Environmental Harm: Political not Biological

Sagoff, Mark

doi:10.1007/s10806-008-9127-4

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to papers describing applications of AM, 13 studies appraised the benefits and drawbacks of AM, including instances of premature assessment (Simberloff 2009), benefits in relation to the integration of ecological research within management decision-making (Gosselin 2009), collaborative governance Sagoff 2009), dealing with complex problems and uncertainty (Boyd & Svejar 2009;Prato 2009a, b, c), evaluations of its utility through modelling (Bond & Loomis 2009;Martin et al 2009, Rout et al 2009, and discussion of separate discourses (Jacobson et al 2009;Owens 2009). None assessed the benefits or costs of AM in the field, including in relation to possible alternatives.…”

Section: Appraising Adaptive Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive management: where are we now?

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYAdaptive management (AM) emerged in the literature in the mid-1970s in response both to a realization of the extent of uncertainty involved in management, and a frustration with attempts to use modelling to integrate knowledge and make predictions. The term has since become increasingly widely used in scientific articles, policy documents and management plans, but both understanding and application of the concept is mixed. This paper reviews recent literature from conservation and natural resource management journals to assess diversity in how the term is used, highlight ambiguities and consider how the concept might be further assessed. AM is currently being used to describe many different management contexts, scales and locations. Few authors define the term explicitly or describe how it offers a means to improve management outcomes in their specific management context. Many do not adhere to the idea as it was originally conceived, despite citing seminal work. Significant confusion exists over the distinction between active and passive approaches. Over half of the studies reporting to implement AM claimed to have done so successfully, yet none quantified specific benefits, or costs, in relation to possible alternatives. Similarly those studies reporting to assess the approach did so only in relation to specific models and their parameterizations; none assessed the benefits or costs of AM in the field. AM is regarded by some as an effective and wellestablished framework to support the management of natural resources, yet by others as a concept difficult to realize and fraught with implementation challenges; neither of these observations is wholly accurate. From a scientific and technical perspective many practical questions remain; in particular realworld assessments of the value of experimentation within a management framework, as well as of identified challenges and pathologies, are needed. Further discussion and systematic assessment of the approach is required, together with greater attention to its definition and description, enabling the assessment of new approaches to managing uncertainty, and AM itself.

show abstract

Section: Appraising Adaptive Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive management: where are we now?

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the relative capacities of different sets of international law to influence international tourism mobility is also grounded in the understanding of how biological invasions may harm the environment or people (Sagoff, 2009). For example, the IHR and the CBD are based on a different notion of the global public good than the WTO and the SPS for which it is economically defined.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biosecurity, tourism and mobility: institutional arrangements for managing tourism-related biological invasions

Hall

2011

Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As a prominent and recent example of a large body of work that predominantly focuses on the assumptions, internal logic and coherence of the central concepts of invasion biology (see, for instance , Brown 1997 ;Shrader -Frechette 2001 ;Woods & Moriarty 2001 ;Aitken 2004 ;Townsend 2005 ;Warren 2007 ), I focus in this chapter on the critique expressed by Mark Sagoff (1999Sagoff ( , 2003Sagoff ( , 2005Sagoff ( , 2006Sagoff ( , 2009a against ecological science in general, and invasion biology in particular. In this critique he argues that ecological science and invasion biology alike are unable to defi ne their objects of study (ecosystems and the sense in which they can be identifi ed as ' the same ' , or ' of a kind ' ), are unable to test falsifi able hypotheses about changes in the ecosystem, are unable to explain effi cient cause for ecosystem structure, pattern, design or function, and are unable to apply their theories to solve real -life problems.…”

Section: Mark Sagoff ' S Challengementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A third preliminary point to make is that in all the work that Mark Sagoff has published over the past decade on the topic of environmental issues and ecology in general, and on the topic of invasion biology in particular (Sagoff 1999(Sagoff , 2003(Sagoff , 2005(Sagoff , 2006(Sagoff , 2009a, the same basic argument is repeatedly articulated, leading to the same set of conclusions about, and recommendations to, invasion biology. This persistence in following the same line of thought over such a long time is revealing in itself, indicating among other things a strong conviction that there are several serious problems with invasion biology following the Eltonian path, and that it is very important to address these problems properly.…”

Section: Mark Sagoff ' S Challengementioning

confidence: 99%