ArticleNature communications2016
Factoring attitudes towards armed conflict risk into selection of protected areas for conservation.
Article in Nature communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prioritizing reducing impacts on species to minimize residual reserves.Science advances · 2026Article
- The socioeconomic and environmental niche of protected areas reveals global conservation gaps and opportunities.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Reconsidering priorities for forest conservation when considering the threats of mining and armed conflict.Ambio · 2022Article
- The value of understanding feedbacks from ecosystem functions to species for managing ecosystems.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Navigating the complexities of coordinated conservation along the river Nile.Science advances · 2019Article
- War-induced collapse and asymmetric recovery of large-mammal populations in Gorongosa National Park, Mozambique.PloS one · 2019Article
- Combining molecular and landscape tools for targeting evolutionary processes in reserve design: An approach for islands.PloS one · 2018Article
- Factoring economic costs into conservation planning may not improve agreement over priorities for protection.Nature communications · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The high incidence of armed conflicts in biodiverse regions poses significant challenges in achieving international conservation targets. Because attitudes towards risk vary, we assessed different strategies for protected area planning that reflected alternative attitudes towards the risk of armed conflicts. We find that ignoring conflict risk will deliver the lowest return on investment. Opting to completely avoid conflict-prone areas offers limited improvements and could lead to species receiving no protection. Accounting for conflict by protecting additional areas to offset the impacts of armed conflicts would not only increase the return on investment (an effect that is enhanced when high-risk areas are excluded) but also increase upfront conservation costs. Our results also demonstrate that fine-scale estimations of conflict risk could enhance the cost-effectiveness of investments. We conclude that achieving biodiversity targets in volatile regions will require greater initial investment and benefit from fine-resolution estimates of conflict risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.