{"title":"优先保育鸟类","authors":"H. Clarke","doi":"10.1080/14486563.2000.10648491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How should bird conservation efforts be prioritised? This article reviews two approaches—the Collar et al. (1994) global study of threatened bird species and Garnett's (1992b) analysis for Australia. Each of these studies uses IUCN ‘extinction risk threshold’ criteria to derive conservation ‘hotspots’ where effort should be concentrated. Difficulties with IUCN rankings stem from two implicit assumptions: (i) that the conservation objective is always to maximise the number of surviving taxa and (ii) that conservation in different ‘hotspots’ is equally costly. Garnett attempts to circumvent these limiting assumptions by supposing lexicographic conservation preferences. This is partly successful but still leads to prioritisation anomalies.","PeriodicalId":425760,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Environmental Management","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prioritising Avifauna Conservation\",\"authors\":\"H. Clarke\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14486563.2000.10648491\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How should bird conservation efforts be prioritised? This article reviews two approaches—the Collar et al. (1994) global study of threatened bird species and Garnett's (1992b) analysis for Australia. Each of these studies uses IUCN ‘extinction risk threshold’ criteria to derive conservation ‘hotspots’ where effort should be concentrated. Difficulties with IUCN rankings stem from two implicit assumptions: (i) that the conservation objective is always to maximise the number of surviving taxa and (ii) that conservation in different ‘hotspots’ is equally costly. Garnett attempts to circumvent these limiting assumptions by supposing lexicographic conservation preferences. This is partly successful but still leads to prioritisation anomalies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":425760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Environmental Management\",\"volume\":\"93 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Environmental Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2000.10648491\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2000.10648491","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
鸟类保育工作应如何优先进行?本文回顾了两种方法——Collar et al.(1994)对濒危鸟类物种的全球研究和Garnett (1992b)对澳大利亚的分析。每一项研究都使用IUCN的“灭绝风险阈值”标准来得出应该集中努力的保护“热点”。世界自然保护联盟排名的困难源于两个隐含的假设:(i)保护目标总是最大限度地增加幸存分类群的数量;(ii)在不同的“热点”进行保护的成本同样高。加内特试图通过假设词典保存偏好来规避这些限制性假设。这在一定程度上取得了成功,但仍会导致优先级异常。
How should bird conservation efforts be prioritised? This article reviews two approaches—the Collar et al. (1994) global study of threatened bird species and Garnett's (1992b) analysis for Australia. Each of these studies uses IUCN ‘extinction risk threshold’ criteria to derive conservation ‘hotspots’ where effort should be concentrated. Difficulties with IUCN rankings stem from two implicit assumptions: (i) that the conservation objective is always to maximise the number of surviving taxa and (ii) that conservation in different ‘hotspots’ is equally costly. Garnett attempts to circumvent these limiting assumptions by supposing lexicographic conservation preferences. This is partly successful but still leads to prioritisation anomalies.