|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
01000naa a22002652 4500 |
| 001 |
NLM219537232 |
| 003 |
DE-627 |
| 005 |
20231224043150.0 |
| 007 |
cr uuu---uuuuu |
| 008 |
231224s2012 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c |
| 024 |
7 |
|
|a 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01879.x
|2 doi
|
| 028 |
5 |
2 |
|a pubmed24n0731.xml
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (DE-627)NLM219537232
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (NLM)22809351
|
| 040 |
|
|
|a DE-627
|b ger
|c DE-627
|e rakwb
|
| 041 |
|
|
|a eng
|
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Holmes, George
|e verfasserin
|4 aut
|
| 245 |
1 |
2 |
|a A comparison of global conservation prioritization models with spatial spending patterns of conservation nongovernmental organizations
|
| 264 |
|
1 |
|c 2012
|
| 336 |
|
|
|a Text
|b txt
|2 rdacontent
|
| 337 |
|
|
|a ƒaComputermedien
|b c
|2 rdamedia
|
| 338 |
|
|
|a ƒa Online-Ressource
|b cr
|2 rdacarrier
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Date Completed 19.11.2012
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Date Revised 19.07.2012
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a published: Print
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Citation Status MEDLINE
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a ©2012 Society for Conservation Biology.
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a In recent decades, various conservation organizations have developed models to prioritize locations for conservation. Through a survey of the spending patterns of 281 conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), we examined the relation between 2 such models and spatial patterns of spending by conservation NGOs in 44 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. We tested whether, at the country level, the proportion of a country designated as a conservation priority was correlated with where NGOs spent money. For one model (the combination of Conservation International's hotspots and High Biodiversity Wilderness Areas, which are areas of high endemism with high or low levels of vegetation loss respectively), there was no relation between the proportion of a country designated as a priority and levels of NGO spending, including by the NGO associated with the model. In the second model (Global 200), the proportion of a country designated as a priority and the amount of money spent by NGOs were significantly and positively related. Less money was spent in countries in northern and western sub-Saharan Africa than countries in southern and eastern Africa, relative to the proportion of the country designated as a conservation priority. We suggest that on the basis of our results some NGOs consider increasing their spending on the areas designated as of conservation priority which are currently relatively underfunded, although there are economic, political, cultural, historical, biological, and practical reasons why current spending patterns may not align with priority sites
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a Journal Article
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Scholfield, Katherine
|e verfasserin
|4 aut
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Brockington, Dan
|e verfasserin
|4 aut
|
| 773 |
0 |
8 |
|i Enthalten in
|t Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
|d 1999
|g 26(2012), 4 vom: 18. Aug., Seite 602-9
|w (DE-627)NLM098176803
|x 1523-1739
|7 nnns
|
| 773 |
1 |
8 |
|g volume:26
|g year:2012
|g number:4
|g day:18
|g month:08
|g pages:602-9
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01879.x
|3 Volltext
|
| 912 |
|
|
|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
|
| 912 |
|
|
|a SYSFLAG_A
|
| 912 |
|
|
|a GBV_NLM
|
| 912 |
|
|
|a GBV_ILN_350
|
| 951 |
|
|
|a AR
|
| 952 |
|
|
|d 26
|j 2012
|e 4
|b 18
|c 08
|h 602-9
|