Non‐epistemic Values and Concerns about Evolutionary Mindsets in Conservation Policy
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12469 |
Non-epistemic Values and Concerns about
Evolutionary Mindsets in Conservation Policy
Wieteke A. Holthuijzen
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
Bert Baumgaertner
University of Idaho
A Response to: ‘Beyond Resilience:
How to Better Prepare for the Profound Disruption of the Anthropocene’,
Peter Kareiva and Emma Fuller (2016);
‘Why Politics and Context Matter in Conservation Policy’,
Florence Damiens et al. (2017);
‘The Long and Short of Environmental Solutions’,
Peter Kareiva and Emma Fuller (2017)
Abstract
This short article offers reflections on an approach to environmental policy and land management forwarded by Peter Kareiva
and Emma Fuller. Their approach both mimics evolution in its structure and seeks to manage for evolution in application.
They argue this approach is a novel perspective on policy that is more adaptive and flexible in setting realistic conservation
goals and objectives. While we agree that their approach is a novel starting point for discussion of ecosystem resilience and
adaptive management, we argue that they do not offer the required framework of guiding principles, or---more importantly---
a set of values on which to base this particular environmental policy and management approach. We analyze the main driver
behind Kareiva and Fuller’s article (an evolutionary perspective in regards to policy) with respect to non-epistemic values and
outline key questions that will be important to inform environmental and conservation research, efforts, and policy.
The evolutionary mindset in conservation policy
and concerns about It
Kareiva and Fuller (2016) attempt to outline an ambitious
approach to environmental policy and land management
planning based on evolutionary processes or potential (and
by extension adaptation) rather than biodiversity and con-
servation focused objectives. In turn, they argue that policy
and management decisions should model processes found
in evolution, using, in the words of Kareiva and Fuller
(2016), experimental and novel practices as well as ‘radical
policy mutations’to produce a myriad of approaches to con-
servation, management, and environmental policy and regu-
lation. They recognize that many of these practices and
policies would be expected to fail, as is the case with muta-
tions in evolution –most fail, but a few may survive to pro-
duce offspring, and so the process continues.
An immediate point might be that although a ‘shotgun’
approach to policy could yield some interesting results,
approaching a protected area’s (PA) managing organization,
a federal agency, or even a larger legislative body at a coun-
try or international level with a proposal like this –with the
explicit footnote that many of these practices and policies
would be expected to fail –is unlikely to gain much
support. With limited resources, staff, time, funding, and
numerous competing interests across various scales of con-
servation (from local nonprofit groups to federal agencies to
international organizations, like UNEP), the expectation of
failure is borderline irresponsible, especially when managing
innumerable complex environments that provide the
ecosystem services and goods that we depend on every
day.
To return to the original point in Kareiva and Fuller’s
(2016) article: the authors argue that land managers, conser-
vationists, environmental scientists, and ecologists ought to
manage for evolution. At the conclusion of their paper, they
provide a bulleted list of best practices, mostly based on
pre-existing mantras central to adaptive management (e.g.
©2017 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Global Policy (2017) 8:3 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12469
Global Policy Volume 8 . Issue 3 . September 2017
426
Response to Article
To continue reading
Request your trial