Literature DB >> 28861904

Equity trade-offs in conservation decision making.

Elizabeth A Law1,2, Nathan J Bennett3,4,5, Christopher D Ives6, Rachel Friedman1,2, Katrina J Davis1,2,7, Carla Archibald1,8, Kerrie A Wilson1,2.   

Abstract

Conservation decisions increasingly involve multiple environmental and social objectives, which result in complex decision contexts with high potential for trade-offs. Improving social equity is one such objective that is often considered an enabler of successful outcomes and a virtuous ideal in itself. Despite its idealized importance in conservation policy, social equity is often highly simplified or ill-defined and is applied uncritically. What constitutes equitable outcomes and processes is highly normative and subject to ethical deliberation. Different ethical frameworks may lead to different conceptions of equity through alternative perspectives of what is good or right. This can lead to different and potentially conflicting equity objectives in practice. We promote a more transparent, nuanced, and pluralistic conceptualization of equity in conservation decision making that particularly recognizes where multidimensional equity objectives may conflict. To help identify and mitigate ethical conflicts and avoid cases of good intentions producing bad outcomes, we encourage a more analytical incorporation of equity into conservation decision making particularly during mechanistic integration of equity objectives. We recommend that in conservation planning motivations and objectives for equity be made explicit within the problem context, methods used to incorporate equity objectives be applied with respect to stated objectives, and, should objectives dictate, evaluation of equity outcomes and adaptation of strategies be employed during policy implementation.
© 2017 Society for Conservation Biology.

Keywords:  compensaciones; conservation planning; conservation policy; environmental management; ethical pluralism; manejo ambiental; planeación de la conservación; pluralismo ético; política de la conservación; prioritization; priorización; trade-offs

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28861904     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  5 in total

1.  Incorporating social dimensions in planning, managing and evaluating environmental projects.

Authors:  C Louise Goggin; Thomas Barrett; John Leys; Gregory Summerell; Emma Gorrod; Stuart Waters; Mark Littleboy; Tony D Auld; Michael J Drielsma; Brian R Jenkins
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2019-01-11       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Modeling trade-offs across carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and equity in the distribution of global REDD+ funds.

Authors:  Ignacio Palomo; Yann Dujardin; Estelle Midler; Manon Robin; María J Sanz; Unai Pascual
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Indigenous-led conservation: Pathways to recovery for the nearly extirpated Klinse-Za mountain caribou.

Authors:  Clayton T Lamb; Roland Willson; Carmen Richter; Naomi Owens-Beek; Julian Napoleon; Bruce Muir; R Scott McNay; Estelle Lavis; Mark Hebblewhite; Line Giguere; Tamara Dokkie; Stan Boutin; Adam T Ford
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2022-06-05       Impact factor: 6.105

4.  Fair payments for effective environmental conservation.

Authors:  Lasse Loft; Stefan Gehrig; Carl Salk; Jens Rommel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Heuristics for the sustainable harvest of wildlife in stochastic social-ecological systems.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Law; John D C Linnell; Bram van Moorter; Erlend B Nilsen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.