4.7 Article

A Global Mitigation Hierarchy for Nature Conservation

期刊

BIOSCIENCE
卷 68, 期 5, 页码 336-347

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy029

关键词

adequacy; biodiversity; development; no net loss; sustainability

类别

资金

  1. Pew Charitable Trusts through a Pew Marine Fellowship
  2. University of Oxford
  3. ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decision-Making
  4. Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United Kingdom [NZCR-2015-174]
  5. University of Oxford [NZCR-2015-174]
  6. Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellowship [655497]
  7. Danish National Research Foundation [DNRF96]
  8. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/N005457/1]
  9. Science Sciences without Borders Program [246619/2012-0]
  10. NERC [NE/N005457/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/N005457/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  12. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [655497] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efforts to conserve biodiversity comprise a patchwork of international goals, national-level plans, and local interventions that, overall, are failing. We discuss the potential utility of applying the mitigation hierarchy, widely used during economic development activities, to all negative human impacts on biodiversity. Evaluating all biodiversity losses and gains through the mitigation hierarchy could help prioritize consideration of conservation goals and drive the empirical evaluation of conservation investments through the explicit consideration of counterfactual trends and ecosystem dynamics across scales. We explore the challenges in using this framework to achieve global conservation goals, including operationalization and monitoring and compliance, and we discuss solutions and research priorities. The mitigation hierarchy's conceptual power and ability to clarify thinking could provide the step change needed to integrate the multiple elements of conservation goals and interventions in order to achieve successful biodiversity outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据