dc.contributorUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)
dc.contributorInstituto Pró-Carnívoros
dc.contributorTubney House
dc.contributorNorth of England Zoological Society (Chester Zoo)
dc.contributorUniversity of East Anglia
dc.contributorInstituto Manacá
dc.contributorUniversidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)
dc.contributorInstituto de Pesquisas Cananéia
dc.contributorInstituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio)
dc.contributorUniversidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar)
dc.contributorImperial College London
dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.contributorUniversity of Miami
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-01T13:41:37Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-20T03:49:06Z
dc.date.available2022-05-01T13:41:37Z
dc.date.available2022-12-20T03:49:06Z
dc.date.created2022-05-01T13:41:37Z
dc.date.issued2022-04-01
dc.identifierJournal for Nature Conservation, v. 66.
dc.identifier1617-1381
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/234145
dc.identifier10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126146
dc.identifier2-s2.0-85124617606
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/5414246
dc.description.abstractConservation decision is a challenging and risky task when it aims at prioritizing species or protected areas (PAs) to prevent extinction while ensuring fair treatment of all stakeholders. Better conservation decisions are those made upon a broader evidence base that includes both ecological and social considerations. However, in some of the most biodiverse ecosystems on Earth — tropical forests, for instance — multicriteria decision-making has been constrained by the following (i) ecological and social datasets available have been obtained in an independent, non-integrated manner, with social data typically more scarce than ecological ones, and (ii) capacity in social and/or interdisciplinary data analysis among decision-maker is limited. We describe a conservation prioritization exercise that combined findings from independent ecological and social research conducted in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, and propose methods to integrate, analyze and visualize data. We found that the outcomes based on combined ecological and social research findings were, in some cases, different from those based on any of these lines of evidence alone. Indeed, the input from relatively basic social research significantly changed the outcomes of decision-making based on the results of ecological research. Results corroborate the importance and cost-effectiveness of broadening the interdisciplinary evidence base for conservation decision-making, even when social data is scarce and analytical capacity is limited.
dc.languageeng
dc.relationJournal for Nature Conservation
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectAtlantic Forest
dc.subjectConservation planning
dc.subjectInterdisciplinary research
dc.subjectMammal diversity
dc.subjectMulti-criteria decision-making
dc.subjectSocial research
dc.titleBest of both worlds: Combining ecological and social research to inform conservation decisions in a Neotropical biodiversity hotspot
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución