Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Embracing Opportunism in the Selection of Priority Conservation Areas

Embracing Opportunism in the Selection of Priority Conservation Areas Systematic Techniques There has been much written of the vagaries and shortcomings of the current global protected‐areas network (e.g., Bibby et al. 1992 ; Rodrigues et al. 2004 ). A history of protected‐area establishment for reasons other than nature conservation has produced a global protected‐areas network that is biased toward infertile or rugged landscapes that are not economically valuable for production ( Pressey 1994 ). Consequently, many areas of high priority for nature conservation are located on unprotected private lands ( Knight 1999 ). This disparity between the intention and practice of protected‐area selection ( Pressey et al. 1993 ), the deepening environmental crisis ( Vitousek et al. 1997 ), and the woefully inadequate resources committed to nature conservation ( Courrier 1992 ) have furthered the development and application of systematic techniques for the selection of priority conservation areas. These techniques are said to take selection of nature conservation areas “beyond opportunism,” toward scientific defensibility and greater effectiveness ( Pressey et al. 1993 ). The push for the improvement and widespread adoption of systematic techniques has been driven largely by the recognition that the ways in which areas for nature conservation were identified in the past were largely http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

Embracing Opportunism in the Selection of Priority Conservation Areas

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/embracing-opportunism-in-the-selection-of-priority-conservation-areas-ULuJ0DVE8I

References (40)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
DOI
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00690.x
pmid
17650262
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Systematic Techniques There has been much written of the vagaries and shortcomings of the current global protected‐areas network (e.g., Bibby et al. 1992 ; Rodrigues et al. 2004 ). A history of protected‐area establishment for reasons other than nature conservation has produced a global protected‐areas network that is biased toward infertile or rugged landscapes that are not economically valuable for production ( Pressey 1994 ). Consequently, many areas of high priority for nature conservation are located on unprotected private lands ( Knight 1999 ). This disparity between the intention and practice of protected‐area selection ( Pressey et al. 1993 ), the deepening environmental crisis ( Vitousek et al. 1997 ), and the woefully inadequate resources committed to nature conservation ( Courrier 1992 ) have furthered the development and application of systematic techniques for the selection of priority conservation areas. These techniques are said to take selection of nature conservation areas “beyond opportunism,” toward scientific defensibility and greater effectiveness ( Pressey et al. 1993 ). The push for the improvement and widespread adoption of systematic techniques has been driven largely by the recognition that the ways in which areas for nature conservation were identified in the past were largely

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Aug 1, 2007

There are no references for this article.