How Much Is Enough? The Recurrent Problem of Setting Measurable Objectives in Conservation

Tear, Timothy H.; Kareiva, Peter; Angermeier, Paul L.; Comer, Patrick J.; Czech, Brian; Kautz, Randy; Landon, Laura; Mehlman, David W.; Murphy, Karen; Ruckelshaus, Mary; Scott, James M.; Wilhere, George F.

doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0835:hmietr]2.0.co;2

Cited by 292 publications

(234 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

227

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If the scenario is considered whereby a parcel of land is available for development as part of a 'greening' process, each deliverable objective will have an interest group or NGO bidding for that tender in an attempt to contribute towards that purpose. In an unregulated or undirected form, such as that of GI currently with its lack of a governing body, this leads to inefficient green space allocation as a result of competition that is driven as much by societal values, economic constraints and political feasibility as scientific knowledge or strategic considerations (Tear et al, 2005). Interviewee C2 testifies that this process is exacerbated in dense urban areas where the functionality of space is under even greater pressure.…”

Section: The European Commission Highlight That 'Working With Nature'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future?

Sussams

Sheate

Eales

2015

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention:Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future? AbstractAs dangerous climate change looms, decision-makers are increasingly realising that societies will need to adapt to this threat as well as mitigate against it. Green infrastructure (GI) is increasingly seen as an ideal climate change adaptation policy response. However, with this research the authors identify a number of crucial knowledge gaps within GI and, consequently, call for caution and for a concerted effort to understand the concept and what it can really deliver. GI has risen to prominence in a range of policy areas in large part due to its perceived ability to produce multiple benefits simultaneously, termed 'multifunctionality'. This characteristic strengthens the political appeal of the policy in question at a time when environmental issues have slipped down political agendas.Multifunctionality, however, brings its own set of new challenges that should be evaluated fully before the policy is implemented. This research takes important first steps to developing a critical understanding of what is achievable within GI's capacity. It focuses on one of GI's single objectives, namely climate change adaptation, to focus the analysis of how current obstacles in applying GI's multifunctionality could lead to the ineffective delivery of its objective.By drawing on expert opinion from government officials and representatives from the private, non-government organisation (NGO) and academic sectors, this research questions GI's ability to be effectively 'multifunctional' with an inconsistent definition at its core, deficiencies in its understanding and conflicts within its governance. In light of these observations, the authors then reflect on the judiciousness of applying GI to achieve the other objectives it has also been charged with delivering.

show abstract

Section: The European Commission Highlight That 'Working With Nature'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future?

Sussams

Sheate

Eales

2015

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Painted broadly, effective conservation science and policy begins with stating clear goals and defining measurable objectives (Eyre et al, 2011, Tear et al, 2005. But specific goals and evaluation measures are often species-or ecosystem-dependent, and simply applying a given management practice is not a conservation endpoint.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Rangeland Management Must Match Policy Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inconsistent outcomes of heterogeneity-based management underscore importance of matching evaluation to conservation objectives

McGranahan

Engle

Fuhlendorf

et al. 2013

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Winter, Stephen L.; Miller, James R.; and Debinski, Diane M., "Inconsistent outcomes of heterogeneity-based management underscore importance of matching evaluation to conservation objectives" (2013 AbstractConservation policy often incentivizes managers of human-impacted areas to create landscape heterogeneity to maximize biodiversity. In rangeland, patchy disturbance regimes create landscape heterogeneity (patch contrast), but outcomes of heterogeneity-based management are rarely tested for a universal response. We analyzed four habitat variables-vegetation structure, plant functional group composition, litter cover, and bare ground-from five experimental rangelands in Oklahoma and Iowa, USA. We tested for response consistency to heterogeneity-based management across and within locations. We calculated effect sizes for each variable to compare patch contrast on pastures managed for heterogeneity (patch burn-grazing) and pastures managed for homogeneity (grazing with homogeneous fire regimes). Effects varied considerably across and within locations. Effects of heterogeneity-based management were positive for all variables at only three of five experimental rangeland locations. No location showed a consistent pattern of positive effect across all four variables, although one location showed no effect for any variable. At another location, we found a positive effect of heterogeneity-based management on litter cover and bare ground, but no effect on vegetation structure and plant functional group composition. We discuss effect variability and how the fire-grazing interaction applies to rangeland management and conservation. Although it is accepted practice to use heterogeneity-based management to increase rangeland habitat diversity, managers should also confirm that evaluation metrics match desired conservation outcomes.

show abstract

“…Conservation objectives can provide focus for conservation planning efforts by defining how much habitat; how many individuals or populations, and where conservation should occur to meet an overarching conservation goal (Tear et al 2005). Conservation objectives can also unify stakeholders, make conservation actions more efficient, focus monitoring efforts, and help prioritize the investment of resources.…”

Section: What Are Conservation Objectives and Why Set Them?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Science of Setting Conservation Objectives for Birds in California’s Central Valley: An Introduction

Gardali¹,

Marty²,

Yarris³

2017

SFEWS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How Much Is Enough? The Recurrent Problem of Setting Measurable Objectives in Conservation

Cited by 292 publications

References 32 publications

Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future?

Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future?

Inconsistent outcomes of heterogeneity-based management underscore importance of matching evaluation to conservation objectives

The Science of Setting Conservation Objectives for Birds in California’s Central Valley: An Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About