Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting
By E. Game, P. Kareiva, Hugh P. Possingham. Conservation Biology, 2013
328 citations recorded by the source corpus.
A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well‐established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill‐defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations.
Subfields: Conservation, Ecological Modeling, Economics and Econometrics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7852b8ef62410347374c03bb3b90bec3448ac900
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
Citations in the corpus
- Biologically representative and well‐connected marine reserves enhance biodiversity persistence in conservation planning (2018, unknown): “Defining conservation objectives for effective conservation planning (Game et al., 2013) has the potential to signifi-cantly alter the configuration and size of reserve networks.”
- Linking Movement Ecology with Wildlife Management and Conservation (2016, background): “, 2015 ) , and therefore prioritize the most effective management actions that have the highest chance of success ( Game et al .”