Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conservationists are increasingly leveraging systematic conservation planning (SCP) to inform restoration actions that enhance biodiversity. However, restoration frequently drives ecological transformations at local scales, potentially resulting in trade-offs among wildlife species and communities. The Conservation Interactions Principle (CIP), coined more than 15 years ago, cautions SCP practitioners regarding the importance of jointly and fully evaluating conservation outcomes across the landscape over long timeframes. However, SCP efforts that guide landscape restoration have inadequately addressed the CIP by failing to tabulate the full value of the current ecological state. The increased application of SCP to inform restoration, reliance on increasingly small areas to sustain at-risk species and ecological communities, ineffective considerations for the changing climate, and increasing numbers of at-risk species, are collectively intensifying the need to consider unintended consequences when prioritizing sites for restoration. Improper incorporation of the CIP in SCP may result in inefficient use of conservation resources through opportunity costs and/or conservation actions that counteract one another. We suggest SCP practitioners can avoid these consequences through a more detailed accounting of the current ecological benefits to better address the CIP when conducting restoration planning. Specifically, forming interdisciplinary teams with expertise in the current and desired ecosystem states at candidate conservation sites; improving data availability; modeling and computational advancements; and applying structured decision-making approaches can all improve the integration of the CIP in SCP efforts. Improved trade-off assessment, spanning multiple ecosystems or states, can facilitate efficient, proactive, and coordinated SCP applications across space and time. In doing so, SCP can effectively guide the siting of restoration actions capable of promoting the full suite of biodiversity in a region., (© 2025 The Author(s). Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)