ORCID Profile
0000-0003-1640-8396
Current Organisation
Deakin University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
In Research Link Australia (RLA), "Research Topics" refer to ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes. These topics are either sourced from ANZSRC FOR and SEO codes listed in researchers' related grants or generated by a large language model (LLM) based on their publications.
Environmental Science and Management | Conservation and Biodiversity
Land Stewardship | Climate Change Adaptation Measures | Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity at Regional or Larger Scales |
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 06-09-2018
DOI: 10.1111/COBI.13144
Abstract: Raising funds is critical for conserving bio ersity and hence so is scrutinizing emerging financial mechanisms that may help achieve this goal. Anecdotal evidence indicates crowdfunding is being used to support activities needed for bio ersity conservation, yet its magnitude and allocation remain largely unknown. To help address this knowledge gap, we conducted a global analysis based on conservation-focused projects extracted from crowdfunding platforms. For each project, we determined the funds raised, date, country of implementation, proponent characteristics, activity type, bio ersity realm, and target taxa. We identified 72 relevant platforms and 577 conservation-focused projects that raised $4,790,634 since 2009. Although proponents were based in 38 countries, projects were delivered across 80 countries, indicating a potential mechanism of resource mobilization. Proponents were affiliated with nongovernmental organizations (35%) or universities (30%) or were freelancers (26%). Most projects were for research (40%), persuasion (31%), and on-the-ground actions (21%). Projects were more focused on species (57.7%) and terrestrial ecosystems (20.3%), and less focused on marine (8.8%) and freshwater ecosystems (3.6%). Projects focused on 208 species, including a disproportionate number of threatened birds and mammals. Crowdfunding for bio ersity conservation is a global phenomenon and there is potential for expansion, despite possible pitfalls (e.g., uncertainty about effectiveness). Opportunities to advance conservation through crowdfunding arise from its capacity to mobilize funds spatially and increase steadily over time, inclusion of overlooked species, adoption by multiple actors, and funding of activities beyond research. Our findings pave the way for further research on key questions, such as c aign success rates, effectiveness of conservation actions, and drivers of crowdfunding adoption. Even though crowdfunding capital raised has been modest relative to other conservation-finance mechanisms, its contribution goes beyond funding research and providing capital. Embraced with due care, crowdfunding could become an important financial mechanism for bio ersity conservation.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2021
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 10-09-2020
Publisher: California Digital Library (CDL)
Date: 12-10-2023
DOI: 10.31223/X5C97K
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 19-03-2016
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 13-08-2018
DOI: 10.3390/LAND7030096
Abstract: There is a growing recognition of the contribution that privately-owned land makes to conservation efforts, and governments are increasingly counting privately protected areas (PPAs) towards their international conservation commitments. The public availability of spatial data on countries’ conservation estates is important for broad-scale conservation planning and monitoring and for evaluating progress towards targets. Yet there has been limited consideration of how PPA data is reported to national and international protected area databases, particularly whether such reporting is transparent and fair (i.e., equitable) to the landholders involved. Here we consider PPA reporting procedures from three countries with high numbers of PPAs—Australia, South Africa, and the United States—illustrating the ersity within and between countries regarding what data is reported and the transparency with which it is reported. Noting a potential tension between landholder preferences for privacy and security of their property information and the benefit of sharing this information for broader conservation efforts, we identify the need to consider equity in PPA reporting processes. Unpacking potential considerations and tensions into distributional, procedural, and recognitional dimensions of equity, we propose a series of broad principles to foster transparent and fair reporting. Our approach for navigating the complexity and context-dependency of equity considerations will help strengthen PPA reporting and facilitate the transparent integration of PPAs into broader conservation efforts.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 08-11-2020
Abstract: 1. Despite aspirations for conservation impact, mismatches between research and implementation have limited progress towards this goal. There is, therefore, an urgent need to identify how we can more effectively navigate the spaces between research and practice. 2. In 2014, we ran a workshop with conservation researchers and practitioners to identify mismatches between research and implementation that needed to be overcome to deliver evidence‐informed conservation action. Five mismatches were highlighted: spatial, temporal, priority, communication, and institutional. 3. Since 2014, thinking around the ‘research–implementation gap’ has progressed. The term ‘gap’ has been replaced by language around the dynamic ‘spaces’ between research and action, representing a shift in thinking around what it takes to better align research and practice. 4. In 2019, we ran a follow‐up workshop reflecting on this shift, whether the five mismatches identified in the 2014 workshop were still present in conservation, and whether progress had been made to overcome these mismatches during the past 5 years. We found that while there has been progress, we still have some way to go across all dimensions. 5. Here, we report on the outcomes of the 2019 workshop, reflect on what has changed over the past 5 years, and offer 10 recommendations for strengthening the alignment of conservation research and practice.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 18-05-2023
