically identify threats and appropriate actions, managers to more efficiently set priorities and allocate resources, and most important, facilitate cross‐project learning and the development of a systematic science of conservation.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Aug 1, 2008
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.