preprints.org > environmental and earth sciences > ecology > doi: 10.20944/preprints202308.0145.v2

Preprint Article Version 2 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Version 1 : Received: 1 August 2023 / Approved: 1 August 2023 / Online: 2 August 2023 (10:19:57 CEST)
Version 2 : Received: 27 April 2024 / Approved: 1 May 2024 / Online: 1 May 2024 (07:34:37 CEST)

The term “conservation,” as it relates to biodiversity in a Western context, has a storied past and as conservation science and societal values have evolved, consensus over its precise meaning has remained elusive. The broad scope of contemporary definitions hampers effective communication during a period of environmental crisis and is troublesome for any derivative concept which aims to empirically quantify the efforts of the conservation sector. This presents an avoidable hindrance to the systematic planning of the conservation field. To help remedy this situation, we provide an outcome separation framework that is based on the expected degree of separation between an action’s proximate outcome, from its intended, ultimate outcome for a habitat and/or species. Framing a definition of conservation through this lens of outcome separation allows for conservation-related actions to be clearly categorized into one of three discrete tiers: primary, secondary, and tertiary. A distillation of this tiered framework also provides a new definition of biodiversity conservation that is more rigorous and adaptable to future conceptual evolutions of the field.

definition; degrees of separation; objective; primary conservation; secondary conservation; tertiary conservation; native species; ecological replacement species

Environmental and Earth Sciences, Ecology

* All users must log in before leaving a comment