Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHayward, Matt W
dc.contributor.authorCastley, J Guy
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-07T00:39:29Z
dc.date.available2020-02-07T00:39:29Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn2296-701X
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fevo.2017.00168
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/391166
dc.description.abstractMaking good decisions remains an important aspect of conservation practice, and is typically underpinned by good science (Pullin et al., 2004; Cook et al., 2013; Roux et al., 2015). These decisions are informed by a variety of contexts and values but are also affected by uncertainty (Regan et al., 2005; Nicholson and Possingham, 2007). Conservation triage as a means to improve decision making and prioritize actions is a polarizing issue. Proponents see it as the most logical way of using limited conservation resources (Hobbs et al., 2003; Bottrill et al., 2008), whereas opponents reject the limitations imposed by society (notably governments) and seek adequate funding for the conservation of our natural heritage (Jachowski and Kesler, 2009). While triage has been used successfully to optimize the allocation of limited funds to conservation (Joseph et al., 2009), it is not universally accepted. In essence, this is much the same debate that is raging in broader conservation circles between the economic growth-based or humanitarian model of “new conservation,” whereby society and economic growth via the ecosystem services biodiversity provides are used as drivers in an “it pays – it stays” system (Kareiva et al., 2012) and the traditional conservation model, where biodiversity is valued for its own sake and our responsibilities for intergenerational equity (Soule, 2013). New conservation leans heavily on economic neoliberalization, but the merits of this economic model are now being questioned (Tabb, 2003; Altvater, 2009; Merino et al., 2010). It could also be argued that proponents of conservation triage are promoting a realistic (defeatist) solution whereas opponents are being overly optimistic.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherFrontiers Media
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom168:1
dc.relation.ispartofpageto168:2
dc.relation.ispartofjournalFrontiers in Ecology and Evolution
dc.relation.ispartofvolume5
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental management
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEcology
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEvolutionary biology
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode410404
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3103
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3104
dc.subject.keywordsScience & Technology
dc.subject.keywordsLife Sciences & Biomedicine
dc.subject.keywordsEnvironmental Sciences & Ecology
dc.subject.keywordsconservation decision making
dc.titleEditorial: Triage in Conservation
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC3 - Articles (Letter/ Note)
dcterms.bibliographicCitationHayward, MW; Castley, JG, Editorial: Triage in Conservation, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2018, 5, pp. 168:1-168:2
dcterms.licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.date.updated2020-02-07T00:36:00Z
dc.description.versionVersion of Record (VoR)
gro.rights.copyright© 2018 Hayward and Castley. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorCastley, Guy G.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record