These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Constraints of philanthropy on determining the distribution of biodiversity conservation funding. Larson ER; Howell S; Kareiva P; Armsworth PR Conserv Biol; 2016 Feb; 30(1):206-15. PubMed ID: 26460820 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The grain of spatially referenced economic cost and biodiversity benefit data and the effectiveness of a cost targeting strategy. Sutton NJ; Armsworth PR Conserv Biol; 2014 Dec; 28(6):1451-61. PubMed ID: 25381868 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Use of inverse spatial conservation prioritization to avoid biological diversity loss outside protected areas. Kareksela S; Moilanen A; Tuominen S; Kotiaho JS Conserv Biol; 2013 Dec; 27(6):1294-303. PubMed ID: 24033397 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Factors influencing property selection for conservation revolving funds. Hardy MJ; Fitzsimons JA; Bekessy SA; Gordon A Conserv Biol; 2018 Apr; 32(2):276-286. PubMed ID: 28726340 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Understanding variation in impacts from private protected areas across regions and protection mechanisms to inform organizational practices. Hagen S; Nolte C; Chang Y; Morgan S; Boccaletti G; Reddy SMW Conserv Biol; 2024 Apr; 38(2):e14225. PubMed ID: 38328897 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The need for speed: informed land acquisitions for conservation in a dynamic property market. McDonald-Madden E; Bode M; Game ET; Grantham H; Possingham HP Ecol Lett; 2008 Nov; 11(11):1169-1177. PubMed ID: 18713271 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Accounting for spatial heterogeneity in the added conservation value of land protection when prioritizing protected areas. Yoon HS; Vijay V; Armsworth PR Conserv Biol; 2022 Oct; 36(5):e13960. PubMed ID: 35661264 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Aggregating high-priority landscape areas to the parcel level: an easement implementation tool. Strager MP; Rosenberger RS J Environ Manage; 2007 Jan; 82(2):290-8. PubMed ID: 16580124 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. How economic contexts shape calculations of yield in biodiversity offsetting. Carver L; Sullivan S Conserv Biol; 2017 Oct; 31(5):1053-1065. PubMed ID: 28233932 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A conservation planning approach to mitigate the impacts of leakage from protected area networks. Bode M; Tulloch AI; Mills M; Venter O; Ando AW Conserv Biol; 2015 Jun; 29(3):765-74. PubMed ID: 25494874 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Economic and ecological outcomes of flexible biodiversity offset systems. Habib TJ; Farr DR; Schneider RR; Boutin S Conserv Biol; 2013 Dec; 27(6):1313-23. PubMed ID: 23869724 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The conservation benefits of cost-effective land acquisition: a case study in Maryland. Messer KD J Environ Manage; 2006 May; 79(3):305-15. PubMed ID: 16253419 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Spatial relationship between climatic diversity and biodiversity conservation value. Wang J; Wu R; He D; Yang F; Hu P; Lin S; Wu W; Diao Y; Guo Y Conserv Biol; 2018 Dec; 32(6):1266-1277. PubMed ID: 29862570 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Fundamental insights on when social network data are most critical for conservation planning. Rhodes JR; Guerrero AM; Bodin Ö; Chadès I Conserv Biol; 2020 Dec; 34(6):1463-1472. PubMed ID: 32691916 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assessing the shelf life of cost-efficient conservation plans for species at risk across gradients of agricultural land use. Robillard CM; Kerr JT Conserv Biol; 2017 Aug; 31(4):837-847. PubMed ID: 27991681 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Conservation and social outcomes of private protected areas. Palfrey R; Oldekop J; Holmes G Conserv Biol; 2021 Aug; 35(4):1098-1110. PubMed ID: 33210742 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]