Claire Brown
United Nations Environment Programme
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Claire Brown.
Conservation Biology | 2011
Jon Paul Rodríguez; Kathryn M. Rodríguez-Clark; Jonathan E. M. Baillie; Neville Ash; John Benson; Timothy M. Boucher; Claire Brown; Neil D. Burgess; Ben Collen; Michael Jennings; David A. Keith; Emily Nicholson; Carmen Revenga; Belinda Reyers; Mathieu Rouget; Tammy Smith; Mark Spalding; Andrew Taber; Matt Walpole; Irene Zager; Tara Zamin
Abstract The potential for conservation of individual species has been greatly advanced by the International Union for Conservation of Natures (IUCN) development of objective, repeatable, and transparent criteria for assessing extinction risk that explicitly separate risk assessment from priority setting. At the IV World Conservation Congress in 2008, the process began to develop and implement comparable global standards for ecosystems. A working group established by the IUCN has begun formulating a system of quantitative categories and criteria, analogous to those used for species, for assigning levels of threat to ecosystems at local, regional, and global levels. A final system will require definitions of ecosystems; quantification of ecosystem status; identification of the stages of degradation and loss of ecosystems; proxy measures of risk (criteria); classification thresholds for these criteria; and standardized methods for performing assessments. The system will need to reflect the degree and rate of change in an ecosystems extent, composition, structure, and function, and have its conceptual roots in ecological theory and empirical research. On the basis of these requirements and the hypothesis that ecosystem risk is a function of the risk of its component species, we propose a set of four criteria: recent declines in distribution or ecological function, historical total loss in distribution or ecological function, small distribution combined with decline, or very small distribution. Most work has focused on terrestrial ecosystems, but comparable thresholds and criteria for freshwater and marine ecosystems are also needed. These are the first steps in an international consultation process that will lead to a unified proposal to be presented at the next World Conservation Congress in 2012. Establecimiento de Criterios para la Lista Roja de UICN de Ecosistemas Amenazados Resumen El potencial para la conservación de muchas especies ha avanzado enormemente porque la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) ha desarrollado criterios objetivos, repetibles y transparentes para evaluar el riesgo de extinción que explícitamente separa la evaluación de riesgo de la definición de prioridades. En el IV Congreso Mundial de Conservación en 2008, el proceso comenzó a desarrollar e implementar estándares globales comparables para ecosistemas. Un grupo de trabajo establecido por la UICN ha formulado un sistema inicial de categorías y criterios cuantitativos, análogos a los utilizados para especies, para asignar niveles de amenaza a ecosistemas a niveles local, regional y global. Un sistema final requerirá de definiciones de ecosistemas; cuantificación del estatus de ecosistemas; identificación de las etapas de degradación y pérdida de los ecosistemas; medidas de riesgo (criterios) alternativas; umbrales de clasificación para esos criterios y métodos estandarizados para la realización de evaluaciones. El sistema deberá reflejar el nivel y tasa de cambio en la extensión, composición, estructura y funcionamiento de un ecosistema, y tener sus raíces conceptuales en la teoría ecológica y la investigación empírica. Sobre la base de esos requerimientos y la hipótesis de que el riesgo del ecosistema es una función del riesgo de las especies que lo componen, proponemos un conjunto de 4 criterios: declinaciones recientes en la distribución o funcionamiento ecológica, pérdida total histórica en la distribución o funcionamiento ecológico, distribución pequeña combinada con declinación, o distribución muy pequeña. La mayor parte del trabajo se ha concentrado en ecosistemas terrestres, pero también se requieren umbrales y criterios comparables para ecosistemas dulceacuícolas y marinos. Estos son los primeros pasos de un proceso de consulta internacional que llevará a una propuesta unificada que será presentada en el próximo Congreso Mundial de Conservación en 2012.
