Meinard Yves, Georges Jean-Yves
Aix-Marseilles Université, CNRS, Centre Gilles Gaston Granger (UMR 7304), Aix-en-Provence, France.
Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC (UMR 7178), Strasbourg, France.
Conserv Biol. 2025 Aug;39(4):e14432. doi: 10.1111/cobi.14432. Epub 2024 Dec 22.
Action-oriented conservation sciences are crippled by 3 false assumptions. First, although it is recognized in theory that natural and anthropic components of ecosystems are tightly intertwined, in practice, many conservation policies and actions are still based on the assumption that human and nonhuman stakes should be dealt with in deeply different ways. Second, although the anchorage of environmental sciences in values is amply demonstrated, many conservation scientists still assume they will lose their scientific credentials if they actively participate in decision-making. Finally, although there is much scientific evidence of the permeability-to both protected entities and threats-of static geographic frontiers delimiting protected areas, many conservation policies are still based on the assumption that these frontiers in themselves produce relevant protections. To overcome these false assumptions, it is useful to articulate them in terms of frontiers based on 2 ideas associated with the term. As a synonym of border, frontier materializes a limit whose crossing can have high stakes. As used in phrases such as frontiers of knowledge, the term also refers to the ever-moving horizon of what should be overcome. These 2 ideas capture the reasons current attempts at overcoming the 3 assumptions remain unsatisfactory. They are also useful for elaborating a new vision of conservation to simultaneously break from the 3 assumptions. Instead of taking fixed geographic frontiers of protected areas for granted, conservation scientists should participate, along with stakeholders and Indigenous peoples, in the collective identification of the conservation problems that need to be addressed. For these problems, decision committees that include representatives of concerned humans and representatives of concerned nonhumans should be formed to determine the temporal and spatial scope of relevant conservation actions. The result would be multidimensional protected areas dynamically fine-tuned to the conservation issues they address and to changing environmental conditions.
以行动为导向的保护科学受到三个错误假设的阻碍。首先,尽管理论上认识到生态系统的自然和人为成分紧密相连,但实际上,许多保护政策和行动仍基于这样的假设,即人类和非人类的利益应以截然不同的方式处理。其次,尽管环境科学在价值观方面的根基已得到充分证明,但许多保护科学家仍认为,如果他们积极参与决策,就会失去自己的科学信誉。最后,尽管有大量科学证据表明,界定保护区的静态地理边界对受保护实体和威胁都具有渗透性,但许多保护政策仍基于这样的假设,即这些边界本身就能产生有效的保护。为了克服这些错误假设,根据与“边界”一词相关的两个概念来阐述它们是很有用的。作为“边界”的同义词,“边界”体现了一种界限,跨越它可能会有重大利害关系。在诸如“知识边界”等短语中使用时,这个词还指应被克服的不断变化的界限。这两个概念抓住了当前克服这三个假设的尝试仍不尽如人意的原因。它们对于阐述一种新的保护愿景也很有用,以便同时摆脱这三个假设。保护科学家不应将保护区固定的地理边界视为理所当然,而应与利益相关者和原住民一起,参与集体确定需要解决的保护问题。对于这些问题,应成立包括相关人类代表和相关非人类代表的决策委员会,以确定相关保护行动的时间和空间范围。结果将是形成多维保护区,根据它们所解决的保护问题和不断变化的环境条件进行动态微调。