Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: A review of political targets and biological needs
Abbreviated Journal Title
biodiversity; conservation goals; conservation targets; policy; science; BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION; SELECTION ALGORITHMS; RESERVE SELECTION; PROTECTED AREAS; UNITED-STATES; SOUTH-AFRICA; POPULATION; HABITAT; EXTINCTION; LANDSCAPES; Biology
"How much is enough?" is a question that conservationists, scientists, and policymakers have struggled with for years in conservation planning. To answer this question, and to ensure the long-term protection of biodiversity, many have sought to establish quantitative targets or goals based on the percentage of area in a country or region that is conserved. In recent years, policy-driven targets have frequently been faulted for their lack of biological foundation. lit this manuscript, we reviewed 159 articles reporting or proposing 222 conservation targets and assessed differences between policy-driven and evidence-based approaches. Our findings suggest that the average percentages of area recommended for evidence-based targets were nearly three times as high as those recommended in policy-driven approaches. Implementing a minimalist, policy-driven approach to conservation could result in unanticipated decreases in species numbers and increases in the number of endangered species.
"Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: A review of political targets and biological needs" (2005). Faculty Bibliography 2000s. 5712.