A Standard Lexicon For Biodiversity Conservation: Unified .
Contributed PaperA Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation:Unified Classifications of Threats and ActionsNICK SALAFSKY, ††† DANIEL SALZER,† ALISON J. STATTERSFIELD,‡ CRAIG HILTON-TAYLOR,§RACHEL NEUGARTEN,† STUART H. M. BUTCHART,‡ BEN COLLEN, NEIL COX,††LAWRENCE L. MASTER,‡‡ SHEILA O’CONNOR,§§ AND DAVID WILKIE Foundations of Success, 4109 Maryland Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20816-2606, U.S.A., email nick@fosonline.org†The Nature Conservancy, 821 S.E. 14th Avenue, Portland, OR 97214, U.S.A.‡BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, United Kingdom§IUCN Species Survival Commission, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, United Kingdom††IUCN/SSC CI/CABS Biodiversity Assessment Unit, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A.‡‡NatureServe, 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209, U.S.A.§§WWF, Avenue du Mont Blanc, CH1196 Gland, Switzerland Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, U.S.A.Abstract: An essential foundation of any science is a standard lexicon. Any given conservation project canbe described in terms of the biodiversity targets, direct threats, contributing factors at the project site, andthe conservation actions that the project team is employing to change the situation. These common elementscan be linked in a causal chain, which represents a theory of change about how the conservation actions areintended to bring about desired project outcomes. If project teams want to describe and share their work andlearn from one another, they need a standard and precise lexicon to specifically describe each node along thischain. To date, there have been several independent efforts to develop standard classifications for the directthreats that affect biodiversity and the conservation actions required to counteract these threats. Recognizingthat it is far more effective to have only one accepted global scheme, we merged these separate efforts intounified classifications of threats and actions, which we present here. Each classification is a hierarchicallisting of terms and associated definitions. The classifications are comprehensive and exclusive at the upperlevels of the hierarchy, expandable at the lower levels, and simple, consistent, and scalable at all levels. Wetested these classifications by applying them post hoc to 1191 threatened bird species and 737 conservationprojects. Almost all threats and actions could be assigned to the new classification systems, save for somecases lacking detailed information. Furthermore, the new classification systems provided an improved way ofanalyzing and comparing information across projects when compared with earlier systems. We believe thatwidespread adoption of these classifications will help practitioners more systematically identify threats andappropriate actions, managers to more efficiently set priorities and allocate resources, and most important,facilitate cross-project learning and the development of a systematic science of conservation.Keywords: actions taxonomy, authority files, Conservation Measures Partnership, conservation science, conservation strategies, direct threats to biodiversity, IUCN Red List, threats taxonomyUn Lexicón Estándar para la Conservación de Biodiversidad: Clasificaciones Unificadas de Amenazas y AccionesResumen: Un fundamento esencial de cualquier ciencia es un lexicón estándar. Cualquier proyecto deconservación puede ser descrito en términos de los objetivos de biodiversidad, directas amenazas, factoressubyacentes en el sitio del proyecto y las acciones de conservación que el equipo está empleando para cambiarla situación. Estos elementos comunes se pueden eslabonar en una cadena causal, que representa una teorı́ade cambio de cómo las acciones de conservación alcanzarán los resultados deseados. Si los equipos de losPaper submitted July 19, 2007; revised manuscript accepted December 12, 2007.1Conservation Biology, Volume **, No. *, ***–***C 2008 Society for Conservation Biology. No claim to original US government works.Journal compilation DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.x
2Classifications of Threats & Actionsproyectos quieren describir y compartir su trabajo y aprender uno de otro, se requiere un lexicón estándary preciso para describir especı́ficamente cada nodo a lo largo de esta cadena. A la fecha, ha habido variosesfuerzos independientes para desarrollar clasificaciones estándar para las amenazas directas que afectanla biodiversidad y las acciones de conservación requeridas para contrarrestar estas amenazas. Reconociendoque es mucho más efectivo tener solo un esquema global aceptado, combinamos estos esfuerzos separadosen clasificaciones unificadas de amenazas y acciones, que presentamos aquı́. Cada clasificación es un listadojerárquico de términos y definiciones asociadas. Las clasificaciones son integrales y exclusivas de los nivelessuperiores de la jerarquı́a, expandibles en los niveles inferiores y simples, consistentes y escalables en todoslos niveles. Probamos estas clasificaciones aplicándolas post hoc a 1191 especies amenazadas de aves y 737proyectos de conservación. Casi todas las amenazas y acciones podrı́an ser asignadas a los nuevos sistemasde clasificación, salvo