Usefulness of the Umbrella Species Concept as a Conservation Tool

Abstract:  In the face of limited funding, knowledge, and time for action, conservation efforts often rely on shortcuts for the maintenance of biodiversity. The umbrella species concept—proposed as a way to use species requirements as a basis for conservation planning—has recently received growing attention. We reviewed the literature to evaluate the concept's general usefulness. An umbrella species is defined as a species whose conservation is expected to confer protection to a large number of naturally co-occurring species. This concept has been proposed as a tool for determining the minimum size for conservation areas, selecting sites to be included in reserve networks, and setting minimum standards for the composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems. Among the species suggested as potential umbrellas, most are large mammals and birds, but invertebrates are increasingly being considered. Eighteen research papers, most of which were based on hypothetical reserves or conservation networks, have provided evaluations of umbrella species schemes. These show that single-species umbrellas cannot ensure the conservation of all co-occurring species because some species are inevitably limited by ecological factors that are not relevant to the umbrella species. Moreover, they provide evidence that umbrella species from a given higher taxon may not necessarily confer protection to assemblages from other taxa. On the other hand, multi-species strategies based on systematic selection procedures (e.g., the focal species approach) offer more compelling evidence of the usefulness of the concept. Evaluations of umbrella species schemes could be improved by including measures of population viability and data from many years, as well as by comparing the efficiency of the proposed scheme with alternative management strategies.     

Ecological Networks as Conceptual Frameworks or Operational Tools in Conservation

Abstract:  The establishment of ecological networks (ENs) has been proposed as an ideal way to counteract the increasing fragmentation of natural ecosystems and as a necessary complement to the establishment of protected areas for biodiversity conservation. This conservation tool, which comprises core areas, corridors, and buffer areas, has attracted the attention of several national and European institutions. It is thought that ENs can connect habitat patches and thus enable species to move across unsuitable areas. In Europe, however, ENs are proposed as an oversimplification of complex ecological concepts, and we maintain that they are of limited use for biodiversity conservation for several reasons. The ENs are species specific and operate on species-dependent scales. In addition, the information needed for their implementation is only available for a handful of species. To overcome these limitations, ENs have been proposed on a landscape scale (and for selected "focal" species), but there is no indication that the structural composition of core areas, corridors, and buffer areas could ensure the functional connectivity and improve the viability of more than a few species. The theory behind ENs fails to provide sufficient practical information on how to build them (e.g., width, shape, structure, content). In fact, no EN so far has been validated in practice (ensuring connectivity and increasing overall biodiversity conservation), and there are no signs that validation will be possible in the near future. In view of these limitations, it is difficult to justify spending economic and political resources on building systems that are at best working hypotheses that cannot be evaluated on a practical level.     

Conservation Planning as a Transdisciplinary Process

Abstract: Despite substantial growth in the field of conservation planning, the speed and success with which conservation plans are converted into conservation action remains limited. This gap between science and action extends beyond conservation planning into many other applied sciences and has been linked to complexity of current societal problems, compartmentalization of knowledge and management sectors, and limited collaboration between scientists and decision makers. Transdisciplinary approaches have been proposed as a possible way to address these challenges and to bridge the gap between science and action. These approaches move beyond the bridging of disciplines to an approach in which science becomes a social process resolving problems through the participation and mutual learning of stakeholders. We explored the principles of transdisciplinarity, in light of our experiences as conservation‐planning researchers working in South Africa, to better understand what is required to make conservation planning transdisciplinary and therefore more effective. Using the transdisciplinary hierarchy of knowledge (empirical, pragmatic, normative, and purposive), we found that conservation planning has succeeded in integrating many empirical disciplines into the pragmatic stakeholder‐engaged process of strategy development and implementation. Nevertheless, challenges remain in engagement of the social sciences and in understanding the social context of implementation. Farther up this knowledge hierarchy, at the normative and purposive levels, we found that a lack of integrated land‐use planning and policies (normative) and the dominant effect of national values (purposive) that prioritize growth and development limit the effectiveness and relevance of conservation plans. The transdisciplinary hierarchy of knowledge highlighted that we need to move beyond bridging the empirical and pragmatic disciplines into the complex normative world of laws, policies, and planning and become engaged in the purposive processes of decision making, behavior change, and value transfer. Although there are indications of progress in this direction, working at the normative and purposive levels requires time, leadership, resources, skills that are absent in conservation training and practice, and new forms of recognition in systems of scientific reward and funding.     

