共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
A Science for Survival: Values and Conservation Biology 总被引:3,自引:0,他引:3
Practice of conservation biology that does not actively and continuously question the values that shape it is self-defeating: Conservation biology is inescapably normative. Advocacy for the preservation of biodiversity is part of the scientific practice of conservation biology. If the editorial policy of or the publications in Conservation Biology direct the discipline toward an "objective, value-free" approach, then they do not educate and transform society but rather narrow the focus to the "object of knowledge" (be this species, gene pools, landscapes, or ecosystems). To pretend that the acquisition of "positive knowledge" alone will avert mass extinctions is misguided. Conservation biologists should reflect on the constitutive values (especially contextual, but also methodological and bias) underlying their research programs and policy recommendations. Such reflection is itself an inherent element of scientific objectivity and takes into account the social nature of scientific knowledge. Without openly acknowledging such a perspective, conservation biology could become merely a subdiscipline of biology, intellectually and functionally sterile and incapable of averting an anthropogenic mass extinction. 相似文献
2.
3.
4.
5.
Brent M. Matsuda 《Conservation biology》1997,11(6):1449-1450
6.
7.
Conservation Science and NGOs 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca 《Conservation biology》2003,17(2):345-347
8.
JIM C. MANOLIS KAI M. CHAN† MYRA E. FINKELSTEIN‡ SCOTT STEPHENS§ CARA R. NELSON JACQUALINE B. GRANT†† MICHAEL P. DOMBECK‡‡ 《Conservation biology》2009,23(4):879-886
Abstract: Leadership is a critical tool for expanding the influence of conservation science, but recent advances in leadership concepts and practice remain underutilized by conservation scientists. Furthermore, an explicit conceptual foundation and definition of leadership in conservation science are not available in the literature. Here we drew on our diverse leadership experiences, our reading of leadership literature, and discussions with selected conservation science leaders to define conservation-science leadership, summarize an exploratory set of leadership principles that are applicable to conservation science, and recommend actions to expand leadership capacity among conservation scientists and practitioners. We define 2 types of conservation-science leadership: shaping conservation science through path-breaking research, and advancing the integration of conservation science into policy, management, and society at large. We focused on the second, integrative type of leadership because we believe it presents the greatest opportunity for improving conservation effectiveness. We identified 8 leadership principles derived mainly from the "adaptive leadership" literature: recognize the social dimension of the problem; cycle frequently through action and reflection; get and maintain attention; combine strengths of multiple leaders; extend your reach through networks of relationships; strategically time your effort; nurture productive conflict; and cultivate diversity. Conservation scientists and practitioners should strive to develop themselves as leaders, and the Society for Conservation Biology, conservation organizations, and academia should support this effort through professional development, mentoring, teaching, and research. 相似文献
9.
Abstract: Frustration with the lack of action on conservation issues by governments has sparked debate around the policy role of conservation biologists. We analyzed the political economy of conservation biology, that is, of the dynamics of the political and economic structures within which conservation biology operates, and we suggest more productive means for conservation biologists to achieve conservation goals. Within the modern state, conservation goals are marginalized because the growth needs of industrial capital have the highest priority. Environmental advocacy within this system largely addresses only proximate concerns and has limited success. Science is a product of modern society, but scientists now need to foster novel institutional arrangements in which humans can function within the limits of natural systems. This entails a larger recognition of the inherent contradictions residing within current institutions that themselves depend on unsustainably high resource flows. As one critical counterbalance to these institutions, we discuss community-based management and research as primary institutions through which sustainable use of natural resources might be achieved. 相似文献
10.
11.
ANDREW S. PULLIN RÁS BÁLDI†§§ OZGUN EMRE CAN‡ MARTIN DIETERICH§ VASSILIKI KATI BARBARA LIVOREIL†† GABOR LÖVEI‡‡ BARBARA MIHÓK§§ OWEN NEVIN NURIA SELVA††† ISABEL SOUSA-PINTO‡‡‡ 《Conservation biology》2009,23(4):818-824
Abstract: Europe is one of the world's most densely populated continents and has a long history of human-dominated land- and seascapes. Europe is also at the forefront of developing and implementing multinational conservation efforts. In this contribution, we describe some top policy issues in Europe that need to be informed by high-quality conservation science. These include evaluation of the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network of protected sites, implications of rapid economic and subsequent land-use change in Central and Eastern Europe, conservation of marine biodiversity and sustainability of fisheries, the effect of climate change on movement of species in highly fragmented landscapes, and attempts to assess the economic value of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Broad policy issues such as those identified are not easily amenable to scientific experiment. A key challenge at the science–policy interface is to identify the research questions underlying these problem areas so that conservation science can provide evidence to underpin future policy development . 相似文献
12.
CLARE E. ASLAN MALIN L. PINSKY MAUREEN E. RYAN SARA SOUTHER KIMBERLY A. TERRELL 《Conservation biology》2014,28(2):345-353
Conservation practitioners and scientists are often faced with seemingly intractable problems in which traditional approaches fail. While other sectors (e.g., business) frequently emphasize creative thinking to overcome complex challenges, creativity is rarely identified as an essential skill for conservationists. Yet more creative approaches are urgently needed in the effort to sustain Earth's biodiversity. We identified 4 strategies to develop skills in creative thinking and discuss underlying research and examples supporting each strategy. First, by breaking down barriers between disciplines and surrounding oneself with unfamiliar people, concepts, and perspectives, one can expand base knowledge and experiences and increase the potential for new combinations of ideas. Second, by meeting people where they are (both literally and figuratively), one exposes oneself to new environments and perspectives, which again broadens experiences and increases ability to communicate effectively with stakeholders. Third, by embracing risk responsibly, one is more likely to develop new, nontraditional solutions and be open to high‐impact outcomes. Finally, by following a cycle of learning, struggle, and reflection, one can trigger neurophysiological changes that allow the brain to become more creative. Creativity is a learned trait, rather than an innate skill. It can be actively developed at both the individual and institutional levels, and learning to navigate the relevant social and practical barriers is key to the process. To maximize the success of conservation in the face of escalating challenges, one must take advantage of what has been learned from other disciplines and foster creativity as both a professional skill and an essential component of career training and individual development. Cultivando la Creatividad en la Ciencia de la Conservación 相似文献
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Conservation science is a crisis discipline in which the results of scientific enquiry must be made available quickly to those implementing management. We assessed the extent to which scientific research published since the year 2000 in 20 conservation science journals is publicly available. Of the 19,207 papers published, 1,667 (8.68%) are freely downloadable from an official repository. Moreover, only 938 papers (4.88%) meet the standard definition of open access in which material can be freely reused providing attribution to the authors is given. This compares poorly with a comparable set of 20 evolutionary biology journals, where 31.93% of papers are freely downloadable and 7.49% are open access. Seventeen of the 20 conservation journals offer an open access option, but fewer than 5% of the papers are available through open access. The cost of accessing the full body of conservation science runs into tens of thousands of dollars per year for institutional subscribers, and many conservation practitioners cannot access pay‐per‐view science through their workplace. However, important initiatives such as Research4Life are making science available to organizations in developing countries. We urge authors of conservation science to pay for open access on a per‐article basis or to choose publication in open access journals, taking care to ensure the license allows reuse for any purpose providing attribution is given. Currently, it would cost $51 million to make all conservation science published since 2000 freely available by paying the open access fees currently levied to authors. Publishers of conservation journals might consider more cost effective models for open access and conservation‐oriented organizations running journals could consider a broader range of options for open access to nonmembers such as sponsorship of open access via membership fees. Obtención de Acceso Abierto a la Ciencia de la Conservación 相似文献