Throughout, we touch on examples from around the globe, with the goal of challenging conservationists to question popular conceptual models relentlessly and embrace new information even when it challenges deeply held assumptions.
Indeed, instead of resilience what may be needed is “resourcefulness” (MacKinnon and Derickson 2013). Based on a systematic review quantifying the rate of recovery following oil spills and disturbances to corals, we suggest that, for integrated human-natural systems, managing for directed change may be more effective than trying to maintain ecosystems in some semblance of an original state. It is our view that society is more likely to maintain biodiversity successfully if it embraces unexaggerated assessments of risk and a serious examination of costs, uncertainties, and diverse stakeholder interests and rights. Meanwhile, the precautionary approach can exclude proactive action and experimental or adaptive approaches to uncertain futures. We argue that an inflexible regulation that is won via the specter of apocalyptic environmental disasters too often alienates key constituencies and fails to acknowledge the inherent uncertainty regarding the outcomes of conservation interventions. The conceptual models we question are 1) the management of risk via a precautionary approach and 2) a tendency to manage ecosystems for simplistic notions of resilience that resist, rather than accept and possibly direct, change. The conservation patterns of thinking that we question are 1) embracing the notion of “nature on the brink” and 2) an overreliance on prohibitive regulation without flexibility and incentives. We argue that several of conservation's deeply entrenched memes and conceptual models may be ill-suited to today's rapidly changing and uncertain world. It is simply an observation that debate in this arena frequently veers into the philosophical, and views that challenge widely held beliefs may be painted as heretical, as opposed to being discussed in terms of scientific evidence (Cafaro and Primack 2014). This is not to say that scorn of assaults on consensus views is unfounded or that biodiversity is in good shape. Our goal is to challenge conservationists to question popular conceptual models relentlessly and embrace new information, even when it challenges deeply held assumptions.Īll scientific disciplines include debates and controversies, but few can rival conservation-the application of social and natural sciences to maximize benefits jointly for nature and people (Kareiva and Marvier 2012)-for the passion with which almost any critique of conventional wisdom is scorned (Pimm 2014 Marvier 2014), or for the tendency to make dramatically dire predictions despite huge uncertainty (Ellis 2003). Ecosystem change is more the rule than the exception, and while academic ecologists have noted this to be the case, the ramifications of this pattern have yet to be embraced by resource managers. Finally, based on a systematic review of ecosystem change following disturbance, we find simplistic models of ecosystem resilience to be poorly supported by data. Third, we suggest that precautionary approaches to conservation regulation are out of step with a rapidly changing world facing uncertain shocks and disruptions. We instead advocate for experimentation, flexibility, and pragmatism. Second, we question conservation regulations that are inflexible and insensitive to costs, uncertainty, and competing values. First, we argue that framing conservation messages as crises typically is not an effective strategy.
Inspired by Mark Plummer's legacy of questioning conservation and environmental orthodoxy, we challenge several common conservation memes and patterns of thinking.
0 kommentar(er)
