English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In their recent article, Karp et al. (1) address a serious problem inherent in nature conservation: the necessity for prioritization when faced with competing conservation objectives (cf. ref. 2). In principle, the authors (1) provide a very useful approach toward tackling this problem. However, a closer look reveals at least one substantial flaw: the underlying typology of conservation objectives fails to serve Karp et al.’s purpose adequately. Although Karp et al. (1) explicitly distinguish seven types of conservation objectives, their approach is hampered by the problem identified by Game et al. (2) that “[c]onservation planners often have trouble explicitly …

Inquiry into congruencies and trade-offs among conservation objectives requires a consistent typology of homogeneous types