186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28425128)
1. Understanding the effects of different social data on selecting priority conservation areas.
Karimi A; Tulloch AIT; Brown G; Hockings M
Conserv Biol; 2017 Dec; 31(6):1439-1449. PubMed ID: 28425128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Integrating biological and social values when prioritizing places for biodiversity conservation.
Whitehead AL; Kujala H; Ives CD; Gordon A; Lentini PE; Wintle BA; Nicholson E; Raymond CM
Conserv Biol; 2014 Aug; 28(4):992-1003. PubMed ID: 24617898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Characterizing spatial uncertainty when integrating social data in conservation planning.
Lechner AM; Raymond CM; Adams VM; Polyakov M; Gordon A; Rhodes JR; Mills M; Stein A; Ives CD; Lefroy EC
Conserv Biol; 2014 Dec; 28(6):1497-511. PubMed ID: 25382071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Using a social-ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans.
Guerrero AM; Wilson KA
Conserv Biol; 2017 Apr; 31(2):290-301. PubMed ID: 27601156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. How decisions about fitting species distribution models affect conservation outcomes.
Muscatello A; Elith J; Kujala H
Conserv Biol; 2021 Aug; 35(4):1309-1320. PubMed ID: 33236808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The value of using feasibility models in systematic conservation planning to predict landholder management uptake.
Tulloch AI; Tulloch VJ; Evans MC; Mills M
Conserv Biol; 2014 Dec; 28(6):1462-73. PubMed ID: 25382827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of preference heterogeneity among landowners on spatial conservation prioritization.
Nielsen ASE; Strange N; Bruun HH; Jacobsen JB
Conserv Biol; 2017 Jun; 31(3):675-685. PubMed ID: 27995662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Using Optimal Land-Use Scenarios to Assess Trade-Offs between Conservation, Development, and Social Values.
Adams VM; Pressey RL; Álvarez-Romero JG
PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0158350. PubMed ID: 27362347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies.
Bryan BA; Raymond CM; Crossman ND; King D
Conserv Biol; 2011 Feb; 25(1):172-81. PubMed ID: 20825450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Efficient and equitable design of marine protected areas in Fiji through inclusion of stakeholder-specific objectives in conservation planning.
Gurney GG; Pressey RL; Ban NC; Álvarez-Romero JG; Jupiter S; Adams VM
Conserv Biol; 2015 Oct; 29(5):1378-89. PubMed ID: 25916976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Conservation planning when costs are uncertain.
Carwardine J; Wilson KA; Hajkowicz SA; Smith RJ; Klein CJ; Watts M; Possingham HP
Conserv Biol; 2010 Dec; 24(6):1529-37. PubMed ID: 20561000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Conservation businesses and conservation planning in a biological diversity hotspot.
Di Minin E; Macmillan DC; Goodman PS; Escott B; Slotow R; Moilanen A
Conserv Biol; 2013 Aug; 27(4):808-20. PubMed ID: 23565917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Microtargeting for conservation.
Metcalf AL; Phelan CN; Pallai C; Norton M; Yuhas B; Finley JC; Muth A
Conserv Biol; 2019 Oct; 33(5):1141-1150. PubMed ID: 30887584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Use of demand for and spatial flow of ecosystem services to identify priority areas.
Verhagen W; Kukkala AS; Moilanen A; van Teeffelen AJA; Verburg PH
Conserv Biol; 2017 Aug; 31(4):860-871. PubMed ID: 27943463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Improving inferences about private land conservation by accounting for incomplete reporting.
Williamson MA; Dickson BG; Hooten MB; Graves RA; Lubell MN; Schwartz MW
Conserv Biol; 2021 Aug; 35(4):1174-1185. PubMed ID: 33319392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Spatial, socio-economic, and ecological implications of incorporating minimum size constraints in marine protected area network design.
Metcalfe K; Vaughan G; Vaz S; Smith RJ
Conserv Biol; 2015 Dec; 29(6):1615-25. PubMed ID: 26219669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
