Search

Byline: Claudia Radel (1), Birgit Schmook (2), Susannah McCandless (3) Keywords: Migration; Agriculture; Landscape; Gender; Vermont; Southern Yucatan; Environment Abstract: Gender shapes the migration--environment association in both origin and destination communities. Using quantitative and qualitative data, we juxtapose these gender dimensions for a labor migrant-sending location of Mexico's southern Yucatan with those for a labor migrant-receiving location in Vermont (USA). We illustrate how in the southern Yucatan, circular transnational migration alters pasture, maize and chili production in a peasant field--forest system. Gender norms condition the land-use decisions of migratory households to keep women out of agricultural fields, but in turn may be modified in unexpected ways. With men's migration, more women assume aspects of land management, including in decision-making and supervision of hired farm labor. In comparison, in Vermont a largely male migrant labor force helps maintain an idealized, pastoral landscape with gender deeply embedded in how that labor is constructed and managed. Author Affiliation: (1) Ecology Center & Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University, 5215 Old Main Hill, 84322, Logan, UT, USA (2) El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Av del Centenario Km 5.5, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, C.P. 77000, Mexico (3) Department of Geography, 200 Old Mill, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA Article History: Registration Date: 04/09/2010 Online Date: 22/09/2010

We examine the origins of voluntary associations devoted to environmental protection, focusing on the divergent trajectories of industrialized versus developing countries. We consider a wide range of domestic economic, political, and institutional dynamics that give rise to environmental associations. Developing and extending neo-institutional world polity arguments, we characterize domestic association in the developing world as the product of global cultural models, legitimation, and resources. Using event history and dynamic panel models, we analyze the formation of domestic environmental associations for a large sample of countries in the contemporary period. Among highly industrialized countries, domestic factors--resources and political institutions that afford favorable opportunities--largely explain the prevalence of environmental associations. In contrast, global forces are a powerful catalyst for environmental organizing in the developing world. The environmental movement, which had domestic origins in the West, became institutionalized in the world polity, generating new associations on a global scale. We also find positive effects of democratic institutions and philanthropic foundations. Environmental degradation and societal affluence are not primary drivers of environmental association. We conclude by reflecting on the implications of globally-sponsored voluntary associations, which appear to be common in the developing world. Keywords social movements, environment, neo-institutionalism, globalization, voluntary associations DOI: 10.1177/0003122410374084

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.023 Byline: Fusun Alengin (a), Azgur Kabak (b), Sule Ansel (a), Burc Alengin (c), Emel AktaA (b) Keywords: Problem structuring; Transportation; Environment; Cognitive maps; Structural equation modeling; Scenario analysis Abstract: This study discusses a decision support framework that guides policy makers in their strategic transportation related decisions by using multi-methodology. For this purpose, a methodology for analyzing the effects of transportation policies on environment, society, economy, and energy is proposed. In the proposed methodology, a three-stage problem structuring model is developed. Initially, experts' opinions are structured by using a cognitive map to determine the relationships between transportation and environmental concepts. Then a structural equation model (SEM) is constructed, based on the cognitive map, to quantify the relations among external transportation and environmental factors. Finally the results of the SEM model are used to evaluate the consequences of possible policies via scenario analysis. In this paper a pilot study that covers only one module of the whole framework, namely transportation-environment interaction module, is conducted to present the applicability and usefulness of the methodology. This pilot study also reveals the impacts of transportation policies on the environment. To achieve a sustainable transportation system, the extent of the relationships between transportation and the environment must be considered. The World Development Indicators developed by the World Bank are used for this purpose. Author Affiliation: (a) Dogus University, Engineering Faculty, Industrial Engineering Department, Zeamet Sokak, Acibadem, 34722 Kadikoy/Istanbul, Turkey (b) Istanbul Technical University, Management Faculty, Industrial Engineering Department, Macka, 34367 Istanbul, Turkey (c) Istanbul Technical University, Management Faculty, Management Engineering Department, Macka, 34367 Istanbul, Turkey Article History: Received 4 October 2007; Accepted 19 January 2009

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01355.x Keywords: coastal ecosystems; coastal management; communication; ecosystem-based management; ecosystem services Abstract: Abstract: Ecosystem-based management is logistically and politically challenging because ecosystems are inherently complex and management decisions affect a multitude of groups. Coastal ecosystems, which lie at the interface between marine and terrestrial ecosystems and provide an array of ecosystem services to different groups, aptly illustrate these challenges. Successful ecosystem-based management of coastal ecosystems requires incorporating scientific information and the knowledge and views of interested parties into the decision-making process. Estimating the provision of ecosystem services under alternative management schemes offers a systematic way to incorporate biogeophysical and socioeconomic information and the views of individuals and groups in the policy and management process. Employing ecosystem services as a common language to improve the process of ecosystem-based management presents both benefits and difficulties. Benefits include a transparent method for assessing trade-offs associated with management alternatives, a common set of facts and common currency on which to base negotiations, and improved communication among groups with competing interests or differing worldviews. Yet challenges to this approach remain, including predicting how human interventions will affect ecosystems, how such changes will affect the provision of ecosystem services, and how changes in service provision will affect the welfare of different groups in society. In a case study from Puget Sound, Washington, we illustrate the potential of applying ecosystem services as a common language for ecosystem-based management. Abstract (Spanish): Los Servicios del Ecosistema como un Lenguaje Comun para el Manejo de Costas Basado en Ecosistemas Resumen: El manejo basado en ecosistemas es un reto logistico y politico porque los ecosistemas son inherentemente complejos y las decisiones de manejo afectan a una multitud de grupos. Los ecosistemas costeros, que se encuentran en la interfase entre ecosistemas marinos y terrestres y proporcionan una variedad de servicios a diferentes grupos, ilustran estos retos acertadamente. Para tener exito, el manejo basado en ecosistemas de ecosistemas costeros requiere la incorporacion de informacion cientifica y el conocimiento y opiniones de grupos de interes en el proceso de toma de decisiones. La estimacion del suministro de servicios del ecosistema bajo esquemas alternativos de manejo ofrece una forma sistematica para incorporar informacion biogeofisica y socioeconomica y las opiniones de individuos y grupos en el proceso politico y de manejo. El uso de servicios del ecosistema como un lenguaje comun para mejorar el proceso de manejo basado en ecosistemas presenta tanto beneficios como dificultades. Los beneficios incluyen un metodo transparente para evaluar los pros y contras asociados con alternativas de manejo, un conjunto de hechos y moneda corrientes como base para las negociaciones y la mejora de la comunicacion entre grupos con intereses opuestos o cosmovisiones diferentes. Sin embargo, existen retos para este metodo, incluyendo la prediccion del efecto de intervenciones humanas sobre los ecosistemas, como afectaran esos cambios al suministro de servicios del ecosistema, y como afectaran los cambios en el suministro de servicios al bienestar de diferentes grupos de la sociedad. En un estudio de caso en Puget Sound, Washington, ilustramos el potencial de la aplicacion de servicios del ecosistema como un lenguaje comun para el manejo basado en ecosistemas. Author Affiliation: (*)Environmental Science & Management, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207, U.S.A. ([dagger])Department of Applied Economics, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, U.S.A. ([double dagger])National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, U.S.A. (s.)Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148, U.S.A. (**)Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, U.S.A. ([dagger][dagger])Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, MD 21613, U.S.A. ([double dagger][double dagger])Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, U.S.A. (s.s.)Department of Sociology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A. (***)Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A. ([double dagger][double dagger][double dagger])Department of Anthropology and IGP Marine Science, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, U.S.A. (s.s.s.)NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA 98112, U.S.A. ([paragraph])CONICET-Instituto Argentino de Oceanografia, Bahia Blanca, Argentina & Departmento de Geologia, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia Blanca, Argentina ([dagger][dagger][dagger])Zoology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A. (##)Wildlife Conservation Society, Mombassa, 80107, Kenya ([paragraph][paragraph])Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, U.S.A. (#)ACTFR, James Cook University & Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia Article History: Paper submitted October 10, 2008; revised manuscript accepted May 25, 2009. Article note: (###) email graneke@pdx.edu

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01287.x Keywords: Oceania; extinctions; conservation policy; hotspot; extinction causes Abstract: Abstract: Oceania is a diverse region encompassing Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, New Zealand, and Polynesia, and it contains six of the world's 39 hotspots of diversity. It has a poor record for extinctions, particularly for birds on islands and mammals. Major causes include habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, and overexploitation. We identified six major threatening processes (habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, climate change, overexploitation, pollution, and disease) based on a comprehensive review of the literature and for each developed a set of conservation policies. Many policies reflect the urgent need to deal with the effects of burgeoning human populations (expected to increase significantly in the region) on biodiversity. There is considerable difference in resources for conservation, including people and available scientific information, which are heavily biased toward more developed countries in Oceania. Most scientific publications analyzed for four threats (habitat loss, invasive species, overexploitation, and pollution) are from developed countries: 88.6% of Web of Science publications were from Australia (53.7%), New Zealand (24.3%), and Hawaiian Islands (10.5%). Many island states have limited resources or expertise. Even countries that do (e.g., Australia, New Zealand) have ongoing and emerging significant challenges, particularly with the interactive effects of climate change. Oceania will require the implementation of effective policies for conservation if the region's poor record on extinctions is not to continue. Abstract (Spanish): Principales Cuestiones de Politicas de Conservacion de la Biodiversidad en Oceania Resumen: Oceania en una region diversa que comprende Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Nueva Zelanda y Polinesia, y contiene seis de las 39 regiones de importancia para la biodiversidad del mundo. Tiene un triste registro de extinciones, particularmente para aves en islas y mamiferos en Australia. Las principales causas incluyen la perdida y degradacion de habitat, especies invasoras y sobreexplotacion. Identificamos seis procesos principales de amenaza (perdida y degradacion de habitat, especies invasoras, cambio climatico, sobreexplotacion, polucion y enfermedades) con base en una revision exhaustiva de literatura y desarrollamos un conjunto de politicas de conservacion para cada uno. Muchas politicas reflejan la necesidad urgente para tratar con los efectos de las poblaciones humanas en rapido crecimiento sobre la biodiversidad. Hay considerable diferencia en recursos para la conservacion, incluyendo gente e informacion cientifica disponible, que estan fuertemente sesgados hacia los paises mas desarrollados en Oceania. La mayoria de las publicaciones cientificas analizaron cuatro amenazas (perdida de habitat, especies invasoras, sobreexplotacion y polucion) en cuatro paises desarrollados: 88.6% de las publicaciones de Web of Science fueron de Australia (53.7%), Nueva Zelanda (34.3%) e islas Hawaianas (10.5%). Muchos paises insulares tienen escasos recursos o experticia. Aun los paises (e.g., Australia, Nueva Zelanda) que los tienen enfrentan significativos retos actuales y emergentes, particularmente con los efectos interactivos del cambio climatico. Oceania requerira de la implementacion de politicas de conservacion efectivas si el triste registro de extinciones en la region no debe continuar. Author Affiliation: (*)School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, New South Wales 2052, Australia ([dagger])Centre for Applied Environmental Decision Analysis, The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia ([double dagger])National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 11115, Hamilton 3251, New Zealand (s.)Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, 2109, Australia (**)Conservation International Pacific Islands Program, P.O. Box 2035, Apia, Samoa ([dagger][dagger])Guam Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. 22439 GMF, Barrigada, Guam, 96931 ([double dagger][double dagger])Department of Environment & Climate Change, P.O. Box 1967, Hurstville 2220 Australia (s.s.)The Fenner School of Environment & Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia (***)Department of Conservation, Kauri Coast Area Office, 150 Colville Road, RD 7, Dargaville, New Zealand ([dagger][dagger][dagger])The Nature Conservancy - Micronesia Program, Kolonia, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia ([double dagger][double dagger][double dagger])School of Natural Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia (s.s.s.)School of Integrative Biology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, 4072, Australia Article History: Paper submitted April 2, 2009; revised manuscript accepted April 3, 2009. Article note: ([dagger][dagger][dagger][dagger]) email rkingsford@science.unsw.edu.au

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01175.x Byline: HANS VAN DYCK (*), ARCO J. VAN STRIEN ([dagger]), DIRK MAES ([double dagger]**), CHRIS A. M. VAN SWAAY (s.**) Keywords: biodiversity; butterflies; habitat generalist; habitat specialist; intensive land use; species abundance; species distribution; species richness Abstract: Abstract: Analyses of species' population losses typically show a dichotomy between strongly affected, rare, and localized species and apparently unaffected, common, and widespread species. We analyzed 16 years (1992-2007) of butterfly transect count data from The Netherlands in a reevaluation of the trends of common, widespread species. Fifty-five percent (11 of 20 species) of these species suffered severe declines in distribution and abundance. Overall, cumulative butterfly abundance declined by around 30%. Some of the species in decline used to be omnipresent in gardens and parks, and 2 of the species were previously considered agricultural pests. Based on their declines over the last 16 years, 2 of the 20 species (Lasiommata megera and Gonepteryx rhamni) reached endangered status in The Netherlands under the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) population-decline criterion, and 2 species (Inachis io and Thymelicus lineola) met vulnerable criterion. Butterflies in farmland, urban, and particularly woodland areas showed the largest decline in species abundance. The abundance of species associated with vegetation types found mainly in nature reserves (dunes, heathland, and, to a lesser extent, seminatural grassland) increased or remained stable. The decline of widespread species requires additional conservation strategies in the wider landscape. Abstract (Spanish): Declinaciones en Mariposas Comunes, con Distribucion Amplia, en un Paisaje Bajo Uso Humano Intenso Resumen: Los analisis de perdidas de poblaciones tipicamente muestran una dicotomia entre especies fuertemente afectadas, raras y localizadas y especies aparentemente no afectadas, comunes y con distribucion amplia. Analizamos datos de 16 anos (1992-2007) de conteos de mariposas en transectos en Holanda en una reevaluacion de las tendencias de especies comunes, con distribucion amplia. Cincuenta y cinco porciento (11 de 20 especies) de estas especies sufrieron declinaciones severas en distribucion y abundancia. En general, la abundancia acumulativa declino alrededor de 30%. Algunas de las especies en declinacion anteriormente eran omnipresentes en jardines y parques, y dos de las especies previamente eran consideradas plagas agricolas. Con base en sus declinaciones en los ultimos 16 anos, dos de las 20 especies (Lasiommata megera y Gonepteryx rhamni) alcanzaron el estatus en peligro de acuerdo con el criterio de declinacion poblacional de la IUCN (Union Internacional para la Consevacion de la Naturaleza), y dos especies (Inachis io y Thymelicus lineola) cumplieron con el criterio de vulnerabilidad. Las mariposas en areas agricolas, urbanas y particularmente en bosques mostraron la mayor declinacion en abundancia de especies. La abundancia de especies asociada con tipos de vegetacion encontrados principalmente en reservas naturales (dunas, matorrales, y, en menor grado, pastizal seminatural) incremento o permanecio estable. La declinacion de especies con distribucion amplia requiere estrategias de conservacion adicionales en la amplitud del paisaje. Author Affiliation: (*)Behavioural Ecology and Conservation Group, Biodiversity Research Centre, Universite Catholique de Louvain (UCL), Croix du Sud 4, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, emailhans.vandyck@uclouvain.be ([dagger])Statistics Netherlands, P.O. Box 24500, 2490 HA Den Haag, The Netherlands ([double dagger])Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium (s.)Dutch Butterfly Conservation, P.O. Box 506, 6700 AM Wageningen, The Netherlands (**)Butterfly Conservation Europe,http://www.bc-europe.eu Article History: Paper submitted June 19, 2008; revised manuscript accepted November 17, 2008.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01212.x Keywords: biodiversity; conservation; horizon scanning; policy; priority setting; research agenda; research questions Abstract: Abstract: We identified 100 scientific questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on conservation practice and policy. Representatives from 21 international organizations, regional sections and working groups of the Society for Conservation Biology, and 12 academics, from all continents except Antarctica, compiled 2291 questions of relevance to conservation of biological diversity worldwide. The questions were gathered from 761 individuals through workshops, email requests, and discussions. Voting by email to short-list questions, followed by a 2-day workshop, was used to derive the final list of 100 questions. Most of the final questions were derived through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into 12 sections: ecosystem functions and services, climate change, technological change, protected areas, ecosystem management and restoration, terrestrial ecosystems, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, species management, organizational systems and processes, societal context and change, and impacts of conservation interventions. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and assist funders in directing funds. Abstract (Spanish): Cien Preguntas de Importancia para la Conservacion de la Diversidad Biologica Global Resumen: Identificamos 100 preguntas cientificas que, de ser contestadas, tendrian el mayor impacto sobre la practica y las politicas de conservacion. Representantes de 21 organizaciones internacionales, secciones regionales y grupos de trabajo de la Sociedad para la Conservacion Biologica y 12 academicos, de todos los continenetes excepto Antartica, compilaron 2291 preguntas de relevancia para la conservacion de la diversidad biologica mundial. Las preguntas fueron obtenidas de 761 individuos mediante talleres, solicitudes por correo electronico y discusiones. Se utilizo una votacion por correo electronico de listas cortas de preguntas, seguida de un taller de dos dias, para derivar la lista final de 100 preguntas. La mayoria de las preguntas finales fueron derivadas mediante un proceso de modificacion y combinacion a medida que el taller progresaba. Las preguntas estan divididas en 12 secciones: funciones y servicios de los ecosistemas, cambio climatico, cambio tecnologico, areas protegidas, manejo y restauracion de ecosistemas, ecosistemas terrestres, ecosistemas marinos, ecosistemas dulceacuicolas, manejo de especies, sistemas y procesos organizacionales, contexto y cambio social e impactos de las intervenciones de conservacion. Anticipamos que estas preguntas ayudaran a identificar nuevas direcciones para los investigadores y asistiran a los financiadores en la asignacion de fondos. Author Affiliation: (1)Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, United Kingdom, emailw.sutherland@zoo.cam.ac.uk (2)Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge CB2 3EN, United Kingdom (3)International Society for Reef Studies, Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Institute of Technology, 150 West University Boulevard, Melbourne, FL 32901, U.S.A. (4)Fauna and Flora International, Jupiter House, 4th Floor, Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2JD, United Kingdom (5)Institute of Zoology, the Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London NW1 4RY, United Kingdom (6)Traffic International, 219a Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom (7)SCB Austral and Neotropical Americas Section, Instituto de Ecologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, AP 70-275, Mexico, D.F. 04510, Mexico (8)Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada (9)Department of Botany, P.O. Box 77000, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth 6031, South Africa (10)GEF Secretariat, 1818 H Street, NW, MSN G6-602, Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. (11)World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20037, U.S.A. (12)Department of Economics, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3992, Atlanta, GA 30302-3992, U.S.A. (13)SCB North America Section, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 735 State Street Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, U.S.A. (14)Conservation International, Office of Programs and Science, 2011 Crystal Drive Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. (15)Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, U.S.A. (16)UNEP-WCMC, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom (17)The Nature Conservancy, 4722 Latona Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98105, U.S.A. (18)Tropical Biology Association, Nature Kenya, P.O. Box 44486, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya (19)Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney, Oxon OX13 5QL, United Kingdom (20)Environment Department, World Bank, 1818 H Street, Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. (21)Wetlands International, P.O. Box 471, 6700 AL Wageningen, The Netherlands (22)SCB Social Science Working Group, World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20037, U.S.A. (23)IUCN, Rue Mauverney 28, Gland 1196, Switzerland (24)Imperial College London, Division of Biology, Silwood Park Campus, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, United Kingdom (25)Cambridge Conservation Initiative, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, United Kingdom (26)SCB Australasia Section, Department of Conservation, Kauri Coast Area Office, 150 Colville Road, RD7, Dargaville 0377, New Zealand (27)Darwin Initiative Secretariat, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Area 3D, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR, United Kingdom (28)Natural Environment Research Council, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1EU, United Kingdom (29)SCB Asia Section, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Clemson University, 261 Lehotsky Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, U.S.A. (30)SCB Marine Section, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, MSN 5F2, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444, U.S.A. (31)British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, United Kingdom (32)University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia (33)SCB Europe Section, Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, School of the Environment and Natural Resources, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, United Kingdom (34)BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, United Kingdom (35)Science and Research, World Resources Institute, 10 G Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20002, U.S.A. (36)WCS Institute, Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, U.S.A. (37)Centro de Ecologia, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas, Apdo. 20632, Caracas 1020-A, Venezuela (38)Jalan Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Situ Gede, Bogor Barat 16115, Indonesia (39)Ocean Conservancy, 8th Floor, 1300 19th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, U.S.A. (40)Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. (41)Natural Environment Science Division, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 1/05 Temple Quay House, Bristol BS1 6EB, United Kingdom (42)SCB Freshwater Working Group, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A. (43)Living With Environmental Change, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom Article History: Paper submitted October 19, 2008; revised manuscript accepted January 12, 2009 Article note: (*) Current address: Cambridge Conservation Initiative, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1AG, United Kingdom (**) Current address: Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough PE1 1JY, United Kingdom.