algunos casos que carecen de información detallada. Más aun, los nuevos sistemas declasificación proporcionaron una mejor manera de analizar y comparar información en proyectos cuandoson comparados con sistemas previos. Consideramos que la adopción generalizada de estas clasificacionesayudará que practicantes identifiquen amenazas y acciones apropiadas más sistemáticamente, manejadoresdefinan prioridades y asignen recursos más eficientemente y, más importante, facilitar el aprendizaje y eldesarrollo de una ciencia de la conservación sistemática.Palabras Clave: amenazas directas a la biodiversidad, archivos de autoridad, Asociación de Medidas para laConservación, ciencia de la conservación, estrategias de conservación, Lista Roja IUCN, taxonomı́a de amenazasIntroductionNomenclature as the Foundation of Any ScienceThere is a growing desire to improve information sharing and learning among conservation practitioners withinand across organizations (e.g., Salafsky et al. 2002; Sutherland et al. 2004; Pullin & Stewart 2006). Ultimately, theseefforts seek to develop a body of knowledge and bestpractices—to create a systematic science of biodiversityconservation.An essential foundation of any science is a standardlexicon—the equivalent of Linnaeus’s classification system for living organisms in biology, Mendeleev’s periodic table of the elements in chemistry, or the formalterms that medical researchers and practitioners use todescribe human ailments and potential treatments. Thesame is true for conservation science; its practitionersalso need a common language to talk about the problems and potential solutions that they encounter. Thiscommon language would enable front-line conservationists to identify threats and potential actions to counterthem at their sites, and managers and decision makersto assess the frequency of threats and actions at variousscales to help set priorities and allocate resources. Moreimportant, it would enable conservationists around theworld to share and exchange experiences through common databases of conservation practice, thus facilitatingcross-project learning and the development of principlesabout what actions are effective under different conditions to counter different threats.Framework and Key DefinitionsConservation work ultimately takes place throughprojects. A project can be generally defined as “any setof actions undertaken by a group of people and/or organizations to achieve defined [biodiversity conservation]Conservation BiologyVolume **, No. *, 2008goals and objectives” (Salafsky et al. 2002). Conservationprojects can range in scale from efforts by a local community to protect a small sacred grove to a global fundingprogram to protect the world’s oceans. Building on areview of terms used by different conservation practitioners (Salafsky et al. 2003), we propose the followinggeneral definitions to describe the general componentsof any given conservation project (Fig. 1). Biodiversity targets: The biological entities (species,communities, or ecosystems) that a project is trying toconserve (e.g., a population of a specific species of fishor a forest ecosystem). Some practitioners also includeecological and evolutionary phenomena and processesas targets. Biodiversity targets are synonymous withfocal conservation targets and biodiversity features. Stresses: Attributes of a conservation target’s ecologythat are impaired directly or indirectly by human activities (e.g., reduced population size or fragmentationof forest habitat). A stress is not a threat in and of itself, but rather a degraded condition or “symptom” ofthe target that results from a direct threat. Stresses aresynonymous with degraded key attributes. Direct threats: The proximate human activities or processes that have caused, are causing, or may cause thedestruction, degradation, and/or impairment of biodiversity targets (e.g., unsustainable fishing or logging).Direct threats are synonymous with sources of stressand proximate pressures. Threats can be past (historical), ongoing, and/or likely to occur in the future. Asdiscussed later, natural phenomena are also regardedas direct threats in some situations. Contributing factors: The ultimate factors, usually social, economic, political, institutional, or cultural, thatenable or otherwise add to the occurrence or persistence of proximate direct threats. There is typically
Salafsky et al.3Figure 1. A general model of a conservation project. Conservation actions can be applied to contributing factors,direct threats, or even to biodiversity targets as indicated by the box around these factors. See text for definitions.a chain of contributing factors behind any given direct threat. In a situation analysis, these factors areoften subdivided into indirect threats (factors with anegative effect, such as market demand for fish) andopportunities (factors with a positive effect, such asa country’s land-use planning system that favors conservation). Contributing factors are synonymous withunderlying factors, drivers, or root causes. Conservation actions: Interventions undertaken byproject staff or partners designed to reach the project’sobjectives and ultimate conservation goals (e.g., establishing an ecotourism business or setting up a protected area). Actions can be applied to contributingfactors, direct