The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Testing Hypotheses for the Success of Different Conservation Strategies
Abstract
Abstract: Evaluations of the success of different conservation strategies are still in their infancy. We used four different measures of project outcomes—ecological, economic, attitudinal, and behavioral—to test hypotheses derived from the assumptions that underlie contemporary conservation solutions. Our hypotheses concerned the effects of natural resource utilization, market integration, decentralization, and community homogeneity on project success. We reviewed the conservation and development literature and used a specific protocol to extract and code the information in a sample of papers. Although our results are by no means conclusive and suffer from the paucity of high‐quality data and independent monitoring (80% of the original sample of 124 projects provided inadequate information for use in this study), they show that permitted use of natural resources, market access, and greater community involvement in the conservation project are all important factors for a successful outcome. Without better monitoring schemes in place, it is still impossible to provide a systematic evaluation of how different strategies are best suited to different conservation challenges.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
Redford, K. H. (1992) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1311860 · Cited by 1,219
Cited by
Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems
Ostrom, E. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.3.641 · Cited by 4,529
A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas
Ostrom, E. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0702288104 · Cited by 2,728
Understanding and managing conservation conflicts
Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A., Lambert, R. A., Linnell, J. D. C., Watt, A., et al. (2013) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021 · Cited by 1,361
Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices
A., A., M., B., W.D., S., L., V., & eds (2012) · Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooks · doi:10.17528/cifor/003805 · Cited by 477
Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Coria, J., & Calfucura, E. (2012) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.024 · Cited by 419
Metadata
- Authors
- BROOKS, J. S., FRANZEN, M. A., HOLMES, C. M., GROTE, M. N., & MULDER, M. B.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-07-21
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1528-1538
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2159331544
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Testing Hypotheses for the Success of Different Conservation Strategies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00506.x
- The paper
- BROOKS, J. S., FRANZEN, M. A., HOLMES, C. M., GROTE, M. N., & MULDER, M. B. (2006). Testing Hypotheses for the Success of Different Conservation Strategies. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00506.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