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00286.x Byline: Brian Mayer (1) Abstract: Relations between the labor and environmental movements exist within a complex web of clashing interests, electoral politics, and attempts to form enduring blue-green coalitions. Unions and other labor organizations are often portrayed as solely interested in economic growth. Environmental organizations are often seen as solely interested in preserving the natural world at the expense of economic growth, thus creating a direct conflict between the interests of labor and environmental organizations. Despite these perceived differences, efforts to bridge the divide between the two movements are increasingly common. This article examines the formation of a collective identity shared by workers and environmentalists participating in the coalition. I develop this argument through an ethnographic analysis of the formation of a blue-green coalition, the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, using in-depth interviews, observations, and content analyses. I demonstrate how coalition leaders and bridge brokers work to bridge and consolidate the identities of labor and environmental groups to campaign for environmental health regulatory changes in Massachusetts. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Florida

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01112.x Byline: THOMAS N. E. GRAY (*[dagger][dagger]), RO BOREY ([dagger]), SENG KIM HOUT ([double dagger]), HONG CHAMNAN ([dagger]), NIGEL, J. COLLAR (s.), PAUL M. DOLMAN (*) Keywords: Bengal Florican; bustard; Cambodia; Houbaropsis bengalensis; model averaging; model transferability; multimodel inference; predictive species-distribution models Abstract: Abstract: Predictive models can help clarify the distribution of poorly known species but should display strong transferability when applied to independent data. Nevertheless, model transferability for threatened tropical species is poorly studied. We built models predicting the incidence of the critically endangered Bengal Florican (Houbaropsis bengalensis) within the Tonle Sap (TLS) floodplain, Cambodia. Separate models were constructed with soil, land-use, and landscape data and species incidence sampled over the entire floodplain (12,000 km.sup.2) and from the Kompong Thom (KT) province (4000 km.sup.2). In each case, the probability of Bengal Florican presence within randomly selected 1 x 1 km squares was modeled by binary logistic regression with multimodel inference. We assessed the transferability of the KT model by comparing predictions with observed incidence elsewhere in the floodplain. In terms of standard model-validation statistics, the KT model showed good spatial transferability. Nevertheless, it overpredicted florican presence outside the KT calibration region, classifying 491 km.sup.2 as suitable habitat compared with 237 km.sup.2 predicted as suitable by the TLS model. This resulted from higher species incidence within the calibration region, probably owing to a program of conservation education and enforcement that has reduced persecution there. Because both research and conservation activity frequently focus on areas with higher density, such effects could be widespread, reducing transferability of predictive distribution models. Abstract (Spanish): Generalidad de los Modelos que Predicen la Distribucion de Especies: Actividades de Conservacion y Reduccion de la Transferibilidad del Modelo para una Avutarda Amenazada Resumen: Los modelos predictivos pueden ayudar a clarificar la distribucion de especies poco conocidas, pero deben mostrar fuerte transferibilidad cuando se aplican a datos independientes. Sin embargo, la transferibilidad del modelo para especies tropicales amenazadas esta poco estudiada. Construimos modelos para predecir la incidencia de Houbaropsis bengalensis, criticamente en peligro en la llanura aluvial Tonle Sap, Camboya. Construimos modelos separados con datos de suelo, uso de suelo y del paisaje y de la incidencia de la especie obtenidos en toda la llanura aluvial (12,000 km.sup.2) y de la provincia Kompong Thom (4000 km.sup.2). En cada caso, se modelo la probabilidad de la presencia de H. bengalensis en cuadrantes de 1 x 1 km mediante regresion logistica binaria con inferencia de modelos multiples. Evaluamos la transferibilidad del modelo de Kompong Thom (KT) mediante la comparacion de predicciones con la incidencia observada en otros sitios de la llanura. En terminos de la estadistica estandar para la validacion de modelos, el modelo KT mostro buena transferibilidad espacial. Sin embargo, sobreestimo la presencia de H. bengalensis afuera de la region de calibracion Kompomg Thom, al clasificar 491 km.sup.2 como habitat adecuado en comparacion con 327 km.sup.2 que predijo el modelo Tonle Sap. Esto resulto en una mayor incidencia de la especie dentro de la region de calibracion, probablemente debido a un programa de educacion para la conservacion y de sanciones que ha reducido la persecucion. Debido a que tanto la investigacion como las acciones de conservacion frecuentemente se centran en areas con mayor densidad, tales efectos podrian estar ampliamente generalizados, lo que reduce la transferibilidad de los modelos predictivos de la distribucion. Author Affiliation: (*)School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom ([dagger])Wildlife Conservation Society Cambodia Program, P.O. Box 1620, Phnom Penh, Cambodia ([double dagger])BirdLife Indochina Cambodia Program, 25B Street 294, P.O. Box 2686, Tonle Basac, Phnom Penh, Cambodia (s.)BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA and Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, United Kingdom Article History: Paper submitted May 1, 2008; revised manuscript accepted July 21, 2008. Article note: ([dagger][dagger]) Current address: WWF Greater Mekong, Cambodia Country Programme, 54, Street 352, Phnom Penh, P.O. Box 2467, Cambodia, email tomnegray@hotmail.com

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01039.x Byline: ADAM H. FREEDMAN (*[dagger]**), WOLFGANG BUERMANN ([dagger]), MATTHEW LEBRETON ([double dagger]s.), LAURENT CHIRIO ([double dagger][paragraph]), THOMAS B. SMITH (*[dagger]) Keywords: climate change; habitat fragmentation; invasion; rainforest; snakes; species-distribution modeling Abstract: Abstract: We used a species-distribution modeling approach, ground-based climate data sets, and newly available remote-sensing data on vegetation from the MODIS and Quick Scatterometer sensors to investigate the combined effects of human-caused habitat alterations and climate on potential invasions of rainforest by 3 savanna snake species in Cameroon, Central Africa: the night adder (Causus maculatus), olympic lined snake (Dromophis lineatus), and African house snake (Lamprophis fuliginosus). Models with contemporary climate variables and localities from native savanna habitats showed that the current climate in undisturbed rainforest was unsuitable for any of the snake species due to high precipitation. Limited availability of thermally suitable nest sites and mismatches between important life-history events and prey availability are a likely explanation for the predicted exclusion from undisturbed rainforest. Models with only MODIS-derived vegetation variables and savanna localities predicted invasion in disturbed areas within the rainforest zone, which suggests that human removal of forest cover creates suitable microhabitats that facilitate invasions into rainforest. Models with a combination of contemporary climate, MODIS- and Quick Scatterometer-derived vegetation variables, and forest and savanna localities predicted extensive invasion into rainforest caused by rainforest loss. In contrast, a projection of the present-day species-climate envelope on future climate suggested a reduction in invasion potential within the rainforest zone as a consequence of predicted increases in precipitation. These results emphasize that the combined responses of deforestation and climate change will likely be complex in tropical rainforest systems. Abstract (Spanish): Modelado de los Efectos del Cambio Antropogenico de Habitat sobre las Invasiones de Serpientes de la Sabana al