Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset . 2023
License: CC 0
Data sources: ZENODO
DRYAD
Dataset . 2023
License: CC 0
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Data from: Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning

Authors: Cunningham, Charles; Crick, Humphrey; Morecroft, Mike; Thomas, Chris; Beale, Colin;

Data from: Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning

Abstract

Conservation encompasses numerous alternative viewpoints on what to value (features such as biodiversity, ecosystem services or socio-economic benefits) and how to convert these values into conservation policies that deliver for nature and people. Reconciling these differing values and viewpoints in policy development and implementation is a perennial challenge. Balancing differing stakeholder viewpoints within a single conservation plan risks some viewpoints overshadowing others. This can occur as some dominant viewpoints may lead to more marginal views being suppressed, and also through social biases during the planning process. Here we develop four separate ‘caricature’ conservation viewpoints, and spatially quantify each of them in order to test different approaches to equitable reconciliation. Each viewpoint prioritises different locations, dependent on the extent to which they deliver a variety of different biodiversity, well-being and economic goals. We then show how these different viewpoints can be reconciled using numeric methods. We find that a pluralist approach, which accounts for the spatial similarities and differences between viewpoints, is able to deliver equitably for multiple conservation features. This pluralist approach provides a coherent spatial conservation strategy with the capacity to satisfy advocates of quite divergent approaches to conservation.

Please see the README.md document and the accompanying published article: Cunningham, C.A., Crick, H.Q., Morecroft, M.D., Thomas, C.D., Beale, C.M. 2023. Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning. People and Nature. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10449. Software used: R R version 4.2.2 (2022-10-31 ucrt) -- "Innocent and Trusting"Copyright (C) 2022 The R Foundation for Statistical ComputingPlatform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit) Zonation Zonation 4.0.0rc1_compact, build: Sep 19 2014 18:16:13

Please see the README.md document and the accompanying published article: Cunningham, C.A., Crick, H.Q., Morecroft, M.D., Thomas, C.D., Beale, C.M. 2023. Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning. People and Nature. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10449.

Related Organizations
Keywords

conservation viewpoints, inclusiveness, pluralism, spatial prioritisation, Biodiversity, FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences, ecosystem services, consensus planning, systematic conservation planning, biodiversity

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    1
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
1
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities
Italian National Biodiversity Future Center