Reply to White et al.: Providing perspective on ocean conservation targets

Bethan Christine O'Leary; Marit Winther-Janson; John Bainbridge; Jemma Aitken; Julie Patricia Hawkins; Callum Michael Roberts

doi:10.1111/conl.12380

Reply to White et al.: Providing perspective on ocean conservation targets

Bethan Christine O'Leary, Marit Winther-Janson, John Bainbridge, Jemma Aitken, Julie Patricia Hawkins, Callum Michael Roberts

Environment and Geography

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Abstract

In O’Leary et al. (2016), we undertook a quantitative synthesis (rather than a true statistical meta-analysis) of research to consider how much of the sea should be protected to achieve various conservation and management goals. We aimed to provide perspective on the appropriateness of global marine protected area coverage targets, particularly the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14/Convention on Biological Diversity goals to protect >10% of the sea by 2020. White et al. (2017) question the methodology of our approach, and we offer the following response.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	375-376
Journal	Conservation Letters
Volume	10
Issue number	3
Early online date	19 Jun 2017
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12380
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 19 Jun 2017

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

10.1111/conl.12380

O'Leary_et_al-2017-Conservation_Letters
© 2017, The Authors.
Final published version, 138 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{223c0481dd144f64b4a4f3b9cc8056c8,

title = "Reply to White et al.: Providing perspective on ocean conservation targets",

abstract = "In O{\textquoteright}Leary et al. (2016), we undertook a quantitative synthesis (rather than a true statistical meta-analysis) of research to consider how much of the sea should be protected to achieve various conservation and management goals. We aimed to provide perspective on the appropriateness of global marine protected area coverage targets, particularly the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14/Convention on Biological Diversity goals to protect >10% of the sea by 2020. White et al. (2017) question the methodology of our approach, and we offer the following response.",

author = "O'Leary, {Bethan Christine} and Marit Winther-Janson and John Bainbridge and Jemma Aitken and Hawkins, {Julie Patricia} and Roberts, {Callum Michael}",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2017, The Authors. ",

year = "2017",

month = jun,

day = "19",

doi = "10.1111/conl.12380",

language = "English",

volume = "10",

pages = "375--376",

journal = "Conservation Letters",

issn = "1755-263X",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reply to White et al.: Providing perspective on ocean conservation targets

AU - O'Leary, Bethan Christine

AU - Winther-Janson, Marit

AU - Bainbridge, John

AU - Aitken, Jemma

AU - Hawkins, Julie Patricia

AU - Roberts, Callum Michael

PY - 2017/6/19

Y1 - 2017/6/19

N2 - In O’Leary et al. (2016), we undertook a quantitative synthesis (rather than a true statistical meta-analysis) of research to consider how much of the sea should be protected to achieve various conservation and management goals. We aimed to provide perspective on the appropriateness of global marine protected area coverage targets, particularly the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14/Convention on Biological Diversity goals to protect >10% of the sea by 2020. White et al. (2017) question the methodology of our approach, and we offer the following response.

AB - In O’Leary et al. (2016), we undertook a quantitative synthesis (rather than a true statistical meta-analysis) of research to consider how much of the sea should be protected to achieve various conservation and management goals. We aimed to provide perspective on the appropriateness of global marine protected area coverage targets, particularly the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14/Convention on Biological Diversity goals to protect >10% of the sea by 2020. White et al. (2017) question the methodology of our approach, and we offer the following response.

U2 - 10.1111/conl.12380

DO - 10.1111/conl.12380

M3 - Article

SN - 1755-263X

VL - 10

SP - 375

EP - 376

JO - Conservation Letters

JF - Conservation Letters

IS - 3

ER -