Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca; Kate A. Brauman; Jeannine Cavender-Bares; Sandra Diaz; Gabriela Teixeira Duarte; Brian J. Enquist; Lucas A. Garibaldi; Jonas Geldmann; Benjamin S. Halpern; Thomas W. Hertel; Colin K. Khoury; Joana Madeira Krieger; Sandra Lavorel; Thomas Mueller; Rachel A. Neugarten; Jesus Pinto-Ledezma; Stephen Polasky; Andy Purvis; Victoria Reyes-Garcia; Patrick R. Roehrdanz; Lynne J. Shannon; M. Rebecca Shaw; Bernardo B. N. Strassburg; Jason M. Tylianakis; Peter H. Vergurg; Piero Visconti and Noelia Zafra-Calvo
To the Editor — Wyborn and Evansargue that global priority maps for conservation have questionable utility and may crowd out local and more contextual research. While we agree with the authors’ central argument that effective and equitable conservation must be rooted at local scales, the assertion that “conservation needs to break free from global priority mapping” presents a false dichotomy. We should not think in terms of a binary choice of methods (local or global), but rather recognize that information across scales will have the most relevance and power in the future. Wyborn and Evans challenge the creators of global maps to identify their theory of change. Here, we outline six major areas of contribution relevant for priority setting and other conservation-related decisions.