Bosque Lluvioso Africano Resumen: Utilizamos un metodo de modelado de la distribucion de especies, conjuntos de datos climaticos y datos de percepcion remota de la vegetacion recientemente disponibles de los sensores MODIS y Quick Scatterometer para investigar los efectos combinados de las alteraciones del habitat y del clima causadas por humanos sobre invasiones potenciales de la selva lluviosa por tres especies de serpientes de sabana en Camerun, Africa Central: Causus maculatus, Dromophis lineatus y Lamprophis fuliginosus. Los modelos con variables climaticas y localidades contemporaneas de habitats de sabana nativa mostraron que el clima actual en el bosque lluvioso no perturbado no era adecuado para ninguna de las especies de serpiente debido a la elevada precipitacion. La disponibilidad limitada de sitios de nidacion termicamente adecuados y la incompatibilidad entre eventos importantes de la historia de vida y la disponibilidad de presas son una explicacion probable de la exclusion pronosticada. Los modelos solo con variables de vegetacion y localidades de sabana derivadas de MODIS pronosticaron la invasion de areas perturbadas dentro de la zona de bosque lluvioso, lo cual sugiere que la remocion de la cobertura de bosque por humanos crea microhabitats adecuados que facilitan invasiones del bosque lluvioso. Los modelos con una combinacion de clima contemporaneo, variables de vegetacion y localidades de bosque y sabana derivados de MODIS y Quick Scatterometer pronosticaron una invasion extensiva del bosque lluvioso causado por la perdida de bosque lluvioso. En contraste, una proyeccion de las especies-clima actuales envuelta en clima futuro sugirio una reduccion en el potencial de invasion dentro del la zona de bosque lluvioso como una consecuencia de los incrementos de precipitacion pronosticados. Estos resultados enfatizan que las respuestas combinadas de la deforestacion y el cambio climatico probablemente seran complejas en los sistemas de bosque lluvioso tropical. Author Affiliation: (*)Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA, 621 Charles E. Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA 90095, U.S.A. ([dagger])Center for Tropical Research, Institute of the Environment, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, U.S.A. ([double dagger])Projet CAMHERP, Cameroon Biodiversity Conservation Society, BP 3055 Messa, Yaounde, Cameroon (s.)Johns Hopkins Cameroon Program, BP 7039, Yaounde, Cameroon ([paragraph])Museum National d' Histoire Naturelle, Departement Systematique et Evolution (Reptiles), Case Courrier 30, 25 Rue Cuvier, F-75005 Paris, France Article History: Paper submitted May 15, 2007; revised manuscript accepted May 18, 2008. Article note: (**) email afreedma@ucla.edu

IRS Form 990 is the primary instrument for public accountability by tax-exempt organizations and its data are used not only by the IRS, but also by donors, grant-makers, watchdog agencies, the media, sector advocates, State Attorneys General, and local taxing authorities. Many argue, however, that the form is a poor vehicle for clear reporting of financial information and that its data are often inaccurate and misleading. To assess the quality and reliability of the Form 990 data, we compare the financial disclosures on the form with those in audited financial statements for 39 environmental organizations over their three most recent fiscal years ending in 2000. This comparison reveals numerous problems with the Form 990 data, including inconsistencies in revenue and expense recognition, incongruities between the reporting of gains and losses on investments and portfolio holdings, misstatements of functional expenses, discrepancies in the disclosure of program services, and errors attributable to differences in IRS Form 990 rules and not-for-profit GAAP. The usefulness of the data is further compromised by filings that are often one or two years out of date. Employment of an outside preparer, such as a major CPA firm, does not mitigate these reporting problems., INTRODUCTION No longer a mere information return filed with the IRS, Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax) has become one of the most important financial reporting, marketing [...]

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00466.x Byline: CHRISTINE V. FIORELLO (*[dagger]s.), ANDREW J. NOSS ([double dagger]), SHARON L. DEEM ([dagger]**) Keywords: buffer zones; carnivore conservation; disease ecology; disease spillover; domestic dogs; serosurvey Abstract: Abstract: Disease is increasingly recognized as a threat to the conservation of wildlife, and in many cases the source of disease outbreaks in wild carnivores is the domestic dog. For disease to spill over from a domestic to a wild population, three conditions must be satisfied: susceptibility of the wild species, presence of the disease agent in the domestic population, and contact between the two populations of interest. We investigated the potential for disease spillover from the domestic dog population to the wild carnivore population in the Isoso of Bolivia, an area of tropical dry forest contiguous with a national park. Using questionnaires and discussions with residents, we gathered data on the demography of dogs in the Isoso, including adult and neonatal mortality, litter size, and hunting frequency. We analyzed a large data set containing self-recorded information on hunting in various communities of the Isoso to determine the extent of dog participation in hunting and the duration of hunting trips. Finally, we took blood samples from dogs in the Isoso for a serosurvey of common canine pathogens. More than 95% of dogs had positive titers to canine distemper virus and canine parvovirus. There was also a high seroprevalence in dogs for other pathogens, a high population turnover of dogs (which may allow diseases to be maintained endemically), and frequent opportunities for contact between domestic and wild carnivores. Based on our results and the susceptibility of wild species previously reported in the literature, domestic dogs represent a disease risk for wildlife in the Bolivian Isoso. Abstract (Spanish): Demografia, Ecologia Cinegetica y Exposicion a Patogenos de Perros Domesticos en el Isoso de Bolivia Resumen: Cada vez mas, las enfermedades son reconocidas como una amenaza a la conservacion de vida silvestre, y en muchos casos el perro domestico es la fuente del desencadenamiento de enfermedades de carnivoros silvestres. Para que una enfermedad pase de una poblacion domestica a una silvestre, se deben satisfacer tres condiciones: susceptibilidad de la especie silvestre, presencia del agente patogeno en la poblacion domestica y contacto entre las dos poblaciones de interes. Investigamos la potencial transmision de enfermedades de la poblacion de perros domesticos a la poblacion de carnivoros silvestres en el Isoso de Bolivia, un area de bosque tropical seco contigua a un parque nacional. Mediante cuestionarios y discusiones con residentes, reunimos datos de la demografia de perros en el Isoso, incluyendo mortalidad de adultos y neonatos, tamano de camada y frecuencia de caceria. Analizamos un extenso conjunto de datos conteniendo informacion sobre caceria en varias comunidades del Isoso para determinar la extension de la participacion de perros en la caceria y la duracion de los viajes de caceria. Finalmente, tomamos muestras de sangre de perros en el Isoso para un muestreo de suero para buscar los patogenos caninos mas comunes. Mas de 95% de los perros fueron positivos a moquillo y parvovirus caninos. Tambien hubo seroprevalencia alta para otros patogenos, una alta productividad en la poblacion de perros (lo que puede mantener a las enfermedades endemicamente) y frecuentes oportunidades de contacto entre carnivoros domesticos y silvestres. Con base en nuestros resultados y en la susceptibilidad de especies silvestres previamente reportada en la literatura, los perros domesticos representan un riesgo de enfermedad para la vida silvestre en el Isoso Boliviano. Author Affiliation: (*)Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Center for Environmental Research and Conservation, Columbia University, 1200 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, U.S.A., emailfiorelloc@mail.vetmed.ufl.edu ([dagger])Field Veterinary Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, 185th Street and Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, U.S.A. ([double dagger])Bolivia Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Casilla 6272, Santa Cruz, Bolivia Article History: Paper submitted March 29, 2005; revised manuscript accepted December 13, 2005. Article note: (s.) Current address: Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Florida, College of Veterinary Medicine, P.O. Box 100126, Gainesville, FL 32612, U.S.A. (**) Current address: Department of Animal Health, Smithsonian's National Zoological Park, 3001 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20008, U.S.A.

