{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03768844221105527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04773869346733668, 'mean_word_length': 5.697478991596639, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Opportunism, Threats, and the Evolution of Systematic Conservation Planning

Systematic conservation planning (Margules & Pressey 2000) is approaching its 25th birthday (Pressey 2002). The field has produced many hundreds of scientific publications. More important, its science is increasingly influencing the decisions of organizations (Groves et al. 2002), shaping legislation and policy (Environment Australia 2001; Reyers et al. 2007), and achieving results on the ground and in the water (Finkel 1998; Pressey 1998; Airame 2005; Fernandes et al. 2005). There is, of course, much room for improvement, but systematic conservation planning is progressively expanding its scope and perspectives and becoming more effective at synthesizing lines of thought that were previously poorly connected.