We conducted an intensive review of conservation science to find out whether the field has tracked priorities over the past 20 years. A total of 628 papers from the literature, for the years 1984, 1994, and 2004, were surveyed. For each paper, we recorded where conservation research was done and what was studied. We found geographic gaps in conservation research, with marine, tundra, and desert biomes being studied less than other systems. We also found taxonomic gaps, with amphibians being understudied as compared to other, less threatened, taxonomic groups. Finally, we discovered that studies of invasive species are still lacking, despite the magnitude of the threat they pose to global biodiversity. Although there was a weak trend towards filling these gaps between 1984 and 2004, progress has been slow. To be more effective, the research community must quickly redirect research to better match conservation priorities.

No abstract

No abstract

Several international conservation organizations have recently produced global priority maps to guide conservation activities and spending in their own and other conservation organizations. Surprisingly, it is not possible to directly evaluate the relationship between priorities and spending within a given organization because none of the organizations with global priority models tracks how theyPalabras Clave:áreas prioritarias para conservación, inversión en conservación, modelos de prioridades, ONGs de conservación

We hypothesized that willingness to financially support conservation depends on one's experience with nature. In order to test this hypothesis, we used a novel time-lagged correlation analysis to look at times series data concerning nature participation, and evaluate its relationship with future conservation support (measured as contributions to conservation NGOs). Our results suggest that the type and timing of nature experience may determine future conservation investment. Time spent hiking or backpacking is correlated with increased conservation contributions 11–12 years later. On the other hand, contributions are negatively correlated with past time spent on activities such as public lands visitation or fishing. Our results suggest that each hiker or backpacker translates to $200–$300 annually in future NGO contributions. We project that the recent decline in popularity of hiking and backpacking will negatively impact conservation NGO contributions from approximately 2010–2011 through at least 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g 2 0 4 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 326-334

No abstract

No abstract