Turner James Morton
Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Program, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.
Conserv Biol. 2006 Jun;20(3):713-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00365.x.
Questions persist regarding whether the science of conservation biology can successfully affect environmental decision making. One of the most prominent fields of intersection between conservation science and environmental policy is public-lands debates in the United States. I reviewed the role of conservation science in the roadless-area policies of the U.S. Forest Service. Since 1971, the Forest Service has systematically evaluated roadless areas on national forests three times, most recently during the Clinton administration's Roadless Area Conservation Review (1998-2000) (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2000b). Drawing on the agency's environmental impact statements and supporting documents and the internal records of conservation organizations, I examined the changing goals, methodology, and outcome of roadless-area advocacy and policy Since the 1970s, conservation science has successfully informed public and administrative concern for roadless-area protection. Conservation science has transformed public discourse regarding roadless areas and has changed the scope and rationale of national conservation organizations' goals for roadless-area policy from protecting some to protecting all remaining national forest roadless areas. The Forest Service has increasingly drawn on the lessons of conservation biology to justify its methodology and its administrative recommendations to protect roadless areas. The 2000 Roadless Area Conservation Review resulted in a recommendation to protect all remaining national forest roadless areas, up from 22% of roadless areas in the first roadless review. Despite the scientific merits of recent roadless-area advocacy and policy, however such initiatives have faced political difficulties. The emphasis on large-scale, top-down, national approaches to conservation policy has rendered such policies politically problematic.
关于保护生物学这门科学能否成功影响环境决策，问题依然存在。保护科学与环境政策最显著的交叉领域之一是美国的公共土地辩论。我回顾了保护科学在美国林业局无路区域政策中的作用。自1971年以来，林业局已对国有森林中的无路区域进行了三次系统评估，最近一次是在克林顿政府时期的无路区域保护审查（1998 - 2000年）（美国农业部林业局，2000b）。借鉴该机构的环境影响声明及支持文件以及保护组织的内部记录，我研究了无路区域倡导和政策不断变化的目标、方法及结果。自20世纪70年代以来，保护科学已成功促使公众和行政部门关注无路区域保护。保护科学改变了关于无路区域的公众话语，并改变了国家保护组织无路区域政策目标的范围和基本原理，从保护部分无路区域转变为保护所有剩余的国有森林无路区域。林业局越来越多地借鉴保护生物学的经验教训来证明其保护无路区域的方法及行政建议的合理性。2000年的无路区域保护审查建议保护所有剩余的国有森林无路区域，相比第一次无路区域审查时的22%有所增加。然而，尽管近期无路区域倡导和政策具有科学价值，但此类举措仍面临政治困境。对大规模、自上而下的国家保护政策方法的强调使得这些政策在政治上存在问题。
