Emma Richardson

23 days ago

• I think these articles are interesting - the first article highlights to me the huge challenges we face in conservation - we need to be all things - winners and losers and even assess why we failed in the first place. Those who work in conservation (in my experience) don't have time (or money) to ponder and wonder why we failed - we just need to continue the battle - addressing public perceptions, training people to undertake solution based approaches and understanding the critical issues that occur in specific habitats at particular times - and how to manage this. The 2nd article feels like a square peg for a round hole. Each habitat or area has its own needs and only by spending time in these areas to you learn and understand about their protection requirements. Having a "tool" that intends to assess all habitats in all areas when the optimal time to act for protection seems to me very arrogant - as 1 tool can't possibly take into account every single part of a habitat in any area and understand its importance. For example some habitats change slowly (forests) others (like marine areas) can respond very quickly to protection so having a tool like mentioned in the article seems a wee bit over the top. Anyway just my opinion. 
• I agree with some points in the first article - conservation is complex and there is not a simple solution when you are dealing with groups of stakeholders from different perspectives and walks of life. Failure is real but when you are competing for funding - nobody acknowledges failures or wants to advertise this. We can always learn from our mistakes - but not advertise them - as who would fund us? In the 2nd article - I am struggling to agree with the points made - I understand that this tool can help to save money in the long run but the "do something" principle sits better with me. I feel this is another way scientists can "control" what happens on the ground without truely understanding what is happening at a particular habitat. 
• I have encountered many of these problems in my work but I think that to truely understand and support conservation, you (an individual or organisation) needs to spend time in the place, learn from the indigenous people and observe. This can only be done over time and by being in that place - not sitting in an office or using a tool. If we had unlimited money and unlimited time our world would be a different place, but we don't have either so I think it needs to be a balanced approach and guided by people who know the land (or sea) area that is protected.

Alejandro Javier Diaz Petit

20 days ago

A very good article. Truly, the best lessons learned come from failure, and this article is a perfect fit because I'm trying to address the topic and didn't know how to begin. There's very little information to be gained from failures, and a lot of generalities.

Abbie

10 days ago

I agree with the first article that the failures in projects aren't talked about enough and yet these are the biggest learning opportunities. If this information was regulalry published in articles it could create a much stronger scientific network. It may also enable future projects to undergo less problems and be more successful sooner.

The second article raises a good point about striking the tricky balance of how much research before executuing a project. However, it didn't seem very clear as to what the calculation was to achieve the ideal outcome. I clicked through to the article and read the abstract which gave a bit more info and scanned some of the diagrams throughout the article.