Literature DB >> 24617898

Integrating biological and social values when prioritizing places for biodiversity conservation.

Amy L Whitehead1, Heini Kujala, Christopher D Ives, Ascelin Gordon, Pia E Lentini, Brendan A Wintle, Emily Nicholson, Christopher M Raymond.   

Abstract

The consideration of information on social values in conjunction with biological data is critical for achieving both socially acceptable and scientifically defensible conservation planning outcomes. However, the influence of social values on spatial conservation priorities has received limited attention and is poorly understood. We present an approach that incorporates quantitative data on social values for conservation and social preferences for development into spatial conservation planning. We undertook a public participation GIS survey to spatially represent social values and development preferences and used species distribution models for 7 threatened fauna species to represent biological values. These spatially explicit data were simultaneously included in the conservation planning software Zonation to examine how conservation priorities changed with the inclusion of social data. Integrating spatially explicit information about social values and development preferences with biological data produced prioritizations that differed spatially from the solution based on only biological data. However, the integrated solutions protected a similar proportion of the species' distributions, indicating that Zonation effectively combined the biological and social data to produce socially feasible conservation solutions of approximately equivalent biological value. We were able to identify areas of the landscape where synergies and conflicts between different value sets are likely to occur. Identification of these synergies and conflicts will allow decision makers to target communication strategies to specific areas and ensure effective community engagement and positive conservation outcomes.
© 2014 Society for Conservation Biology.

Keywords:  Biodiversidad; SIG; Zonation; biodiversity; conservation planning; development preferences; participación pública; planeación de la conservación; preferencias de desarrollo; priorización espacial; public participation GIS; social values; spatial prioritization; valores sociales

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24617898     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12257

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  10 in total

1.  The User, not the Tool: Perceptions of Credibility and Relevance Affect the Uptake of Prioritisation.

Authors:  Milena Kiatkoski Kim; Louisa Evans; Lea M Scherl; Helene Marsh
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Landowner behavior can determine the success of conservation strategies for ecosystem migration under sea-level rise.

Authors:  Christopher R Field; Ashley A Dayer; Chris S Elphick
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Mapping Meaningful Places on Washington's Olympic Peninsula: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Landscape Values.

Authors:  Lee Karol Cerveny; Kelly Biedenweg; Rebecca McLain
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  A Reciprocal Triangulation Process For Identifying And Mapping Potential Land Use Conflict.

Authors:  Jennifer Diana Evans; James Barrie Kirkpatrick; Kerry Lynn Bridle
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 3.266

5.  Game auction prices are not related to biodiversity contributions of southern African ungulates and large carnivores.

Authors:  Fredrik Dalerum; Maria Miranda
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Traits, landmarks and outlines: Three congruent sides of a tale on coral reef fish morphology.

Authors:  Marita Quitzau; Romain Frelat; Vincent Bonhomme; Christian Möllmann; Leopold Nagelkerke; Sonia Bejarano
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 3.167

7.  Classifying and Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services Using Artificial Intelligence and Social Media Data.

Authors:  Ikram Mouttaki; Ingrida Bagdanavičiūtė; Mohamed Maanan; Mohammed Erraiss; Hassan Rhinane; Mehdi Maanan
Journal:  Wetlands (Wilmington)       Date:  2022-10-08       Impact factor: 2.074

8.  Using Optimal Land-Use Scenarios to Assess Trade-Offs between Conservation, Development, and Social Values.

Authors:  Vanessa M Adams; Robert L Pressey; Jorge G Álvarez-Romero
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Using Species Distribution Models to Predict Potential Landscape Restoration Effects on Puma Conservation.

Authors:  Cintia Camila Silva Angelieri; Christine Adams-Hosking; Katia Maria Paschoaletto Micchi de Barros Ferraz; Marcelo Pereira de Souza; Clive Alexander McAlpine
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Where are the hotspots and coldspots of landscape values, visitor use and biodiversity in an urban forest?

Authors:  Silviya Korpilo; Joel Jalkanen; Tarmo Virtanen; Susanna Lehvävirta
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.