Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: A review of political targets and biological needs

    Authors

    L. K. Svancara; R. Brannon; J. M. Scott; C. R. Groves; R. F. Noss;R. L. Pressey

    Comments

    Authors: contact us about adding a copy of your work at STARS@ucf.edu

    Abbreviated Journal Title

    Bioscience

    Keywords

    biodiversity; conservation goals; conservation targets; policy; science; BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION; SELECTION ALGORITHMS; RESERVE SELECTION; PROTECTED AREAS; UNITED-STATES; SOUTH-AFRICA; POPULATION; HABITAT; EXTINCTION; LANDSCAPES; Biology

    Abstract

    "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.

    Journal Title

    Bioscience

    Volume

    55

    Issue/Number

    11

    Publication Date

    1-1-2005

    Document Type

    Article

    Language

    English

    First Page

    989

    Last Page

    995

    WOS Identifier

    WOS:000233252900013

    ISSN

    0006-3568

    Share

    COinS