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00452.x Keywords: adaptive improvement; conservation-area selection; conservation planning; operational model; social learning institutions Abstract: Abstract: Systematic conservation assessment and conservation planning are two distinct fields of conservation science often confused as one and the same. Systematic conservation assessment is the technical, often computer-based, identification of priority areas for conservation. Conservation planning is composed of a systematic conservation assessment coupled with processes for development of an implementation strategy and stakeholder collaboration. The peer-reviewed conservation biology literature abounds with studies analyzing the performance of assessments (e.g., area-selection techniques). This information alone, however, can never deliver effective conservation action; it informs conservation planning. Examples of how to translate systematic assessment outputs into knowledge and then use them for 'doing' conservation are rare. South Africa has received generous international and domestic funding for regional conservation planning since the mid-1990s. We reviewed eight South African conservation planning processes and identified key ingredients of best practice for undertaking systematic conservation assessments in a way that facilitates implementing conservation action. These key ingredients include the design of conservation planning processes, skills for conservation assessment teams, collaboration with stakeholders, and interpretation and mainstreaming of products (e.g., maps) for stakeholders. Social learning institutions are critical to the successful operationalization of assessments within broader conservation planning processes and should include not only conservation planners but also diverse interest groups, including rural landowners, politicians, and government employees. Abstract (Spanish): Diseno de Evaluaciones Sistematicas de la Conservacion que Promueven la Implementacion Efectiva: la Mejor Practica en Africa del Sur Resumen: La evaluacion sistematica de la conservacion y la planificacion de la conservacion son dos campos distintos de la ciencia de la conservacion que a menudo son confundidos como uno y lo mismo. La evaluacion sistematica de la conservacion es la identificacion tecnica, a menudo computarizada, de areas de prioridad para la conservacion. La planificacion de la conservacion esta compuesta por una evaluacion sistematica de la conservacion aunada a procesos para el desarrollo de una estrategia de implementacion y colaboracion de grupos de interes. En la literatura de biologia de la conservacion revisada por pares abundan los estudios que analizan el rendimiento de las evaluaciones (e. g., tecnicas de seleccion de areas). Sin embargo, esta informacion por si sola no puede derivar en acciones de conservacion efectivas; informa a la planificacion de la conservacion. Son raros los ejemplos de como traducir los resultados de evaluaciones sistematicas en conocimiento y luego utilizarlo para 'hacer' conservacion. Africa del Sur ha recibido generoso financiamiento internacional y domestico para la planificacion de la conservacion regional desde mediados de la decada de 1990. Revisamos ocho procesos de planificacion sudafricana e identificamos los ingredientes clave de la mejor practica para emprender evaluaciones sistematicas de la conservacion de manera que facilite la implementacion de acciones de conservacion. Estos ingredientes clave incluyen el diseno de procesos de planificacion de la conservacion, habilidades para los equipos de evaluacion, colaboracion con grupos de interes e interpretacion e integracion de productos (e. g., mapas) para grupos de interes. Las instituciones de aprendizaje social son criticas para la operatividad exitosa de las evaluaciones en el contexto de procesos de planificacion mas amplios y deben incluir no solo planificadores de la conservacion sino a diversos grupos de interes, incluyendo a propietarios rurales, politicos y empleados gubernamentales. Author Affiliation: (*)Department of Botany, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, P.O. Box 77000, Port Elizabeth 6031, South Africa ([dagger])Conservation Unit, Botanical Society of South Africa, Private Bag X10, Claremont 7735, South Africa ([double dagger])South African National Biodiversity Institute, Private Bag X101, Pretoria 0001, South Africa (s.)Leslie Hill Institute for Plant Conservation, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa (**)Biodiversity Conservation Unit, Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa, 2b Lawrence Street, Central Hill, Port Elizabeth 6001, South Africa ([dagger][dagger])South African National Biodiversity Institute, Private Bag X7, Claremont 7735, South Africa ([double dagger][double dagger])Department of Zoology and Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, P.O. Box 77000, Port Elizabeth 6031, South Africa (s.s.)Scientific Services, South African National Parks, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth 6031, South Africa (***)Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife, P.O. Box 13053, Cascades 3202, South Africa ([dagger][dagger][dagger])The World Bank, 1818 H Street, Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Article History: Paper submitted May 27, 2005; revised manuscript accepted November 22, 2005. Article note: ([double dagger][double dagger][double dagger]) email tawnyfrogmouth@gmail.com (s.s.s.) Current address: South African National Biodiversity Institute, Private Bag X101, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00413.x Byline: DAVID CLEARY (*) Keywords: Amazon; conservation strategies; ecoregions; extinction threats; monitoring Abstract: Abstract: The general context of conservation in the tropics-in the Amazon basin and elsewhere-is stagnant or declining funding and rapidly growing threat levels. For conservation programs this makes strategic deployment of limited conservation resources all the more important. International conservation organizations active in the tropics increasingly define themselves as science driven and expend considerable resources on science-based activities such as ecoregional analysis, field research, and monitoring of ecological variables. I argue that an overemphasis on science has generated a series of unintended but serious problems for conservation in the tropics. Spending on monitoring and ecoregional analysis has effectively starved protection and threat analysis of resources. A decoupling of biology from serious cost-benefit analysis has led to the privileging of small-scale and local analyses, rather than the systemic analyses essential for the strategic allocation of scarce conservation resources. Successful conservation in the tropics depends on the crossing of biogeography with sophisticated threat analysis to identify priority geographies for protection. This should be combined with much more systematic engagement with the principal drivers of tropical deforestation, especially agribusiness. Caution and a sense of proportion are required when balancing the financial demands of science and those of protection. I suggest that conservation organizations should cooperate far more in assembling and analyzing information on conservation spending and on threat levels and biogeography at the continental, national, and regional levels. Site selection should follow rather than precede this kind of strategic analysis, and sites should be considered elements of a network rather than stand-alone projects. More attention should be paid to market-driven conservation through techniques such as certification and responsible supply-chain management. Abstract (Spanish): La Cuestionable Efectividad del Gasto en Ciencia por Organizaciones Internacionales de Conservacion en los Tropicos Resumen: El contexto general de la conservacion en los tropicos-en la cuenca del Amazonas y otras partes-es el de financiamiento estancado o en declinacion y de niveles de amenaza creciendo rapidamente. Para los programas de conservacion esto hace que sea mas importante el despliegue estrategico de recursos limitados para la conservacion. Las organizaciones internacionales de conservacion activas en los tropicos se autodefinen como conducidas por la ciencia y gastan considerables recursos en actividades basadas en ciencia tales como analisis ecoregionales, investigacion de campo y monitoreo de variables ecologicas. Argumento que el sobre enfasis en la ciencia ha generado una serie de problemas, no intencionales pero serios, para la conservacion en los tropicos. El gasto en monitoreo y analisis ecoregional ha limitado el analisis de proteccion y amenazas de recursos. El desacoplamiento de la biologia de analisis serios de costo-beneficio ha llevado a privilegiar a los analisis a pequena escala y locales, en lugar de los analisis sistemicos esenciales para la asignacion estrategica de recursos escasos para la conservacion. La conservacion exitosa en los tropicos depende del entrelazamiento de la biogeografia con analisis de amenazas sofisticados para identificar geografias prioritarias para la conservacion. Esto debera combinarse con un compromiso mucho mas sistematico con los conductores principales de la deforestacion tropical, especialmente los agronegocios. Se requiere cautela y un sentido de proporcion al balancear las demandas financieras de la ciencia con las de la proteccion. Sugiero que las organizaciones de conservacion deben cooperar mucho mas en la recopilacion y el analisis de informacion sobre el gasto en conservacion y en los niveles de amenaza y biogeografia a nivel continental, nacional y regional. La seleccion de sitios debe seguir, y no preceder, a este tipo de analisis estrategico, y los sitios deberian ser considerados elementos de una red y no proyectos aislados. Se debe poner mayor atencion a la conservacion dirigida por el mercado por medio de tecnicas como la certificacion y la gestion responsable de la cadena de abastecimiento. Author Affiliation: (*)The Nature Conservancy-Amazon Program, Avenida Nazare 280, Bairro: Nazare, 66.035-170 Belem-PA, Brazil, emaildcleary@tnc.org Article History: Paper submitted October 4, 2004; revised manuscript accepted May 4, 2005.

