FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2890472403> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2890472403 abstract "Abstract Background Systematic conservation planning is a discipline concerned with the prioritisation of resources for biodiversity conservation and is often used in the design or assessment of terrestrial and marine protected area networks. Despite being an evidence-based discipline, to date there has been no comprehensive review of the outcomes of systematic conservation plans and assessments of the relative effectiveness of applications in different contexts. To address this fundamental gap in knowledge, our primary research question was: what is the extent, distribution and robustness of evidence on conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe? Methods A systematic mapping exercise was undertaken using standardised search terms across 29 sources, including publication databases, online repositories and a wide range of grey literature sources. The review team screened articles recursively, first by title only, then abstract and finally by full-text, using inclusion criteria related to systematic conservation plans conducted at sub-global scales and reported on since 1983. We sought studies that reported outcomes relating to natural, human, social, financial or institutional outcomes and which employed robust evaluation study designs. The following information was extracted from included studies: bibliographic details, background information including location of study and broad objectives of the plan, study design, reported outcomes and context. Results Of the approximately 10,000 unique articles returned through our searches, 1209 were included for full-text screening and 43 studies reported outcomes of conservation planning interventions. However, only three studies involved the use of evaluation study designs which are suitably rigorous for inclusion, according to best-practice guidelines. The three included studies were undertaken in the Gulf of California (Mexico), Réunion Island, and The Nature Conservancy’s landholdings across the USA. The studies varied widely in context, purpose and outcomes. Study designs were non-experimental or qualitative, and involved use of spatial landholdings over time, stakeholder surveys and modelling of alternative planning scenarios. Conclusion Rigorous evaluations of systematic conservation plans are currently not published in academic journals or made publicly available elsewhere. Despite frequent claims relating to positive implications and outcomes of these planning activities, we show that evaluations are probably rarely conducted. This finding does not imply systematic conservation planning is not effective but highlights a significant gap in our understanding of how, when and why it may or may not be effective. Our results also corroborate claims that the literature on systematic conservation planning is dominated by methodological studies, rather than those that focus on implementation and outcomes, and support the case that this is a problematic imbalance in the literature. We emphasise the need for academics and practitioners to publish the outcomes of systematic conservation planning exercises and to consider employing robust evaluation methodologies when reporting project outcomes. Adequate reporting of outcomes will in turn enable transparency and accountability between institutions and funding bodies as well as improving the science and practice of conservation planning." @default.
• W2890472403 created "2018-09-27" @default.
• W2890472403 creator A5004144615 @default.
• W2890472403 creator A5030495549 @default.
• W2890472403 creator A5039228528 @default.
• W2890472403 creator A5051633767 @default.
• W2890472403 creator A5052582039 @default.
• W2890472403 creator A5057213243 @default.
• W2890472403 creator A5075786287 @default.
• W2890472403 creator A5088662204 @default.
• W2890472403 creator A5089541555 @default.
• W2890472403 date "2018-09-22" @default.
• W2890472403 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W2890472403 title "Absence of evidence for the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe: a systematic map" @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1179295656 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1506288815 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1540682446 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1541650732 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1589543187 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1787092137 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1963851977 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1977561990 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1979965693 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1984662588 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1987775380 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1995625134 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2007734087 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2009626094 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2019161385 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2020594200 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2024759396 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2027133828 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2028526629 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2029292527 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2031104100 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2034309166 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2041876144 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2052107345 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2056167250 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2056460504 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2056957203 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2060029670 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2060068258 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2072814916 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2091253236 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2098507967 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2109495812 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2116169418 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2116950913 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2119566762 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2119942739 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2123980680 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2134680072 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2135195304 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2135998335 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2140420859 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2141411644 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2145232860 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2154550128 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2165023551 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2167499513 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2204461532 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2208053283 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2268788087 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2344290876 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2417099619 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2490630147 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2528326240 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2554603683 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2560689977 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2561629699 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2579003104 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2580681913 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2672395553 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2733462044 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2746485780 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2782235379 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2783167457 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2790514674 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2793459609 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2797780449 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2803000154 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W2889904364 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W4211243502 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W4313371821 @default.
• W2890472403 cites W1996965913 @default.
• W2890472403 doi "https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0134-2" @default.
• W2890472403 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2890472403 type Work @default.
• W2890472403 sameAs 2890472403 @default.
• W2890472403 citedByCount "35" @default.
• W2890472403 countsByYear W28904724032019 @default.
• W2890472403 countsByYear W28904724032020 @default.
• W2890472403 countsByYear W28904724032021 @default.
• W2890472403 countsByYear W28904724032022 @default.
• W2890472403 countsByYear W28904724032023 @default.
• W2890472403 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2890472403 hasAuthorship W2890472403A5004144615 @default.
• W2890472403 hasAuthorship W2890472403A5030495549 @default.
• W2890472403 hasAuthorship W2890472403A5039228528 @default.

• next