Translator Disclaimer
1 November 2005 Policy-driven versus Evidence-based Conservation: A Review of Political Targets and Biological Needs
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

“How much is enough?” is a question that conservationists, scientists, and policymakers have struggled with for years in conservation planning. To answer this question, and to ensure the long-term protection of biodiversity, many have sought to establish quantitative targets or goals based on the percentage of area in a country or region that is conserved. In recent years, policy-driven targets have frequently been faulted for their lack of biological foundation. In this manuscript, we reviewed 159 articles reporting or proposing 222 conservation targets and assessed differences between policy-driven and evidence-based approaches. Our findings suggest that the average percentages of area recommended for evidence-based targets were nearly three times as high as those recommended in policy-driven approaches. Implementing a minimalist, policy-driven approach to conservation could result in unanticipated decreases in species numbers and increases in the number of endangered species.

LEONA K. SVANCARA, REE BRANNON J., MICHAEL SCOTT, CRAIG R. GROVES, REED F. NOSS, and ROBERT L. PRESSEY "Policy-driven versus Evidence-based Conservation: A Review of Political Targets and Biological Needs," BioScience 55(11), (1 November 2005). https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0989:PVECAR]2.0.CO;2
Published: 1 November 2005
JOURNAL ARTICLE
7 PAGES

This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
+ SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top