Ecol Appl. 2014 Apr;24(3):548-59. doi: 10.1890/13-0400.1.
Recent research indicates increasing openness among conservation experts toward a set of previously controversial proposals for biodiversity protection. These include actions such as assisted migration, and the application of climate-change-informed triage principles for decision-making (e.g., forgoing attention to target species deemed no longer viable). Little is known however, about the levels of expert agreement across different conservation adaptation actions, or the preferences that may come to shape policy recommendations. In this paper, we report findings from a web-based survey of biodiversity experts that assessed: (1) perceived risks of climate change (and other drivers) to biodiversity, (2) relative importance of different conservation goals, (3) levels of agreement/disagreement with the potential necessity of unconventional-taboo actions and approaches including affective evaluations of these, (4) preferences regarding the most important adaptation action for biodiversity, and (5) perceived barriers and strategic considerations regarding implementing adaptation initiatives. We found widespread agreement with a set of previously contentious approaches and actions, including the need for frameworks for prioritization and decision-making that take expected losses and emerging novel ecosystems into consideration. Simultaneously, this survey found enduring preferences for conventional actions (such as protected areas) as the most important policy action, and negative affective responses toward more interventionist proposals. We argue that expert views are converging on agreement across a set of taboo components in ways that differ from earlier published positions, and that these views are tempered by preferences for existing conventional actions and discomfort toward interventionist options. We discuss these findings in the context of anticipating some of the likely contours of future conservation debates. Lastly, we underscore the critical need for interdisciplinary, comparative, place-based adaptation research.
最近的研究表明，保护专家对一系列先前有争议的生物多样性保护建议越来越开放。这些措施包括协助迁移，以及应用气候变化信息分诊原则进行决策（例如，不再关注被认为不再可行的目标物种）。然而，人们对不同保护适应措施的专家一致性水平，以及可能影响政策建议的偏好知之甚少。在本文中，我们报告了一项基于网络的生物多样性专家调查的结果，该调查评估了：（1）气候变化（和其他驱动因素）对生物多样性的感知风险，（2）不同保护目标的相对重要性，（3）对非常规禁忌行动和方法的潜在必要性的一致性/分歧程度，包括对这些行动和方法的情感评价，（4）对生物多样性最重要的适应行动的偏好，以及（5）对实施适应倡议的障碍和战略考虑的看法。我们发现，广泛同意一系列先前有争议的方法和行动，包括需要制定框架，以便在考虑到预期损失和新兴的新型生态系统的情况下进行优先排序和决策。同时，这项调查发现，传统的行动（如保护区）仍然是最重要的政策行动，并且对更具干预性的提案持负面的情感反应。我们认为，专家观点正在就一系列禁忌成分达成一致，这与早期发表的观点不同，并且这些观点受到对现有传统行动的偏好和对干预性选择的不适的影响。我们在预测未来保护辩论的一些可能轮廓的背景下讨论了这些发现。最后，我们强调了进行跨学科、比较、基于地点的适应研究的关键需求。
