Conservation Planning Tools Assessment

Tools: Awareness, Use, and Proficiency

74% of all respondents reported that their organization uses GIS tools either frequently (34%) or always (40%) (see Figure 4 below).

Figure 4: How often does your organization utilize Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tools for conservation planning (%)?

Figure 4. How often does your organization use GIS tools for conservation planning?

Community VIZ was the most cited (42%) tool among those who were aware. UrbanSim was the second most cited at 23%. The rest of the tools were significantly less well known, mostly unknown. 51% of all respondents reported awareness of at least one tool. 49% gave no answer (see Figure 5 below).

Figure 5: Which of the following open space conservation planning tools are you aware of (%)?

Figure 5. Which of the following open space conservation planning tools are you aware of?

51% (960) of respondents reported awareness of at least one of the conservation planning tools listed.
Of the 51% (960) aware of at least one tool, less than half claimed to actually use them in their work (see Figure 6 below). Furthermore, those who used the tools reported that they provided minimal usefulness to their organization/primary jurisdiction (see Figure 7 below).

Figure 6: Respondents who were "aware of tool, but do not use"

Tool	Aware, But Don't Use (Percent/Number)	No Answer (Percent/Number)
UrbanSim	60% (259)	12% (53)
Miradi	59% (22)	22% (8)
Climate Wizard	56% (60)	14% (15)
Community VIZ	53% (415)	9% (74)
FunConn	53% (18)	24% (8)
Maxent or Other SDM	53% (17)	22% (7)
Circuitscape	52% (38)	19% (14)
Corridor Designer	50% (62)	10% (13)
Natureserve Vista	49% (60)	11% (14)
MARXAN or Zonation	47% (23)	20% (10)
RAMAS GIS	46% (45)	10% (10)

Figure 7: Usefulness: Those who ranked each tool a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale, whereby 5=very useful and 1=not at all useful

Tool	Ranked 4 or 5 (Percent/Number)
Natureserve Vista	23% (28)
RAMAS GIS	22% (22)
Corridor Designer	19% (23)
MARXAN/Zonation	18% (9)
FunConn	18% (6)
Community VIZ	16% (125)
Miradi	11% (4)
Climate Wizard	10% (11)
Circuitscape	10% (7)
Maxent/other SDM	9% (3)
UrbanSim	9% (39)

The number of people who reported any level of proficiency in the tools was very low (see Figure 8 below)

Figure 8: Proficiency: Those who ranked their skill level for each tool, whereby 5=very proficient and 1=not at all proficient

Tool	Ranked 4 or 5 (Percent/Number)
Miradi	57% (4)
FunConn	50% (4)
Maxent or other SDM	38% (3)
Natureserve Vista	22% (11)
MARXAN/Zonation	19% (3)
Corridor Designer	18% (9)
Circuitscape	14% (3)
RAMAS GIS	14% (6)
Community VIZ	12% (35)
Climate Wizard	6% (2)
UrbanSim	6% (7)

As a multi-part question, the drop-off rate from respondents' awareness to their actual use and, finally, to their proficiency in each tool is extremely high. In other words, very few reported using these tools in their work, and for the ones that have used them; their proficiency is very low. Figure 9 below illustrates the steep drop-off rate. The blue lines represent the total number of respondents from the assessment. The red lines show how many respondents were aware of each tool. The green lines show those who actually use the tool in their work. And the purple, which is barely visible, represents the number of proficient users for each tool.

Figure 9: Awareness, Use, & Proficiency of Conservation Planning Tools

Figure 9. Awareness and use of conservation tools chart

LEGEND
Blue: Total Number of Respondents
Red: Total Number Aware of Tool
Green: Total Number of Tool Users
Purple: Total Number of Proficient Users