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00318.x Keywords: complementarity; conservation sites selection; cross-taxon congruence; IBAs Abstract: Abstract: BirdLife International's Important Bird Areas (IBA) program is the most developed global system for identifying sites of conservation priority. There have been few assessments, however, of the conservation value of IBAs for nonavian taxa. We combined past data with extensive new survey results for Uganda's IBAs in the most comprehensive assessment to date of the wider biodiversity value of a tropical country's IBA network. The combined data set included more than 35,000 site x species records for birds, butterflies, and woody plants at 86 Ugandan sites (23,400 km.sup.2), including 29 of the country's 30 IBAs, with data on additional taxa for many sites. Uganda's IBAs contained at least 70% of the country's butterfly and woody plant species, 86% of its dragonflies and 97% of its birds. They also included 21 of Uganda's 22 major vegetation types. For butterflies, dragonflies, and some families of plants assessed, species of high conservation concern were well represented (less so for the latter). The IBAs successfully represented wider biodiversity largely because many have distinctive avifaunas and, as shown by high cross-taxon congruence in complementarity, such sites tended to be distinctive for other groups too. Cross-taxon congruence in overall species richness was weaker and mainly associated with differences in site size. When compared with alternative sets of sites selected using complementarity-based, area-based, or random site-selection algorithms, the IBA network was efficient in terms of the number of sites required to represent species but inefficient in terms of total area. This was mainly because IBA selection considers factors other than area, however, which probably improves both the cost-effectiveness of the network and the persistence of represented species. Abstract (Spanish): Una Evaluacion Nacional del Valor de la Biodiversidad de la Red de Areas de Importancia para Aves Resumen: El programa de Areas de Importancia para las Aves (AIAs) de Birdlife International es el sistema global mas desarrollado para la identificacion de sitios de prioridad para la conservacion. Sin embargo, ha habido pocas evaluaciones del valor de conservacion de las AIAs para taxa no aviares. En la evaluacion mas integral, hasta la fecha, del valor de la biodiversidad en general de la red de AIAs de un pais tropical, combinamos datos antiguos con los resultados de muestreos extensivos recientes de las AIAs de Uganda. El conjunto de datos combinados incluyo mas de 35000 registros de sitios x especies de aves, mariposas y plantas lenosas en 86 sitios en Uganda (23400 km.sup.2), incluyendo 29 de las 30 AIAs del pais, con datos sobre taxa adicionales en muchos sitios. Las AIAs de Uganda contenian por lo menos un 70% de las especies de mariposas y plantas lenosas del pais, 86% de sus libelulas y 97% de sus aves. Tambien incluyeron 21 de los 22 principales tipos de vegetacion. En las mariposas, libelulas y algunas de las familias de plantas evaluadas, la representacion de especies de alto interes para la conservacion fue buena (menor en las plantas). Las Areas de Importancia para las Aves representaron exitosamente a la biodiversidad en general principalmente porque muchas tienen avifaunas distintivas y, como muestra la alta congruencia trans-taxon en complementariedad, tales sitios tendieron a ser distintivos para otros grupos tambien. La congruencia trans-taxon en la riqueza de especies total fue mas debil y se asocio principalmente con diferencias en el tamano del sitio. Cuando se compara con conjuntos alternativos de sitios seleccionados mediante algoritmos basados en complementariedad, area o seleccion aleatoria de sitios, la red de AIAs fue eficiente en terminos del numero de sitios requeridos para representar especies, pero ineficiente en terminos del area total. Sin embargo, esto se debio principalmente a que la seleccion de AIA considera factores distintos al area que probablemente mejoran tanto la efectividad de la red como la persistencia de las especies representadas. Author Affiliation: (*)Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources, P.O. Box 7298, Kampala, Uganda ([dagger])NatureUganda, The East Africa Natural History Society, P.O. Box 27034, Kampala, Uganda ([double dagger])Conservation Biology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, United Kingdom (s.)Southern Rift Programme, Wildlife Conservation Society, P.O. Box 1475, Mbeya, Tanzania (**)Zoological Museum, The University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark ([dagger][dagger])Botanical Museum and Library, The University of Copenhagen, Gothersgade 130, DK-1123, Copenhagen, Denmark (***)The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, United Kingdom (s.s.)Biogeography and Conservation Laboratory, Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom Article History: Paper submitted July 22, 2004; revised manuscript accepted March 1, 2005. Article note: (s.s.s.) email htushabe@hotmail.com or nbdb@muienr.mak.ac.ug

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00299.x Byline: CARLO RONDININI ([dagger]*), LUIGI BOITANI ([dagger]) Keywords: complementarity; conservation planning; gap analysis; habitat suitability model; indicator species; protected area; reserve selection Abstract: Abstract: Conservation organizations are collecting large-scale data regarding distribution and threats to vertebrate taxa. These data sets will enable planners to systematically identify large-scale conservation priorities; however, they will cover only a tiny proportion of living organisms. Therefore, it is essential to investigate to what extent the areas selected for conservation actions can provide protection for other species. We analyzed the umbrella effect between amphibians and mammals across mainland Africa. We built habitat suitability models within the geographic ranges of 1654 species, based on data collected in the framework of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Global Amphibian Assessment and IUCN Global Mammal Assessment. We applied systematic reserve selection algorithms to two sets of estimators of the area of occupancy of amphibians and mammals (geographic ranges and estimated suitable areas) and thus selected four reserve systems. We then quantified the protection that each of the four systems provided for amphibians and mammals. Reserves selected for amphibians and mammals were comparable in area, with the former concentrated in the Afrotropical region and the latter more evenly dispersed. Mammal reserves left fewer gaps in species coverage among amphibians than the reverse, but amphibian reserves included a larger proportion of each mammal's area of occupancy than the reverse. For both taxa, setting reserves to include estimated suitable areas instead of ranges resulted in the clustering of reserves in the tropics. Furthermore, it efficiently protected hidden gaps (species with unsuitable portions of their range inside protected areas) in the other taxon and included a higher proportion of the area of occupancy of the other taxon. Overall, amphibians and mammals in Africa acted as an umbrella for a high proportion of species in the other taxon. Focusing on estimated suitable areas instead of ranges improved the umbrella effect of both taxa. Abstract (Spanish): Diferencias en el Efecto Sombrilla de Anfibios y Mamiferos Africanos con Base en Dos Estimadores del Area de Ocupacion Resumen: Las