Integrating resilience thinking and optimisation for conservation

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Standard

Integrating resilience thinking and optimisation for conservation. / Fischer, J.; Gardner, T. A.; Gordon, Line J. et al.
In: Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 24, No. 10, 10.2009, p. 549-554.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Fischer, J, Gardner, TA, Gordon, LJ, Fazey, I, Elmqvist, T, Felton, A, Folke, C, Dovers, S & Peterson, G 2009, 'Integrating resilience thinking and optimisation for conservation', Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 549-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.020

APA

Fischer, J., Gardner, T. A., Gordon, L. J., Fazey, I., Elmqvist, T., Felton, A., Folke, C., Dovers, S., & Peterson, G. (2009). Integrating resilience thinking and optimisation for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(10), 549-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.020

Vancouver

Fischer J, Gardner TA, Gordon LJ, Fazey I, Elmqvist T, Felton A et al. Integrating resilience thinking and optimisation for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2009 Oct;24(10):549-554. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.020

Bibtex

@article{2ade6375233344d4bcf40fcfa25208b5,
title = "Integrating resilience thinking and optimisation for conservation",
abstract = "Conservation strategies need to be both effective and efficient to be successful. To this end, two bodies of research should be integrated, namely 'resilience thinking' and 'optimisation for conservation,' both of which are highly policy relevant but to date have evolved largely separately. Resilience thinking provides an integrated perspective for analysis, emphasising the potential of nonlinear changes and the interdependency of social and ecological systems. By contrast, optimisation for conservation is an outcome-oriented tool that recognises resource scarcity and the need to make rational and transparent decisions. Here we propose that actively embedding optimisation analyses within a resilience-thinking framework could draw on the complementary strengths of the two bodies of work, thereby promoting cost-effective and enduring conservation outcomes.",
keywords = "Environmental planning",
author = "J. Fischer and Gardner, {T. A.} and Gordon, {Line J.} and Ioan Fazey and T. Elmqvist and A. Felton and C. Folke and Stephen Dovers and Garry Peterson",
note = "Times Cited: 2",
year = "2009",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.020",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "549--554",
journal = "Trends in Ecology & Evolution",
issn = "0169-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",
number = "10",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Integrating resilience thinking and optimisation for conservation

AU - Fischer, J.

AU - Gardner, T. A.

AU - Gordon, Line J.

AU - Fazey, Ioan

AU - Elmqvist, T.

AU - Felton, A.

AU - Folke, C.

AU - Dovers, Stephen

AU - Peterson, Garry

N1 - Times Cited: 2

PY - 2009/10

Y1 - 2009/10

N2 - Conservation strategies need to be both effective and efficient to be successful. To this end, two bodies of research should be integrated, namely 'resilience thinking' and 'optimisation for conservation,' both of which are highly policy relevant but to date have evolved largely separately. Resilience thinking provides an integrated perspective for analysis, emphasising the potential of nonlinear changes and the interdependency of social and ecological systems. By contrast, optimisation for conservation is an outcome-oriented tool that recognises resource scarcity and the need to make rational and transparent decisions. Here we propose that actively embedding optimisation analyses within a resilience-thinking framework could draw on the complementary strengths of the two bodies of work, thereby promoting cost-effective and enduring conservation outcomes.

AB - Conservation strategies need to be both effective and efficient to be successful. To this end, two bodies of research should be integrated, namely 'resilience thinking' and 'optimisation for conservation,' both of which are highly policy relevant but to date have evolved largely separately. Resilience thinking provides an integrated perspective for analysis, emphasising the potential of nonlinear changes and the interdependency of social and ecological systems. By contrast, optimisation for conservation is an outcome-oriented tool that recognises resource scarcity and the need to make rational and transparent decisions. Here we propose that actively embedding optimisation analyses within a resilience-thinking framework could draw on the complementary strengths of the two bodies of work, thereby promoting cost-effective and enduring conservation outcomes.

KW - Environmental planning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=69749116500&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.020

DO - 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.020

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 19665820

VL - 24

SP - 549

EP - 554

JO - Trends in Ecology & Evolution

JF - Trends in Ecology & Evolution

SN - 0169-5347

IS - 10

ER -