生物多样性保护行动决策 10 年:系统文献综述

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Jutta Beher, Eric Treml, Brendan Wintle
{"title":"生物多样性保护行动决策 10 年:系统文献综述","authors":"Jutta Beher,&nbsp;Eric Treml,&nbsp;Brendan Wintle","doi":"10.1111/csp2.13170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Decision science emphasizes necessary elements required for robust decision-making. By incorporating decision science principles, frameworks, and tools, it has been demonstrated that decision-makers can increase the chances of achieving conservation aims. Setting measurable objectives, clearly documenting assumptions about the impact of available actions on a specific threat or problem, explicitly considering constraints, exploring and characterizing uncertainty, and structured deliberation on trade-offs have been identified as key elements of successful decision-making. We quantify the extent to which these five elements were utilized in published examples of decision making in conservation in both academic and conservation practice between 2009 and 2018. We found that less than 50% of identified examples included all five elements, with differences in the degree of decision science applied across five commonly used decision support approaches: adaptive management (AM), systematic conservation planning (SCP), structured decision making (SDM), multi-criteria decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Example applications that utilized the SDM framework were limited in numbers but used on average more than 50% of the five key elements we considered. Although SCP and AM constituted the majority of examples, they were more prevalent in academic studies rather than management applications. SCP and AM examples were widespread in protected area planning, threat abatement, and restoration. Strong geographic bias exists in documented conservation activities that deploy all five decision science elements.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"6 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.13170","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"10 years of decision-making for biodiversity conservation actions: A systematic literature review\",\"authors\":\"Jutta Beher,&nbsp;Eric Treml,&nbsp;Brendan Wintle\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/csp2.13170\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Decision science emphasizes necessary elements required for robust decision-making. By incorporating decision science principles, frameworks, and tools, it has been demonstrated that decision-makers can increase the chances of achieving conservation aims. Setting measurable objectives, clearly documenting assumptions about the impact of available actions on a specific threat or problem, explicitly considering constraints, exploring and characterizing uncertainty, and structured deliberation on trade-offs have been identified as key elements of successful decision-making. We quantify the extent to which these five elements were utilized in published examples of decision making in conservation in both academic and conservation practice between 2009 and 2018. We found that less than 50% of identified examples included all five elements, with differences in the degree of decision science applied across five commonly used decision support approaches: adaptive management (AM), systematic conservation planning (SCP), structured decision making (SDM), multi-criteria decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Example applications that utilized the SDM framework were limited in numbers but used on average more than 50% of the five key elements we considered. Although SCP and AM constituted the majority of examples, they were more prevalent in academic studies rather than management applications. SCP and AM examples were widespread in protected area planning, threat abatement, and restoration. Strong geographic bias exists in documented conservation activities that deploy all five decision science elements.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Science and Practice\",\"volume\":\"6 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.13170\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13170\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13170","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

决策科学强调稳健决策所需的必要因素。事实证明,通过采用决策科学的原则、框架和工具,决策者可以增加实现保护目标的机会。设定可衡量的目标、明确记录现有行动对特定威胁或问题影响的假设、明确考虑限制因素、探索和描述不确定性,以及有条理地商讨权衡,这些都被认为是成功决策的关键要素。我们对 2009 年至 2018 年间学术界和保护实践中已发表的保护决策实例中这五个要素的使用程度进行了量化。我们发现,在已确定的案例中,只有不到 50%的案例包含了所有五个要素,而在五种常用的决策支持方法(适应性管理 (AM)、系统性保护规划 (SCP)、结构化决策 (SDM)、多标准决策分析和成本效益分析)中,决策科学的应用程度也存在差异。利用 SDM 框架的应用实例数量有限,但平均使用了我们所考虑的五个关键要素中的 50% 以上。虽然 SCP 和 AM 在示例中占大多数,但它们在学术研究而非管理应用中更为普遍。在保护区规划、威胁消除和恢复方面,SCP 和 AM 例子非常普遍。在采用了所有五个决策科学要素的记录在案的保护活动中,存在着强烈的地域偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

10 years of decision-making for biodiversity conservation actions: A systematic literature review

10 years of decision-making for biodiversity conservation actions: A systematic literature review

Decision science emphasizes necessary elements required for robust decision-making. By incorporating decision science principles, frameworks, and tools, it has been demonstrated that decision-makers can increase the chances of achieving conservation aims. Setting measurable objectives, clearly documenting assumptions about the impact of available actions on a specific threat or problem, explicitly considering constraints, exploring and characterizing uncertainty, and structured deliberation on trade-offs have been identified as key elements of successful decision-making. We quantify the extent to which these five elements were utilized in published examples of decision making in conservation in both academic and conservation practice between 2009 and 2018. We found that less than 50% of identified examples included all five elements, with differences in the degree of decision science applied across five commonly used decision support approaches: adaptive management (AM), systematic conservation planning (SCP), structured decision making (SDM), multi-criteria decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Example applications that utilized the SDM framework were limited in numbers but used on average more than 50% of the five key elements we considered. Although SCP and AM constituted the majority of examples, they were more prevalent in academic studies rather than management applications. SCP and AM examples were widespread in protected area planning, threat abatement, and restoration. Strong geographic bias exists in documented conservation activities that deploy all five decision science elements.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信