organizaciones de conservacion estan recolectando datos sobre la distribucion y amenazas a los taxa de vertebrados a gran escala. Estos conjuntos de datos permitiran que los planificadores identifiquen sistematicamente las prioridades de conservacion a gran escala; sin embargo, solo podran cubrir una proporcion muy pequena de los organismos vivos. Por lo tanto, es esencial que se investigue el grado en que las areas seleccionadas para acciones de conservacion pueden proporcionar proteccion a otras especies. Analizamos el efecto sombrilla entre anfibios y mamiferos en Africa continental. Construimos modelos de aptitud de habitat con las distribuciones geograficas de 1654 especies, con base en datos recolectados en el marco de la Evaluacion Global de Anfibios de la IUCN y la Evaluacion Global de Mamiferos de la IUCN, Aplicamos algoritmos de seleccion sistematica de reservas a dos conjuntos de estimadores del area de ocupacion de anfibios y mamiferos (rangos geograficos y areas adecuadas estimadas) y seleccionamos cuatro sistemas de reservas. Posteriormente cuantificamos la proteccion propoporcionada por cada uno de los cuatro sistemas a anfibios y mamiferos. Las reservas selccionadas para anfibios y mamiferos fueron comparables en area, con los primeros concentrados en la region Afrotropical y los segundos dispersos mas homogeneamente. Las reservas de mamiferos tuvieron menos claros en la covertura de especies entre anfibios que lo contrario, pero las reservas de anfibios incluyeron una mayor proporcion del area de ocupacion de cada especie de mamifero que lo contrario. Para ambos taxa, el acomodo de reservas para incluir las areas adecuadas estimadas en lugar de los rangos geograficos resulto en el aglomeramiento de reservas en el tropico. Mas aun, protegio eficientemente a claros ocultos (especies con porciones no adecuadas de su rango dentro de areas protegidas) en el otro taxon e incluyo una mayor proporcion del area de ocupacion del otro taxon. En conjunto, los anfibios y mamiferos en Africa actuaron como una sombrilla para una alta proporcion de especies del otro taxon. El enfoque en las areas adecuadas estimadas en lugar de los rangos mejoro el efecto sombrilla de ambos taxa. Author Affiliation: ([dagger])Department of Animal and Human Biology, Universita di Roma La Sapienza, Viale dell'Universita 32, 00185 Rome, Italy Article History: Paper submitted January 11, 2005; revised manuscript accepted March 31, 2005. Article note: (*) email carlo.rondinini@uniroma1.it

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00258.x Byline: BENJAMIN S. HALPERN (*[dagger]s.s.), CHRISTOPHER R. PYKE (*), HELEN E. FOX ([double dagger]s.), J. CHRIS HANEY (**), MARTIN A. SCHLAEPFER ([dagger][dagger]), PATRICIA ZARADIC ([double dagger][double dagger]) Keywords: conservation investment; conservation NGOs; conservation priority areas; priority models Abstract: Abstract: Several international conservation organizations have recently produced global priority maps to guide conservation activities and spending in their own and other conservation organizations. Surprisingly, it is not possible to directly evaluate the relationship between priorities and spending within a given organization because none of the organizations with global priority models tracks how they spend their money relative to their priorities. We were able, however, to evaluate the spending patterns of five other large biodiversity conservation organizations without their own published global priority models and investigate the potential influence of priority models on this spending. On average, countries with priority areas received greater conservation investment; global prioritization systems, however, explained between only 2 and 32% of the US$1.5 billion spent in 2002, depending on whether the United States was removed from analyses and whether conservation spending was adjusted by the per capita gross domestic product within each country. We also found little overlap in the spending patterns of the five conservation organizations evaluated, suggesting that informal coordination or segregation of effort may be occurring. Our results also highlight a number of potential gaps and mismatches in how limited conservation funds are spent and provide the first audit of global conservation spending patterns. More explicit presentation of conservation priorities by organizations currently without priority models and better tracking of spending by those with published priorities are clearly needed to help make future conservation activities as efficient as possible. Abstract (Spanish): Brechas e Incongruencias entre Prioridades y Gasto de Conservacion Global Resumen: Recientemente, varias organizaciones internacionales de conservacion han producido mapas de prioridades mundiales para guiar a las actividades y gastos de conservacion en sus propias, y otras, organizaciones de conservacion. Sorprendentemente, no es posible evaluar la relacion entre prioridades y gastos en una determinada organizacion porque ninguna de las organizaciones con modelos de prioridades globales tiene registro del gasto de su dinero en relacion con las prioridades. Sin embargo, pudimos evaluar los patrones de gastos de cinco importantes organizaciones de conservacion de la biodiversidad que no han publicado sus modelos de prioridades globales e investigamos la potencial influencia de los modelos de prioridades sobre los gastos. En promedio, los paises con areas prioritarias recibieron mayor inversion en conservacion; sin embargo, los sistemas de prioridades globales solo explicaron entre 2 y 32% de $1.5 billones gastados en 2002, dependiendo si los Estados Unidos eran removidos del analisis y si el gasto en conservacion era ajustado por el producto domestico bruto per capita en cada pais. Tambien encontramos poco traslape en los patrones de gasto de las cinco organizaciones de conservacion evaluadas, lo que sugiere que puede estar ocurriendo una coordinacion o segregacion informal del esfuerzo. Nuestros resultados tambien destacan un numero de potenciales brechas e incongruencias en la forma en que se gastan los limitados fondos para conservacion y proporcionan la primera auditoria de los patrones de los gastos de conservacion global. Claramente, para ayudar a que las futuras actividades de conservacion sean lo mas eficientes posible, se requiere una presentacion mas explicita de las prioridades de conservacion por las organizaciones que actualmente no tienen modelos de prioridades asi como un mejor registro de los gastos de las organizaciones con prioridades publicadas. Author Affiliation: (*)National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 735 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, U.S.A. ([dagger])Center for Ocean Health, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, U.S.A. ([double dagger])Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii, P.O. Box 1346, Kaneohe, HI 96744, U.S.A. (s.)Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund-US, 1250 24th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20037, U.S.A. (**)Conservation Policy Program, Defenders of Wildlife, 1130 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, U.S.A. ([dagger][dagger])Department of Integrative Biology, 1 University Station C0930, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, U.S.A. ([double dagger][double dagger])Stroud Water Research Center, 970 Spencer Road, Avondale, PA 19311, U.S.A. Article History: Paper submitted November 26, 2004; revised manuscript accepted February 17, 2005. Article note: (s.s.) email halpern@nceas.ucsb.edu