Skip to content

Think regionally, act locally: Perspectives on co-design of spatial conservation prioritization tools and why end-user engagement altered our approach

Published Article

United States

Publication date: July 7, 2024

View resource

Coproducing an SDSS for sagebrush conservation showed that end‑user trust in data, transparent assumptions, and small‑group virtual workshops improved engagement. Users valued regional context but preferred local‑scale tools, guiding a shift toward locally focused designs that can scale up.

Subject Tags

  • Data Science and Artificial Intelligence
  • Conservation Technology
  • Ecosystem management

Abstract

Coproduction represents an inclusive approach for developing decision-support resources because it seeks to integrate scientific knowledge and end-user needs. Unfortunately, spatial decision support systems (SDSS) coproduction has sometimes resulted in limited utility for end-users, partially due to scarce SDSS coproduction guidance. To initiate coproduction, we held a series of workshops to co-design a spatial conservation prioritization tool for sagebrush ecosystems in the western United States. We share four themes derived from participant feedback and our reflections to guide future SDSS codesign efforts. We found end-user confidence in data inputs and transparency regarding SDSS assumptions generated trust. Workshop participants noted our virtual format, with smaller break-out groups, effectively facilitated discussions. Ultimately, end-users appreciated the conservation context provided by regional-scale SDSS but preferred local-scale prioritization efforts for site-level planning. Therefore, we are shifting ongoing co-design efforts to consider local-scale tool development, which can scale up to larger geographic extents.

Citation

Van Lanen, N.J., Shyvers, J.E., Tarbox, B.C., Monroe, A.P., Anderson, P.J., Jones, D.K., Dahm, K.G. and Aldridge, C.L., 2024. Think regionally, act locally: Perspectives on co‐design of spatial conservation prioritization tools and why end‐user engagement altered our approach. Conservation Science and Practice, 6(7), p.e13154. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13154

TNC Authors