Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41795772›Full record

ArticleAmbio2026

Value pluralism supports portfolio approaches in conservation.

Evelyn Brister, Yasha Rohwer, Michele Weber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Evelyn BristerPhilosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology, 92 Lomb Memorial Dr., Rochester, NY, 14623, USA. elbgsl@rit.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5077-7692
Yasha RohwerHumanities and Social Sciences, Oregon Institute of Technology, 27500 SW Parkway Ave, Wilsonville, OR, 97070, USA.
Michele WeberIndependent Researcher, 101 Strathmore Place, Los Gatos, CA, 95032, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Portfolio approaches have gained support in conservation as they offer advantages similar to well-balanced investment portfolios. In this essay, we argue there are also ethical reasons to support portfolio approaches to conservation problems. First, we argue that value pluralism-the thesis that there are many diverse values, as opposed to a singular value-is the appropriate way to think about the value of ecosystems. We then argue that accepting value pluralism favors portfolio approaches to solving conservation problems because portfolios offer more chances to satisfy diverse values. Finally, we trace further implications for constructing conservation portfolios consistent with value pluralism. Specifically, portfolio planning should embrace inclusive decision-making, invest in diverse strategic assets, construct ladders of conservation solutions, and share knowledge and understanding widely to foster synergy across and between portfolios. A portfolio approach is more than a practical way to solve conservation problems: it is also ethically justified.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesDecision MakingEcosystemCollaborationConservation planningEnvironmental valuesInclusive decision-makingPortfolio approachesValue pluralism

Identifiers

PMID41795772
PMCPMC13554025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.