Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorDavies, Tamara Ellen
dc.contributor.authorFazey, I.R.A.
dc.contributor.authorCresswell, Will
dc.contributor.authorPettorelli, N.
dc.date.accessioned2015-06-04T11:10:04Z
dc.date.available2015-06-04T11:10:04Z
dc.date.issued2014-08
dc.identifier.citationDavies , T E , Fazey , I R A , Cresswell , W & Pettorelli , N 2014 , ' Missing the trees for the wood : why we are failing to see success in pro-poor conservation ' , Animal Conservation , vol. 17 , no. 4 , pp. 303-312 . https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12094en
dc.identifier.issn1367-9430
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 77198825
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 15e37e6d-0aba-4f07-9659-4314f479685a
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84904964408
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000340255900005
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/6752
dc.descriptionDate of Acceptance: 18/10/2013en
dc.description.abstractPro-poor conservation strategies are touted as a panacea for achieving biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction, yet there remains limited evidence for success in achieving these dual objectives. Is this lack of evidence a sign that the approach is failing or an indicator that we are not capturing appropriate measures of success? In this review, we demonstrate that the lack of evidence for success in pro-poor conservation can be attributed to focusing on the bigger picture and overlooking the details. This has led to two fundamental flaws, (1) an ambiguous use of definitions and (2) inappropriate monitoring, both of which are compounded by limited understanding between traditional scientific disciplines and which render true conclusion of success impossible. Due to the current lack of evidence, pro-poor conservation risks basing decisions on belief rather than evidence, repeating mistakes and missing opportunities to replicate successes. We propose five key recommendations that will facilitate the identification of successful pro-poor conservation interventions and the conditions under which they work. Adoption of these recommendations will ensure pro-poor conservation is built on clear definitions and engages in meaningful participation with rigorous monitoring and reporting of outcomes, aiding replication and scaling up of pro-poor conservation successes in intelligent and evidence-based ways.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofAnimal Conservationen
dc.rightsCopyright 2013 The Zoological Society of London. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Missing the trees for the wood: why we are failing to see success in pro-poor conservation Davies, T. E., Fazey, I. R. A., Cresswell, W. & Pettorelli, N. Aug 2014 In : Animal Conservation. 17, 4, p. 303-312, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acv.12094. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.en
dc.subjectBiodiversityen
dc.subjectPovertyen
dc.subjectSuccessen
dc.subjectInterdisciplinaryen
dc.subjectMonitoringen
dc.subjectAdaptive managementen
dc.subjectQH301 Biologyen
dc.subject.lccQH301en
dc.titleMissing the trees for the wood : why we are failing to see success in pro-poor conservationen
dc.typeJournal itemen
dc.description.versionPostprinten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Geography & Sustainable Developmenten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.School of Biologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Scottish Oceans Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Institute of Behavioural and Neural Sciencesen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.St Andrews Sustainability Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Centre for Biological Diversityen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12094
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record