Conservation priorities

Co-producing a Research Agenda for Sustainable Palm Oil

“…Analysis of the highest priority questions from both the online surveys and focus groups, and the residential workshop under the media, communication and knowledge exchange theme (Table 4) highlighted a specific need to improve the communication of research outputs, particularly to non-academic stakeholders (A7, B7). Pullin et al (2013), Stringer and Dougill (2013), Sutherland et al (2010), and Laurance et al (2012) have all made similar arguments in relation to the adoption of scientific findings in environmental topics. Stringer and Dougill (2013, p. 328) argue that within the context of research in sustainable development: "there remains a pressing need for greater reflection on the practical enablers allowing research to better support policy.…”

Comparing Methods for Prioritising Protected Areas for Investment: A Case Study Using Madagascar’s Dry Forest Reptiles

“…Conservation assessments are intended to inform decisions, rather than provide definitive prescriptions [ 33 , 79 ]. Ideally, with any prioritisation exercise, decision-makers should use a systematic approach such as Zonation whenever they have the capacity to do so or, if this is lacking, seek to develop or ‘borrow’ the necessary expertise by collaborating with research institutions [ 80 , 81 ].…”

“…However, the Red List Index failed to account for Data Deficient and Not Evaluated species, and thus almost 10% of species in our sample were excluded from the analysis. Additionally, since the use of such an index is dependent on the availability of full, up-to-date Red List assessments, its utility will be limited for many taxonomic groups and geographical regions, given that only 2.75% of described species had been evaluated by 2010 [ 33 ].…”

“…However, such choices are almost always made by state-mandated protected area management agencies, non-governmental organisations and/or conservation funding bodies (henceforth decision-makers), actors who do not tend to make sufficient, appropriate or systematic use of scientific tools and approaches in decision-making [ 25 – 29 ]. Indeed, their priorities may be influenced by the (often implicit) values held by individuals and organisations [ 30 – 33 ], rather than rational, explicit methods, and this may lead to suboptimal results.…”

Biocultural indicators to support locally led environmental management and monitoring

“…Ecology and Society 24(4): 21 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss4/art21/ often developed by centralized management agencies (e.g., provincial, state, or federal governments) that have colonized or asserted decision-making authority over Indigenous territories, failed to accept guidance from local communities (Indigenous or non-Indigenous), and drawn on observational data that may not always be derived from the area affected by management decisions (Reed et al 2006, Sterling et al 2017a. Additionally, many consider that contemporary EM has not appropriately used scientific information in a way that fosters benefits to social, cultural, and economic needs while also conserving biodiversity (Slocombe 1993, Sutherland et al 2004, Turner et al 2008, Cook et al 2010, 2012, Chan et al 2012b, Pullin et al 2013. This is partly because of the omission of social and cultural values during the development of ecological indicators used in management and monitoring (Turner et al 2008, Chan et al 2012a, b, Sterling et al 2017a.…”