Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Conflicting rationalities limit the uptake of spatial conservation prioritizations

Nature Reviews Biodiversity volume 1, pages 279–281 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Spatial conservation prioritization offers a scientific framework for decision-making, yet its practical uptake remains limited. Here, I argue that incorporating social and political dimensions into conservation prioritization — rather than focusing solely on technical and economic aspects — would enhance progress towards biodiversity targets by ensuring closer alignment with real-world governance dynamics.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Towards a spatial conservation prioritization framework that reconciles conflicting rationalities.

References

  1. Margules, C. R. & Pressey, R. L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Moilanen, A., Wilson, K. A. & Possingham, H. P. (eds) Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

  3. New biodiversity targets cannot afford to fail. Nature 578, 337–338 (2020).

  4. Simon, H. A. Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in Society Setting (Wiley, 1957).

  5. Arrow, K. J. Social Choice and Individual Values (Wiley, 1951).

  6. Gossa, C., Fisher, M. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. The research–implementation gap: how practitioners and researchers from developing countries perceive the role of peer-reviewed literature in conservation science. Oryx 49, 80–87 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosemartin, A. et al. Lessons learned in knowledge co-production for climate-smart decision-making. Environ. Sci. Policy 141, 178–187 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Knight, A. T. et al. Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conserv. Biol. 22, 610–617 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cobb, G., Nalau, J. & Chauvenet, A. L. M. Global trends in geospatial conservation planning: a review of priorities and missing dimensions. Front. Ecol. Evol. 11, 1209620 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garcia, C. A. et al. Strategy games to improve environmental policymaking. Nat. Sustain. 5, 464–471 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Apostolopoulou, E. & Pantis, J. D. Conceptual gaps in the national strategy for the implementation of the European Natura 2000 conservation policy in Greece. Biol. Conserv. 142, 221–237 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Araújo, M. B., Lobo, J. M. & Moreno, J. C. The effectiveness of Iberian protected areas in conserving terrestrial biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1423–1432 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fernandes, L. et al. Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1733–1744 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.B.A. acknowledges support from the European Union’s Horizon Europe under grant agreement no. 101060429 (NatureConnect). He also benefited from support while visiting the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST) through the Theoretical Sciences Visiting Program (TSVP). He extends thanks to J. Carvalho for developing an earlier version of Fig. 1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biogeography and Global Change, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Madrid, Spain

    Miguel B. Araújo

  2. Biodiversity Research Chair, Mediterranean Institute for Agriculture, Environment and Development (MED), Global Change and Sustainability Institute (CHANGE), Institute for Advanced Studies and Research (IIFA), Évora, Portugal

    Miguel B. Araújo

  3. Theoretical Sciences Visiting Program, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University, Onna, Japan

    Miguel B. Araújo

Authors
  1. Miguel B. Araújo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel B. Araújo.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Araújo, M.B. Conflicting rationalities limit the uptake of spatial conservation prioritizations. Nat. Rev. Biodivers. 1, 279–281 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00042-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00042-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing