Redford, KH; Coppolillo, P; Sanderson, EW; Robinson, JG; Vedder, A; Da Fonseca, GAB; ... Wright, M; + view all Redford, KH; Coppolillo, P; Sanderson, EW; Robinson, JG; Vedder, A; Da Fonseca, GAB; Dinerstein, E; Olson, D; Groves, C; Mace, G; Maginnis, S; Mittermeier, RA; Noss, R; Wright, M; - view fewer (2003) Mapping the conservation landscape. Conservation Biology , 17 (1) 116 - 131. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01467.x.
Full text not available from this repository.
Before widespread, informed collaboration can take place in conservation there must be a process of understanding the different approaches employed by different conservation organizations to conserve biodiversity. To begin this process and to help build understanding and collaboration, we provide a conceptual map of 21 approaches currently being implemented by 13 conservation organizations. We examined each of these approaches according to (1) the nature of the conservation target - the object(s) of the conservation action; (2) whether the question addressed is where conservation should be done or how conservation should be done; (3) the scale (both grain and extent) of the approach; and (4) the principles that underlie the approach. These questions provide a good way of distinguishing between most of the approaches and reveal that there is less competition between them than is assumed. We conclude that only with explicit understanding can the conservation community and its supporters critically compare approaches and come to a consensus about a set of metrics for measuring and achieving global conservation.
|Title:||Mapping the conservation landscape|
|UCL classification:||UCL > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Life Sciences > Biosciences (Division of) > Genetics, Evolution and Environment|
Archive Staff Only: edit this record