Ecology and Evolution | 2014
Kelvin S.-H. Peh; Andrew Balmford; Rob H. Field; Anthony Lamb; Jennifer C. Birch; Richard B. Bradbury; Claire Brown; Stuart H. M. Butchart; Martin Lester; Ross Morrison; Isabel Sedgwick; Chris Soans; Alison J. Stattersfield; Peter Stroh; Ruth D. Swetnam; David H.L. Thomas; Matt Walpole; Stuart Warrington; Francine M.R. Hughes
Restoration of degraded land is recognized by the international community as an important way of enhancing both biodiversity and ecosystem services, but more information is needed about its costs and benefits. In Cambridgeshire, U.K., a long-term initiative to convert drained, intensively farmed arable land to a wetland habitat mosaic is driven by a desire both to prevent biodiversity loss from the nationally important Wicken Fen National Nature Reserve (Wicken Fen NNR) and to increase the provision of ecosystem services. We evaluated the changes in ecosystem service delivery resulting from this land conversion, using a new Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) to estimate biophysical and monetary values of ecosystem services provided by the restored wetland mosaic compared with the former arable land. Overall results suggest that restoration is associated with a net gain to society as a whole of
Archive | 2011
Ronald R. Watson; Steve D. Albon; R. Aspinall; Melanie C. Austen; B. Bardgett; Ian J. Bateman; Pam Berry; W. Bird; Richard S. Bradbury; Claire Brown; J Bulloch; J. Burgess; A. Church; C Christie; Ian Crute; Linda Davies; Gareth Edwards-Jones; B. Emmett; L. G. Firbank; A. H. Fitter; A. Gibson; R. Hails; Roy Haines-Young; A. L. Heathwaite; J. Hopkins; M. Jenkins; Laurence Jones; Georgina M. Mace; Stephen Malcolm; Edward Maltby
199 ha−1y−1, for a one-off investment in restoration of
Ecological Indicators | 2012
Christian Layke; Abisha Mapendembe; Claire Brown; Matt Walpole; Jonathan Winn
2320 ha−1. Restoration has led to an estimated loss of arable production of
Ecosystem services | 2013
Kelvin S.-H. Peh; Andrew Balmford; Richard B. Bradbury; Claire Brown; Stuart H. M. Butchart; Francine M.R. Hughes; Alison J. Stattersfield; David H.L. Thomas; Matt Walpole; Julian Bayliss; David J. Gowing; Julia P. G. Jones; Simon L. Lewis; Mark Mulligan; Bhopal Pandeya; Charlie Stratford; Julian R. Thompson; Kerry Turner; Bhaskar Vira; Simon Willcock; Jennifer C. Birch
2040 ha−1y−1, but estimated gains of
Archive | 2011
Georgina M. Mace; Ian J. Bateman; Steve D. Albon; Andrew Balmford; Claire Brown; A. Church; Roy Haines-Young; Jules Pretty; Rk Turner; Bhaskar Vira; J Winn
671 ha−1y−1 in nature-based recreation,
Ecosystem services | 2014
Jennifer C. Birch; Ishana Thapa; Andrew Balmford; Richard B. Bradbury; Claire Brown; Stuart H. M. Butchart; Hum Gurung; Francine M.R. Hughes; Mark Mulligan; Bhopal Pandeya; Kelvin S.-H. Peh; Alison J. Stattersfield; Matt Walpole; David H.L. Thomas
120 ha−1y−1 from grazing,
Biological Invasions | 2015
Kelvin S.-H. Peh; Andrew Balmford; Jennifer C. Birch; Claire Brown; Stuart H. M. Butchart; James Daley; Jeffrey Dawson; Gerard Gray; Francine M.R. Hughes; Stephen Mendes; James Millett; Alison J. Stattersfield; David H.L. Thomas; Matt Walpole; Richard B. Bradbury
48 ha−1y−1 from flood protection, and a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worth an estimated
Archive | 2011
Ronald R. Watson; Steve D. Albon; R. Aspinall; Melanie C. Austen; B. Bardgett; Ian J. Bateman; P. Berry; W. Bird; Richard B. Bradbury; Claire Brown; James M. Bullock; J. Burgess; A. Church; C Christie; I. Crute; Linda Davies; G. Edwards-Jones; B. Emmett; L. G. Firbank; A. Fitter; A. Gibson; R. Hails; Roy Haines-Young; Heathwaite A. L.; Louise Heathwaite; J. Hopkins; M. Jenkins; L. Jones; Georgina M. Mace; S. Malcolm
72 ha−1y−1. Management costs have also declined by an estimated
Ecosystem services | 2016
Kelvin S.-H. Peh; Ishana Thapa; Menuka Basnyat; Andrew Balmford; Gopal Prakash Bhattarai; Richard B. Bradbury; Claire Brown; Stuart H. M. Butchart; Maheshwar Dhakal; Hum Gurung; Francine M.R. Hughes; Mark Mulligan; Bhopal Pandeya; Alison J. Stattersfield; David H.L. Thomas; Matt Walpole; Jennifer C. Merriman
1325 ha−1y−1. Despite uncertainties associated with all measured values and the conservative assumptions used, we conclude that there was a substantial gain to society as a whole from this land-use conversion. The beneficiaries also changed from local arable farmers under arable production to graziers, countryside users from towns and villages, and the global community, under restoration. We emphasize that the values reported here are not necessarily transferable to other sites.