Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T10:33:48.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Evaluating Biodiversity for Conservation

A Victim of the Traditional Paradigm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2009

Peter R. Hobson
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Conservation Management Otley College, Suffolk
Jed Bultitude
Affiliation:
Faculty Head of Conservation, Animal Science and Horticulture Otley College, Suffolk
Markku Oksanen
Affiliation:
University of Kuopio, Finland
Juhani Pietarinen
Affiliation:
University of Turku, Finland
Get access

Summary

NATURE CONSERVATION AND THE HISTORICAL LEGACY

The conservation strategy for nature reserves in modified landscapes in the United Kingdom is essentially based on the “historical principle” (Peterken 1996) which maintains the argument that wildlife will be best served by continuing the historic form of land use practice in those ancient seminatural habitats that have a past record of management.

The countryside across much of Europe has been shaped by centuries of intensive management that has given rise to a cultural landscape (Fry 1991) characterized by features which may include coppice woodlands, heathlands, grazed flood meadows, and organized reed beds. According to Morris, in the United Kingdom many of these areas represent the cherished landscape and are designated as nature reserves, parks, or other forms of protected land. An important element in landscape and wildlife conservation has been the appeal to historical precedent. Consequently, to the modern conservationist, species of young sere-stage communities come to represent the norm. Furthermore, past management practices, which have shaped this natural heritage, are now enjoying a renaissance as the modern solution to conserving biodiversity by maintaining the status quo. The biological interest of many of the reserve sites shows that its past management has been successful, up to a point (Morris 1991). However, we know almost nothing of what has been lost from biologically rich sites as our basis for comparison is contemporary.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, N. E. and J. P. Barrett. 1997. Reserve Design and the New Conservation Theory. In The Ecological Basis of Conservation, S. T. A. Pickett, R. S. Ostfeld, M. Shachak, and G. E. Likens, eds. New York: Chapman and Hall
Christensen, N. L. 1997. Managing for Heterogeneity and Complexity on Dynamic Landscapes. In The Ecological Basis of Conservation, S. T. A. Pickett, R. S. Ostfeld, M. Shachak, and G. E. Likens, eds. New York: Chapman and Hall
Fiedler, P. G. and P. M. Kareiva. 1998. Conservation Biology: For the Coming Decade. New York: Chapman and Hall
Fiedler, P. G., P. S. White, and R. A. Leidy. 1997. The Paradigm Shift in Ecology and Its Implications. In The Ecological Basis of Conservation, S. T. A. Pickett, R. S. Ostfeld, M. Shachak, and G. E. Likens, eds. New York: Chapman and Hall
Fry, G. L. A. 1991. Conservation in Agricultural Ecosystems. In The Scientific Management of Temperate Communities for Conservation. I. F. Spellerberg, F. B. Goldsmith, and M. G. Morris, eds. Oxford: Blackwell Science
Gray, A. N. 2000. Adaptive Ecosystem Management in the Pacific Northwest: A Case Study from Coastal Oregon. Conservation Ecology 4(2): 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambler, C. and Speight, M. R.. 1995. Biodiversity Conservation in Britain: Science Replacing Tradition. British Wildlife 6.3:137–47Google Scholar
Hunter, M. L. 1996. Fundamentals of Conservation Biology. Oxford: Blackwell Science
Hunter, M. L. 1999. Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kimmins, J. P. 1997. Forest Ecology. A Foundation for Sustainable Management. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall
Miller, K. R. 1994. International Cooperation in Conserving Biological Diversity: A World Strategy, International Convention, and Framework for Action. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:464–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, M. G. 1991. The Management of Reserves and Protected Areas. In The Scientific Management of Temperate Communities for Conservation, I. F. Spellerberg, F. B. Goldsmith, and M. G. Morris, eds. Oxford: Blackwell Science
Peterken, G. F. 1981. Woodland Conservation and Management. London: Chapman and Hall
Peterken, G. F. 1996. Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rackham, O. 1986. The History of the Countryside. London: Phoenix Giant
Ratcliffe, D. A., ed. 1977. A Nature Conservation Review, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Schütz, J.-Ph. 1999. Close-to-Nature Silviculture: Is This Concept Compatible with Species Diversity?Forestry 72.4:359–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spellerberg, I. F. 1991. Monitoring Ecological Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Spellerberg, I. F. 1992. Evaluation and Assessment for Conservation. London: Chapman and Hall
Spellerberg, I. F. and J. W. D. Sawyer. 1999. An Introduction to Applied Biogeography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sutherland, W. J. and D. A. Hill. 1995. Managing Habitats for Conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Tartowski, S. L., E. B. Allen, N. E. Barrett, A. R. Berkowitz, R. K. Colwell, P. M. Groffman, J. Harte, H. P. Possingham, C. M. Pringle, D. L. Strayer, and C. R. Tracy. 1997. Toward a Resolution of Conflicting Paradigms. In The Ecological Basis of Conservation, S. T. A. Pickett, R. S. Ostfeld, M. Shachak, and G. E. Likens, eds. New York: Chapman and Hall
Usher, M. B., ed. 1986. Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. London: Chapman and Hall
Whitbread, A. and Jenman, W., 1995. A Natural Method of Conserving Biodiversity in Britain. British Wildlife 7.2:84–93Google Scholar
Wiens, J. A. 1997. The Emerging Role of Patchiness in Conservation Biology. In The Ecological Basis of Conservation, S. T. A. Pickett, R. S. Ostfeld, M. Shachak, and G. E. Likens, eds. New York: Chapman and Hall
Wynne, G., M. Avery, L. Campbell, S. Gubbay, S. Hawkswell, T. Juniper, M. King, P. Newbery, J. Smart, C. Steel, T. Stones, A. Stubbs, J. Taylor, C. Tydeman, and R. Wynde. 1995. Biodiversity Challenge, 2d ed. Sandy: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×