10.1016/j.biocon.2010.08.017

10.1016/j.biocon.2010.08.017 1 <h5>Introduction</h5> Regional-scale conservation planning initiatives are becoming a standard process for strategically implementing a range of conservation actions. Quantitative spatial prioritisation techniques are increasingly applied by these initiatives to identify networks of candidate areas for implementation ( Margules and Pressey, 2000 ). These scientifically-defensible techniques evolved in response to the short-comings of an historically ad hoc approach to siting protected areas ( Pressey, 1994 ), and better ensure the woefully inadequate resources committed to conservation ( World Resources Institute, 1992 ) are allocated more efficiently and effectively ( Wilson et al., 2007 ). The peer-reviewed literature on spatial prioritisations has grown exponentially in recent years ( Pressey, 2002 ), to the extent that protected area selection is now considered a sub-discipline of conservation biology ( Pullin, 2002 ).</P>However, effective conservation planning is primarily a complex normative process comprising a suite of diverse but integrated activities ( Knight et al., 2006a ). The current single-minded focus by academic conservation planners upon spatial prioritisation techniques denies that, in practice, effective conservation planning is a social process informed by science, not a scientific process which engages society ( Theobald et al., 2000 ). The scientifically-defensible identification of areas for implementing http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

10.1016/j.biocon.2010.08.017

Elsevier — Jun 11, 2020

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/10-1016-j-biocon-2010-08-017-pJR0FvTgUc
Datasource
Elsevier

Abstract

1 <h5>Introduction</h5> Regional-scale conservation planning initiatives are becoming a standard process for strategically implementing a range of conservation actions. Quantitative spatial prioritisation techniques are increasingly applied by these initiatives to identify networks of candidate areas for implementation ( Margules and Pressey, 2000 ). These scientifically-defensible techniques evolved in response to the short-comings of an historically ad hoc approach to siting protected areas ( Pressey, 1994 ), and better ensure the woefully inadequate resources committed to conservation ( World Resources Institute, 1992 ) are allocated more efficiently and effectively ( Wilson et al., 2007 ). The peer-reviewed literature on spatial prioritisations has grown exponentially in recent years ( Pressey, 2002 ), to the extent that protected area selection is now considered a sub-discipline of conservation biology ( Pullin, 2002 ).</P>However, effective conservation planning is primarily a complex normative process comprising a suite of diverse but integrated activities ( Knight et al., 2006a ). The current single-minded focus by academic conservation planners upon spatial prioritisation techniques denies that, in practice, effective conservation planning is a social process informed by science, not a scientific process which engages society ( Theobald et al., 2000 ). The scientifically-defensible identification of areas for implementing

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off