Biodiversity and Systematic Conservation Planning for the Twenty-first Century: A Philosophical Perspective

Abstract

SummaryThe concept of biodiversity, its introduction in conservation biology, and its evolution in the framework of systematic conservation planning, are analyzed. Attempts to quantify biodiversity and to find surrogate measures for it are described. It is shown that biodiversity originated as and remains a fundamentally normative concept. However, while attempts to reduce biodiversity conservation to the achievement of sustainability are misplaced, natural values other than biodiversity also merit promotion. Multi-criteria analysis can be used to capture necessary trade-offs between these values when they are in conflict. Moreover, given the possibility of trade-off analysis, socio-cultural values can also be integrated into habitat use decisions along with natural values. Thus biodiversity conservation can be integrated into more general framework of habitat use planning.

Multi‐criteria systematic conservation planning for terrestrial vertebrates in a biodiversity hotspot in Mexico

“…The purely ecological problem of the prioritization of CANs includes the selection of biodiversity features or “constituents” (Sarkar, 2014) for representation within the network, establishing targets and goals for the coverage of these constituents or their surrogates, selecting priority areas for the optimal satisfaction of these targets, as well as optimizing the spatial configuration (i.e., size, shape, dispersion, connectivity, alignment, and replication) of selected priority areas (Franco et al, 2009; Fuller et al, 2006; Kullberg et al, 2019; Peralvo et al, 2007; Sarkar et al, 2009; Triviño et al, 2018).…”

Music and philosophical naturalism

“…In this section I provide a brief discussion of concept pluralism, and draw on that to deliver a general procedure for establishing pluralism as a philosophical position. Concept pluralism has been advanced recently in the philosophy of science literature: it has been suggested about gene (see e.g., Griffiths and Stotz 2013), species (Ereshefsky 1992(Ereshefsky , 1998Kitcher 1984), homology (Brigandt 2002(Brigandt , 2003aGriffiths 2006), planet (Brusse 2016), and biodiversity (Colyvan et al 2009;Maclaurin and Sterelny 2008;Sarkar 2014), as well as other scientific concepts, sparking both renewed interest in the philosophical analysis of these concepts, and a fruitful methodology for individuating and integrating equivocal scientific concepts.…”

Trading carbon, biodiversity, and livelihoods: a landscape scale analysis of ecosystems services and trade-offs in land-use policy

“…Species richness is the most common interpretation in use either explicitly or implicitly (e.g. Howe et al, 2014), but the definition of biodiversity arguably needs to include metrics of composition, complementarity, and phylogenetic disparity (for example endemism and rarity) at all levels of taxonomic, structural, and functional organisation, yet this definition is impossible to operationalize (Sarkar, 2014). The functions or services that biodiversity can potentially provide are numerous, and sometimes treated as supporting services, sometimes regulating (e.g.…”

“…Definitions of biodiversity are vague and contextually variable (Sarkar, 2014). Species richness is the most common interpretation in use either explicitly or implicitly (e.g.…”

“…Conservation of natural systems has developed over the last century from a focus on protecting nature for aesthetic reasons (Cronon, 1996), to the protection of species biodiversity (Sarkar, 2014), and now also a wide range of specific "ecosystem goods and services" derived from ecological systems (CBD, 2003;Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). These ecosystem services include non-use values such as "options", "existence" and "inherent" values of species biodiversity (Turner et al, 2003;Jax et al, 2013) that are inherently difficult or impossible to quantify (Chan et al, 2006;Christie et al, 2006), but typically irreplaceable (Díaz et al, 2006).…”