threats, or directly to the targets themselves (Fig. 1). Conservation actions are roughly synonymous with strategies, interventions, activities, responses, and measures (in the action sense, not themonitoring sense). Project teams: The groups of people involved in designing, implementing, managing, and monitoring projects(e.g., a partnership between a local nongovernmentalorganization and a community or the staff of a nationalpark).Any given conservation project can be described ormodeled by one or more specific “chains” linking thespecific targets, threats, and contributing factors at theproject site and the actions that the project team is employing to change this situation. In effect, these chainslay out the assumed theory of change behind the project.If project teams want to describe and share their work,they need a standard and precise lexicon to specificallydescribe each node along this chain.Species-based biodiversity targets can already be classified on the basis of the Linnaean system. Habitat-basedtargets are the subject of a global classification schemecurrently under development (IUCN 2006). For directthreats and conservation actions, there have been severalindependent efforts to develop classification schemes(e.g., Salafsky et al. 2002; CMP 2004; IUCN 2005a,2005b). Recognizing that it is far more effective to haveonly one accepted global scheme, we merged these separate efforts into the unified classifications presented here.A remaining gap is the classification of contributing factors, which is a difficult undertaking because these potentially include an extremely broad suite of possibilities.Classification DevelopmentThe immediate parents of the classifications describedhere are the schemes developed by the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP 2005) and the IUCNSpecies Survival Commission (IUCN 2005a, 2005b).These schemes were developed independently of oneanother, and although they share some basic similarities,they also have key differences. Given the importance ofhaving a single global scheme, we set out to merge the 2efforts.An ideal classification for both threats and actionswould be simple (uses clear language and examples and isunderstandable by all practitioners); hierarchical (createsa logical way of grouping items that are related to one another to facilitate use of the classification and meaningfulanalyses at different levels); comprehensive (contains allpossible items, at least at higher levels of the hierarchy;consistent (ensures that entries at a given level of the classification are of the same type); expandable (enables newitems to be added to the classification if they are discovered); exclusive (allows any given item to only be placedin one cell within the hierarchy); and scalable (permitsthe same terms to be used at all geographic scales).We took the best elements of each parent classificationand through lengthy discussions and testing with actualproject data, created draft unified classifications in March2006. We tested these classifications by applying them toa wide range of conservation projects to ensure that theymet the above criteria when applied to real-world data.Feedback from reviewers and from the extensive application of the draft classifications led to further revisionsand the release of version 1.0 of the Unified Classifications for Threats and Actions in June 2006. These draftswere sent out for additional comment and testing witha wide range of projects and practitioners. We then revised the classifications through an iterative process. Thisprocess resulted in version 1.1, which we present here.Unified Classifications of Threatsand Conservation ActionsThe unified direct-threats classification (Table 1) and theconservation-actions classification (Table 2) are each constructed in a hierarchical fashion with 3 different levels (the equivalent of families, genera, and species inConservation BiologyVolume **, No. *, 2008
Classifications of Threats & Actions4Table 1. World Conservation Union–Conservation Measures Partnership (IUCN-CMP) classification of direct threats to biodiversity (version 1.1).Threats by level of classificationa (1st and 2ndlevels comprehensive; 3rd levels examples only)1. Residential and commercial development1.1 housing and urban areasurban areas, suburbs, villages, vacation homes,shopping areas, offices, schools, hospitals1.2 commercial and industrial areasmanufacturing plants, shopping centers, officeparks, military bases, power plants, train andship yards, airports1.3 tourism and recreation areasski areas, golf courses, beach resorts, cricket fields,county parks, campgrounds2. Agriculture and aquaculture2.1 annual and perennial nontimber cropsfarms, household swidden plots, plantations,orchards, vineyards, mixed agroforestry systems2.2 wood and pulp plantationsteak or eucalyptus plantations, silviculture,christmas tree farms2.3 livestock farming and ranchingcattle feed lots, dairy farms, cattle ranching,chicken farms, goat, camel, or yak herding2.4 marine and freshwater aquacultureDefinitionbhuman settlements or other nonagricultural land uses with asubstantial footprinthuman cities, towns, and settlements including nonhousingdevelopment typically integrated with housingfactories and other commercial centerstourism and recreation sites with a substantial