Different Ways to Prioritize Species Conversation Project Solution

Different Ways to Prioritize Species Conversation Project

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions

Different Ways to Prioritize Species Conversation Project

For this discussion, you will debate around the different ways to prioritize species

conservation. In about 300 words, compare the pros and cons of various approaches

used by conservation agencies to prioritize funding for projects that focus on

species/populations and express your opinion on which you think is most adequate or

efficient or ethical way to prioritize funding. Some articles to get you started have been

suggested in the optional materials sections.

notes Required

Different Ways to Prioritize Species Conversation Project

Module Notes: Endangered species

conservation https://sway.office.com/eswiBEGYKuSXHSVK?ref=Link

Based on “Endangered species management: approaches and practices for conserving

rare species” – Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners (NCEP) module

presentation (McGowan, Kesler, & Ryan 2010; www.ncep.amnh.org)

Endangered species management: approaches and practices for conserving rare

species  download [DOCX, File Size 203 KB] — NCEP synthesis (McGowan, Kesler, &

Ryan 2010; www.ncep.amnh.org)

Optional

Di Minin, E., & Moilanen, A. (2014). Improving the surrogacy effectiveness of

charismatic megafauna with well-surveyed taxonomic groups and habitat types (Links to

an external site.). Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(2): 281–288. doi:10.1111/1365-

2664.12203. Retrieved from http://vlib.excelsior.edu/login?url=https://search…

McDonald, J. A., Carwardine, J., Joseph, L. N., Klein, C. J., Rout, T. M., Watson, J. E.,

& … Possingham, H. P. (2015). Perspective: Improving policy efficiency and

effectiveness to save more species: A case study of the megadiverse country Australia

(Links to an external site.). Biological Conservation, 182: 102–108.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.030. Retrieved

from http://vlib.excelsior.edu/login?url=https://search…

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Endangered Species (Links to an external site.). Retrieved

from http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species…

How WWF prioritizes species conservation funding.

Hewitt, D. (21 May 2012) The Earth Times Asks: Are Conservation Groups Right to

Prioritize 'Iconic' Species? (Links to an external site.)

An opinion article about prioritizing funding for “iconic” species. Retrieved

from http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/conservatio…

Science Daily. Now is the time to prioritize endangered species, expert says (Links to

an external site.)

An opinion article on a way to make funding more efficient by looking at the plans for the

species listed as endangered in the US. One solution: “A return on investment approach

is one way to allocate limited funds to protecting biodiversity."

Different Ways to Prioritize Species Conversation Project

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Different Ways to Prioritize Species Conversation Project

Different Ways to Prioritize Species Conversation Project

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!