Bolder Thinking For Conservation
Abstract
SHOULD CONSERVATION TARGETS, such as the proportion of a region to be placed in protected areas, be socially acceptable from the start? Or should they be based unapologetically on the best available science and expert opinion, then address issues of practicality later? Such questions strike to the philosophical core of conservation. Ambitious targets are often considered radical and value laden, whereas modest targets are ostensibly more objective and reasonable. The personal values of experts are impossible to escape in either case. Conservation professionals of a biocentric bent might indeed err on the side of protecting too much. Anthropocentric bias, however, more commonly affects target setting. The pro-growth norms of global society foster timidity among conservation professionals, steering them toward conformity with the global economic agenda and away from acknowledging what is ultimately needed to sustain life on Earth.
Publication Date
1-1-2015
Publication Title
Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation
Number of Pages
16-20
Document Type
Article; Book Chapter
Personal Identifier
scopus
DOI Link
https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-551-9_2
Copyright Status
Unknown
Socpus ID
84945431910 (Scopus)
Source API URL
https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84945431910
STARS Citation
Noss, Reed F.; Dobson, Andrew P.; Baldwin, Robert; Beier, Paul; and Davis, Cory R., "Bolder Thinking For Conservation" (2015). Scopus Export 2015-2019. 1349.
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/scopus2015/1349