Bolder thinking for conservation

Reed F. Noss, Andrew P. Dobson, Robert Baldwin, Paul Beier, Cory R. Davis, Dominick A. Dellasala, John Francis, Harvey Locke, Katarzyna Nowak, Roel Lopez, Conrad Reining, Stephen C. Trombulak, Gary Tabor

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

SHOULD CONSERVATION TARGETS, such as the proportion of a region to be placed in protected areas, be socially acceptable from the start? Or should they be based unapologetically on the best available science and expert opinion, then address issues of practicality later? Such questions strike to the philosophical core of conservation. Ambitious targets are often considered radical and value laden, whereas modest targets are ostensibly more objective and reasonable. The personal values of experts are impossible to escape in either case. Conservation professionals of a biocentric bent might indeed err on the side of protecting too much. Anthropocentric bias, however, more commonly affects target setting. The pro-growth norms of global society foster timidity among conservation professionals, steering them toward conformity with the global economic agenda and away from acknowledging what is ultimately needed to sustain life on Earth.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationProtecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation
PublisherIsland Press-Center for Resource Economics
Pages16-20
Number of pages5
ISBN (Print)9781610915519, 9781610915489
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Shyness
Expert Testimony
Economics
expert opinion
Growth
conservation areas
economics
protected area
Thinking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Environmental Science(all)

Cite this

Noss, R. F., Dobson, A. P., Baldwin, R., Beier, P., Davis, C. R., Dellasala, D. A., ... Tabor, G. (2015). Bolder thinking for conservation. In Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation (pp. 16-20). Island Press-Center for Resource Economics . https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-551-9_2

Bolder thinking for conservation. / Noss, Reed F.; Dobson, Andrew P.; Baldwin, Robert; Beier, Paul; Davis, Cory R.; Dellasala, Dominick A.; Francis, John; Locke, Harvey; Nowak, Katarzyna; Lopez, Roel; Reining, Conrad; Trombulak, Stephen C.; Tabor, Gary.

Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation. Island Press-Center for Resource Economics , 2015. p. 16-20.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Noss, RF, Dobson, AP, Baldwin, R, Beier, P, Davis, CR, Dellasala, DA, Francis, J, Locke, H, Nowak, K, Lopez, R, Reining, C, Trombulak, SC & Tabor, G 2015, Bolder thinking for conservation. in Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation. Island Press-Center for Resource Economics , pp. 16-20. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-551-9_2
Noss RF, Dobson AP, Baldwin R, Beier P, Davis CR, Dellasala DA et al. Bolder thinking for conservation. In Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation. Island Press-Center for Resource Economics . 2015. p. 16-20 https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-551-9_2
Noss, Reed F. ; Dobson, Andrew P. ; Baldwin, Robert ; Beier, Paul ; Davis, Cory R. ; Dellasala, Dominick A. ; Francis, John ; Locke, Harvey ; Nowak, Katarzyna ; Lopez, Roel ; Reining, Conrad ; Trombulak, Stephen C. ; Tabor, Gary. / Bolder thinking for conservation. Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation. Island Press-Center for Resource Economics , 2015. pp. 16-20
@inbook{ef9eddc6a0704e41b0e848e369948674,
title = "Bolder thinking for conservation",
abstract = "SHOULD CONSERVATION TARGETS, such as the proportion of a region to be placed in protected areas, be socially acceptable from the start? Or should they be based unapologetically on the best available science and expert opinion, then address issues of practicality later? Such questions strike to the philosophical core of conservation. Ambitious targets are often considered radical and value laden, whereas modest targets are ostensibly more objective and reasonable. The personal values of experts are impossible to escape in either case. Conservation professionals of a biocentric bent might indeed err on the side of protecting too much. Anthropocentric bias, however, more commonly affects target setting. The pro-growth norms of global society foster timidity among conservation professionals, steering them toward conformity with the global economic agenda and away from acknowledging what is ultimately needed to sustain life on Earth.",
author = "Noss, {Reed F.} and Dobson, {Andrew P.} and Robert Baldwin and Paul Beier and Davis, {Cory R.} and Dellasala, {Dominick A.} and John Francis and Harvey Locke and Katarzyna Nowak and Roel Lopez and Conrad Reining and Trombulak, {Stephen C.} and Gary Tabor",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5822/978-1-61091-551-9_2",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781610915519",
pages = "16--20",
booktitle = "Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation",
publisher = "Island Press-Center for Resource Economics",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Bolder thinking for conservation

AU - Noss, Reed F.

AU - Dobson, Andrew P.

AU - Baldwin, Robert

AU - Beier, Paul

AU - Davis, Cory R.

AU - Dellasala, Dominick A.

AU - Francis, John

AU - Locke, Harvey

AU - Nowak, Katarzyna

AU - Lopez, Roel

AU - Reining, Conrad

AU - Trombulak, Stephen C.

AU - Tabor, Gary

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - SHOULD CONSERVATION TARGETS, such as the proportion of a region to be placed in protected areas, be socially acceptable from the start? Or should they be based unapologetically on the best available science and expert opinion, then address issues of practicality later? Such questions strike to the philosophical core of conservation. Ambitious targets are often considered radical and value laden, whereas modest targets are ostensibly more objective and reasonable. The personal values of experts are impossible to escape in either case. Conservation professionals of a biocentric bent might indeed err on the side of protecting too much. Anthropocentric bias, however, more commonly affects target setting. The pro-growth norms of global society foster timidity among conservation professionals, steering them toward conformity with the global economic agenda and away from acknowledging what is ultimately needed to sustain life on Earth.

AB - SHOULD CONSERVATION TARGETS, such as the proportion of a region to be placed in protected areas, be socially acceptable from the start? Or should they be based unapologetically on the best available science and expert opinion, then address issues of practicality later? Such questions strike to the philosophical core of conservation. Ambitious targets are often considered radical and value laden, whereas modest targets are ostensibly more objective and reasonable. The personal values of experts are impossible to escape in either case. Conservation professionals of a biocentric bent might indeed err on the side of protecting too much. Anthropocentric bias, however, more commonly affects target setting. The pro-growth norms of global society foster timidity among conservation professionals, steering them toward conformity with the global economic agenda and away from acknowledging what is ultimately needed to sustain life on Earth.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84945431910&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84945431910&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5822/978-1-61091-551-9_2

DO - 10.5822/978-1-61091-551-9_2

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84945431910

SN - 9781610915519

SN - 9781610915489

SP - 16

EP - 20

BT - Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation

PB - Island Press-Center for Resource Economics

ER -