Clearing the Mud from the Conservation Opportunity Debate: Reply to Pressey and Bottrill

Clearing the Mud from the Conservation Opportunity Debate: Reply to Pressey and Bottrill We are delighted that Pressey and Bottrill (2008) agree with the message conveyed in Knight and Cowling (2007) , namely, that the effectiveness of conservation‐planning initiatives can be greatly improved when opportunities for and constraints on implementing conservation action are explicitly incorporated into the identification of spatial priorities. Pressey and Bottrill (2008) , however, contend we “muddied the water” on the opportunism debate by (1) discounting the contributions to real‐world conservation of researchers pursuing quantifiable certainty at the expense of useful outputs and distinguishing these researchers from those engaged in pragmatic real‐world conservation planning, (2) stating that incorporation of measures of threat in spatial prioritizations “unnecessarily emphasizes obstacles to conservation action or ‘shackles conservation planning with a negative perspective’,” and (3) conflating 2 different meanings of the term opportunism that should be distinguished, namely, informed versus political or organizational (or uninformed) opportunism. Of the 3 issues raised, only the third is of direct relevance to the central thesis in Knight and Cowling (2007) . However, we respond to Pressey and Bottrill's 3 concerns because clarifying these misunderstandings is essential to achieving consensus in our discipline, which is fundamental to bridging the gap that currently exists between research and http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

Clearing the Mud from the Conservation Opportunity Debate: Reply to Pressey and Bottrill

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/clearing-the-mud-from-the-conservation-opportunity-debate-reply-to-wKj8XF7nHm
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
©2008 Society for Conservation Biology
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
DOI
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01033.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We are delighted that Pressey and Bottrill (2008) agree with the message conveyed in Knight and Cowling (2007) , namely, that the effectiveness of conservation‐planning initiatives can be greatly improved when opportunities for and constraints on implementing conservation action are explicitly incorporated into the identification of spatial priorities. Pressey and Bottrill (2008) , however, contend we “muddied the water” on the opportunism debate by (1) discounting the contributions to real‐world conservation of researchers pursuing quantifiable certainty at the expense of useful outputs and distinguishing these researchers from those engaged in pragmatic real‐world conservation planning, (2) stating that incorporation of measures of threat in spatial prioritizations “unnecessarily emphasizes obstacles to conservation action or ‘shackles conservation planning with a negative perspective’,” and (3) conflating 2 different meanings of the term opportunism that should be distinguished, namely, informed versus political or organizational (or uninformed) opportunism. Of the 3 issues raised, only the third is of direct relevance to the central thesis in Knight and Cowling (2007) . However, we respond to Pressey and Bottrill's 3 concerns because clarifying these misunderstandings is essential to achieving consensus in our discipline, which is fundamental to bridging the gap that currently exists between research and

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Oct 1, 2008

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off