Conservation as Virtue: a Scientific and Social Process for Conservation Ethics

Abstract:  Most scientists take ethical arguments for conservation as given and focus on scientific or economic questions. Although nature conservation is often considered a just cause, it is given little further consideration. A lack of attention to ethical theory raises serious concerns for how conservation scientists conceive and practice ethics. I contrast two common ways scientists approach ethics, as demonstrated in the writings of Stephen Jay Gould and E. O. Wilson. Gould casts severe doubt as to whether any ethics are possible from science, whereas Wilson proposes science as the only path to ethics. I argue these two methods ultimately limit popular support for conservation and offer Alasdair MacIntyre's "virtue ethics" as an alternative. Unlike Gould and Wilson, MacIntyre provides an ethical theory that reconciles scientific inquiry and social traditions. Recent studies of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States affirm MacIntyre's claims and provide important insights for conservation today. These accounts argue that social solidarity and political success against segregation were possible only as rooted in the particular language, logic, and practices of a robust cultural tradition. If correct, conservation science should attend to several questions. On what basis can conservation achieve widespread cultural legitimacy? What are the particular social currencies for a conservation ethic? What role does science play in such a scheme? MacIntyre's careful positioning of scientific and social traditions provides a hopeful ethical direction for conservation.     

完善生态影响评估促进中国生态资源的保护

环境影响评估对减少工业和城市发展对环境的影响起到了一定的作用,但目前的环境影响评估工作比较重视发展项目对其周围水、气污染方面的评估,对自然资源影响的评估还未受到足够的重视,文章对生态影响评估的重要性及中国内地生态影响评估的现状进行了简要的讨论,并介绍了香港生态影响评估系统,以为我国同地生态影响评估工作的管理提供参考。     

Ecological Benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program

The Conservation Reserve Program was initiated in 1985 to reduce soil loss on highly erodible agricultural land. This stated objective of the program has been quite successful. However, there are other unintentional yet significant ecological benefits to the program that merit evaluation. These benefits include the reversal of landscape fragmentation, maintenance of regional biodiversity, creation of wildlife habitat, and favorable changes in regional carbon flux. These and other benefits should be used by policy makers and federal officials to maintain the program even after enrollment expectations have been achieved.     

老庄道家思想所蕴含的生态伦理观念

中国古代思想家老子、庄子在生态环境伦理方面就如何协调人与自然的关系提出了许多宝贵的思想,如“天人合一”、“道法自然”、“知止”等。这些观点对我们解决二十一世纪所面临的生态环境问题具有重要的启迪意义。     

Use of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Marine Conservation

Abstract:  Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) represents multiple bodies of knowledge accumulated through many generations of close interactions between people and the natural world. TEK and its application via customary ecological management plans can be useful in modern conservation programs. I disaggregate the term TEK into its constituent parts and show several ways in which TEK can strengthen research designs by increasing locality-specific knowledge, including environmental linkages occurring in those localities. Examples of the uses of TEK in conservation include folk taxonomy in systematics in Micronesia, species knowledge for conservation in Kiribati, and fishers' knowledge of ecological interactions for reserve design in Belize. When conservationists recognize the utility of TEK, they can engage in an equitable exchange of knowledge and foster shared responsibility with indigenous people. These types of exchanges can also provide an opportunity for indigenous people to develop a scientific infrastructure.     

Sustainability: a Dissent

Abstract:  Broadly conceived and considered in its many usages, sustainability has grave defects as a planning goal, particularly when used by conservationists: it confuses means and ends; it is vague about what is being sustained and who or what is doing the sustaining; it is uninspiring; it is little more than Pinchot-era conservation (and thus ignores the many lessons learned since then); it need not be linked to land, to the land's functioning, or to any ecological science; it need not include a moral component; it is consistent with the view of humans as all-powerful manipulators of the planet; and, in general, it is such a malleable term that its popularity provides only a facade of consensus. When sustainability is defined broadly to include the full range of economic and social aspirations, it poses the particular risk that ecological and biodiversity concerns will be cast aside in favor of more pressing human wants. Given these many defects, the conservation movement should discard the term in favor of a more alluring goal, attentive to nature and its ecological functioning. A sound goal would incorporate and distill the considerable ecological and moral wisdom accumulated since Pinchot's day while giving conservationists the rhetorical tools needed to defend the land against competing pressures. In our view, conservation would be well served by an updated variant of "land health," Aldo Leopold's ecologically grounded goal from the 1940s. Land health as an independent understanding should set the essential terms of how we live and enjoy the earth, providing the framework within which we pursue our many social and economic aims.