Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
The discussions reflect a strong agreement with the article, with participants emphasizing the bias towards remote, less threatened lands, illustrated by phrases like 'rock & ice protected area bias' and questions about case studies. The tone is analytical and supportive, underlining the relevance of improving protected area siting for effective conservation.
Most discussions acknowledge and support the article's points about biases in protected area placement, highlighting the importance of addressing these biases for better conservation outcomes.
The discussions demonstrate a high level of curiosity about the implications of protected area biases and how they affect land use and conservation strategies.
Participants reference specific concepts from the publication, asking about case studies and discussing the broader implications, indicating active engagement.
While the discussions underline the relevance of the article, they mostly focus on understanding or supporting its findings rather than proposing transformative changes, leading to moderate impact scores.
@BiodiversityGuy Protected Area research may be a good source for this. Some research shows PAs more likely to occur on steep/rocky, inaccessible and/or non-arable land, leaving arable lands to be cleared. This paper refers to it as a “rock & ice” protected area bias: https://t.co/aDlPT7qHi8
@mneves71 Sorry if I wasn't clear. PAs are often found in areas that are less likely to face land use change - e.g. High elevations, steep slopes, far from cities and roads. Was the case in this PA? Are there any publications on this case study? https://t.co/ks8el6M3Zq
Most protected areas are located in remote, less accessible regions, reducing their impact on land conservation. Revising siting strategies to target threat-prone areas could improve conservation outcomes and policy…
Most protected areas are located in remote, less threatened regions, reducing their effectiveness. This video discusses how current siting strategies may need revision to focus on areas facing greater threats, enhancing…
Most protected areas are situated in remote, less accessible regions, reducing their impact on land conservation. Revising siting strategies to target areas facing greater threats can improve conservation outcomes and…
@BiodiversityGuy Protected Area research may be a good source for this. Some research shows PAs more likely to occur on steep/rocky, inaccessible and/or non-arable land, leaving arable lands to be cleared. This paper refers to it as a “rock & ice” protected area bias: https://t.co/aDlPT7qHi8
@emiel_delange A classic I would say https://t.co/YdDQga7cys
@mneves71 Sorry if I wasn't clear. PAs are often found in areas that are less likely to face land use change - e.g. High elevations, steep slopes, far from cities and roads. Was the case in this PA? Are there any publications on this case study? https://t.co/ks8el6M3Zq
JL
PM
PV