footprintthreats from farming and ranching as a result of agriculturalexpansion and intensification, including silviculture,mariculture, and aquaculturecrops planted for food, fodder, fiber, fuel, or other usesstands of trees planted for timber or fiber outside of natural forests,often with non-native speciesdomestic terrestrial animals raised in one location on farmed ornonlocal resources (farming); also domestic or semidomesticatedanimals allowed to roam in the wild and supported by natural habitats(ranching)aquatic animals raised in one location on farmed or nonlocal resources;also hatchery fish allowed to roam in the wildshrimp or fin fish aquaculture, fish ponds onfarms, hatchery salmon, seeded shellfish beds,artificial algal beds3. Energy production and mining3.1 oil and gas drillingoil wells, deep sea natural gas drilling3.2 mining and quarryingcoal mines, alluvial gold panning, gold mines, rockquarries, coral mining, deep sea nodules, guanoharvesting3.3 renewable energygeothermal power production, solar farms, windfarms (including birds flying into windmills),tidal farms4. Transportation and service corridors4.1 roads and railroadshighways, secondary roads, logging roads, bridgesand causeways, road kill, fencing associatedwith roads, railroads4.2 utility and service lineselectrical and phone wires, aqueducts, oil and gaspipelines, electrocution of wildlife4.3 shipping lanesdredging, canals, shipping lanes, ships runninginto whales, wakes from cargo ships4.4 flight pathsflight paths, jets impacting birdsthreats from production of nonbiological resourcesexploring for, developing, and producing petroleum and other liquidhydrocarbonsexploring for, developing, and producing minerals and rocksexploring, developing, and producing renewable energythreats from long, narrow transport corridors and the vehiclesthat use them including associated wildlife mortalitysurface transport on roadways and dedicated trackstransport of energy and resourcestransport on and in freshwater and ocean waterwaysair and space transportcontinuedConservation BiologyVolume **, No. *, 2008
Salafsky et al.5Table 1. (continued)5. Biological resource use5.1 hunting and collecting terrestrial animalsbushmeat hunting, trophy hunting, fur trapping,insect collecting, honey or bird nest hunting,predator control, pest control, persecution5.2 gathering terrestrial plantswild mushrooms, forage for stall fed animals,orchids, rattan, control of host plants to combattimber diseases5.3 logging and wood harvestingclear cutting of hardwoods, selective commerciallogging of ironwood, pulp operations, fuel woodcollection, charcoal production5.4 fishing and harvesting aquatic resourcesthreats from consumptive use of “wild” biological resourcesincluding deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; alsopersecution or control of specific specieskilling or trapping terrestrial wild animals or animal products forcommercial, recreation, subsistence, research or cultural purposes, orfor control/persecution reasons; includes accidentalmortality/bycatchharvesting plants, fungi, and other nontimber/nonanimal products forcommercial, recreation, subsistence, research or cultural purposes, orfor control reasonsharvesting trees and other woody vegetation for timber, fiber, or fuelharvesting aquatic wild animals or plants for commercial, recreation,subsistence, research, or cultural purposes, or forcontrol/persecution reasons; includes accidental mortality/bycatchtrawling, blast fishing, spear fishing, shellfishharvesting, whaling, seal hunting, turtle eggcollection, live coral collection, seaweedcollection6. Human intrusions and disturbance6.1 recreational activitiesoff-road vehicles, motorboats, jet-skis, snowmobiles,ultralight planes, dive boats, whale watching,mountain bikes, hikers, birdwatchers, skiers, petsin rec areas, temporary campsites, caving,rock-climbing6.2 war, civil unrest and military exercises
Abstract: An essential foundation of any science is a standard lexicon. Any given conservation project can . analyzing and comparing information across projects when compared with earlier systems. We believe that . economic, political, institutional, or cultural, that enable or otherwise add to the occurrence or persis-
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
Opcode VisionDSP with Lexicon Studio! You’ll see much more information about this great development in the next issue of the Studio Monitor! Already, Lexicon has a strong complement of software developers working on direct drivers for use with Lexicon Studio. With an obvious strong partnership with
Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största
LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .
Biodiversity and agriculture are strongly interrelated. Biodiversity is critical for agriculture whilst agriculture also contributes to conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity. Indeed, Integrated Farm Management both promotes and is enhanced by biodiversity. The protection, maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity is .
using HMM: lexicon driven and lexicon free for two Indic scripts, namely Devanagari and Tamil. The difference of two techniques, lexicon driven and lexicon free are dependent or independent of handwritten writing orders but similarly consideration in symbol rep