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 07-10-2019
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 17-08-2021
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 03-09-2018
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 23-10-2018
DOI: 10.1111/COBI.13008
Abstract: Conservation decisions increasingly involve multiple environmental and social objectives, which result in complex decision contexts with high potential for trade-offs. Improving social equity is one such objective that is often considered an enabler of successful outcomes and a virtuous ideal in itself. Despite its idealized importance in conservation policy, social equity is often highly simplified or ill-defined and is applied uncritically. What constitutes equitable outcomes and processes is highly normative and subject to ethical deliberation. Different ethical frameworks may lead to different conceptions of equity through alternative perspectives of what is good or right. This can lead to different and potentially conflicting equity objectives in practice. We promote a more transparent, nuanced, and pluralistic conceptualization of equity in conservation decision making that particularly recognizes where multidimensional equity objectives may conflict. To help identify and mitigate ethical conflicts and avoid cases of good intentions producing bad outcomes, we encourage a more analytical incorporation of equity into conservation decision making particularly during mechanistic integration of equity objectives. We recommend that in conservation planning motivations and objectives for equity be made explicit within the problem context, methods used to incorporate equity objectives be applied with respect to stated objectives, and, should objectives dictate, evaluation of equity outcomes and adaptation of strategies be employed during policy implementation.
Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Date: 24-05-2021
Abstract: The Atlantic Forest in Brazil is a bio ersity hotspot, yet its erse ecosystems and species are becoming increasingly threatened by habitat loss and extreme habitat fragmentation. Most habitat patches of Atlantic Forest are dispersed across agricultural landscapes (e.g., grazing and cropping) in relatively small and isolated fragments (80% & 50 ha). Forest fragments & 1 ha, scattered trees in pastures, tree lines on trenches and fences, and remnant riparian forest, collectively called here Small Landscape Elements (SLEs), are very common in this context. While these SLEs make up much of the Atlantic Forests footprint, very little is known about their role or impact on the persistence and conservation of species. In this study, we investigate the role of SLEs on landscape configuration, particularly their contribution toward landscape connectivity of in idual species and the genetic flow of species between larger forest fragments. We randomly selected 20 buffers of 707 hectares within a 411,670 hectare area of the Atlantic Forest that was completely covered by forest in the past located in the south of Minas Gerais State, Brazil. The forest cover randomly varied between these buffers. We used graph theory to measure landscape connectivity as the probability of connectivity for different disperser movement types between landscape knots (habitat patches). We used three estimated dispersal distances in the models: pollen disperser insect (50 m), low-mobility seed disperser bird (100 m) and high-mobility seed disperser bird (760 m). The SLEs together increased the probability of connection by roughly 50%, for all model dispersers, if compared to a theoretical baseline landscape containing no SLEs. Of all SLEs, riparian forests contribute the most toward enhancing landscape connectivity. In these highly fragmented landscapes, such as the Atlantic Forest (& %), the position of SLEs within the landscapes was more important than their respective areas for connectivity. Although the landscapes were deeply fragmented, we showed that the presence of SLEs can increase connectivity and reduce further bio ersity loss in the Atlantic Forest.
Publisher: The Royal Society
Date: 07-11-1999
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 25-06-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2020
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.1093/JUE/JUAB030
Abstract: The extent to which native species utilize urban environments depends on species responses to multiple threatening processes. Here, we aimed to quantify changes in bird communities in response to changing habitat structure, invasive species and aggressive native species. We conducted surveys in two independently invaded regions with similar patterns of urban development. The study regions were New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland (QLD), Australia. We observed 127 species in NSW and 144 species in QLD. Most species (NSW 83 and QLD 84) are urban adapters making use of some or all urban sub-environments. Urban avoiders, species only found in remnant vegetation, were the second largest group (urban avoiders: NSW 23 and QLD 31). We found the lowest richness in the most urban sites (urban exploiters: NSW 10 and QLD 15). Using generalized linear mixed models, we found a non-significant relationship between species richness and the abundance of aggressive species like the common myna and noisy miners, Manorina melanocephala, but a significant positive correlation with the percentage of shrub cover at a site. As there is a gradual loss of species with increasing urbanization, retaining higher complexity in vegetation structure in urban areas will support large numbers of species and could help mitigate the potential impacts of aggressive urban-adapted species and habitat loss.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 02-05-2017
DOI: 10.1002/ECE3.2960
Start Date: 08-2021
End Date: 08-2024
Amount: $372,498.00
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded Activity