Future directions
257
biogeography at the landscape scale, and in particular
of the logic of species – area relationships, the role of
the transformed matrix (i.e. ‘ countryside ’ ), habitat corridors, dispersal and metapopulation dynamics (see
Chapter 8 ). The conservation biogeography toolbox of
conceptual frameworks, models and forecasts will thus
be central to the success of the reconciliation ecology
agenda. There are already many ongoing initiatives
that are aligned with this agenda, most notably in
modifi cations to agricultural practices that are extending the geographical area available to many plants and
animals, or which allow the passage of species between
habitat fragments.
Ultimately, the success of reconciliation ecology in
‘ pushing ’ nature back up the species – area curve will
depend on the broad support of many sectors of society
for the goals and values encompassed. For large - scale
habitat modifi cations, it will be necessary to engage
with a whole range of disciplines and professions,
including planners, developers, anthropologists and
social scientists, who can both help design effective
strategies and also ‘ broker the deal ’ with the human
inhabitants of these landscapes.
10.3 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
In Chapter 1 we defi ned conservation biogeography as
‘ the application of biogeographical principles, theories,
and analyses, being those concerned with the distributional dynamics of taxa individually and collectively, to
problems concerning the conservation of biodiversity ’
(original source: Whittaker et al. , 2005 ). However, as
outlined in Chapter 2 , conservation is a refl ection of
societal values. Thus, although the models and insights
of conservation biogeography may help us better conserve biodiversity, the type of biodiversity we seek to
conserve depends upon the values held by the various
organizations and institutions that determine conservation policy. These bodies are, in turn, infl uenced by
the values of wider society as a whole.
Over time, values change – just consider the change
in typical western attitudes to fur coats in the last 50
years – and, while there is no guarantee that society
will continue to endorse the current objectives of the
conservation movement, it will represent a great
failure if conservationists cannot convince society at
large that wild nature matters to the human condition
and warrants more careful custodianship. Conservation
biogeographers have the potential to play an important
10.2.5 Reconciliation e cology and
a b iogeography of the c ountryside
Conservation philosophy, science, and practice must
be framed against the reality of human - dominated
ecosystems, rather than the separation of humanity
and nature underlying the modern conservation
movement.
(Western, 2001 , p. 5458)
Rosenzweig (2001, 2003) has argued persuasively
that the most fundamental conservation challenge
facing us is to learn ‘ how to share anthropogenic habitats with wild species ’ (2001, p. 5409). In other words,
we need to discover ways to transform and diversify
what are often impoverished anthropogenic habitats so
that they have the potential to harbour more species.
Daily et al . (2001, 2003) make much the same case,
arguing for recognition of the importance of making
anthropogenic habitats as wildlife - friendly as possible,
both for the ecosystem services (e.g. pollination) provided by wild species in these landscapes and because
protected area systems alone cannot save enough of
wild nature.
Daily and colleagues issue their plea under the term
‘ countryside biogeography ’ , while Rosenzweig uses
the label ‘ reconciliation ecology ’ in recognition of the
inevitable trade - offs and compromises that need to be
made in such an undertaking. Rosenzweig ’ s case is
fi rmly based on biogeographical principles; he reasons
that, because reduction in area of suitable habitat is
the key driver of reduction in diversity, we need to halt
or reverse this trend (Rosenzweig, 2003 ; and see
Chapter 8 ).
In recent decades, a big part of the effort to do so has
been channelled through the creation of protected
areas, but at roughly 12 per cent of the terrestrial
surface of the Earth under some form of protection it
is likely to become increasingly diffi cult to argue for
signifi cant further increases in the terrestrial protected
area estate. We may be approaching the limits of this
strategy, at least in terms of the more restrictive categories of protected area (e.g. IUCN categories 1 – 4; Table
2.2 ). Rosenzweig ’ s argument is that by changing
the way we transform habitats and how we manage
already transformed habitats, we can potentially
achieve our socio - economic objectives without the
accompanying reduction in species ranges.
Both countryside biogeography and reconciliation
ecology derive directly from an understanding of
257
biogeography at the landscape scale, and in particular
of the logic of species – area relationships, the role of
the transformed matrix (i.e. ‘ countryside ’ ), habitat corridors, dispersal and metapopulation dynamics (see
Chapter 8 ). The conservation biogeography toolbox of
conceptual frameworks, models and forecasts will thus
be central to the success of the reconciliation ecology
agenda. There are already many ongoing initiatives
that are aligned with this agenda, most notably in
modifi cations to agricultural practices that are extending the geographical area available to many plants and
animals, or which allow the passage of species between
habitat fragments.
Ultimately, the success of reconciliation ecology in
‘ pushing ’ nature back up the species – area curve will
depend on the broad support of many sectors of society
for the goals and values encompassed. For large - scale
habitat modifi cations, it will be necessary to engage
with a whole range of disciplines and professions,
including planners, developers, anthropologists and
social scientists, who can both help design effective
strategies and also ‘ broker the deal ’ with the human
inhabitants of these landscapes.
10.3 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
In Chapter 1 we defi ned conservation biogeography as
‘ the application of biogeographical principles, theories,
and analyses, being those concerned with the distributional dynamics of taxa individually and collectively, to
problems concerning the conservation of biodiversity ’
(original source: Whittaker et al. , 2005 ). However, as
outlined in Chapter 2 , conservation is a refl ection of
societal values. Thus, although the models and insights
of conservation biogeography may help us better conserve biodiversity, the type of biodiversity we seek to
conserve depends upon the values held by the various
organizations and institutions that determine conservation policy. These bodies are, in turn, infl uenced by
the values of wider society as a whole.
Over time, values change – just consider the change
in typical western attitudes to fur coats in the last 50
years – and, while there is no guarantee that society
will continue to endorse the current objectives of the
conservation movement, it will represent a great
failure if conservationists cannot convince society at
large that wild nature matters to the human condition
and warrants more careful custodianship. Conservation
biogeographers have the potential to play an important
10.2.5 Reconciliation e cology and
a b iogeography of the c ountryside
Conservation philosophy, science, and practice must
be framed against the reality of human - dominated
ecosystems, rather than the separation of humanity
and nature underlying the modern conservation
movement.
(Western, 2001 , p. 5458)
Rosenzweig (2001, 2003) has argued persuasively
that the most fundamental conservation challenge
facing us is to learn ‘ how to share anthropogenic habitats with wild species ’ (2001, p. 5409). In other words,
we need to discover ways to transform and diversify
what are often impoverished anthropogenic habitats so
that they have the potential to harbour more species.
Daily et al . (2001, 2003) make much the same case,
arguing for recognition of the importance of making
anthropogenic habitats as wildlife - friendly as possible,
both for the ecosystem services (e.g. pollination) provided by wild species in these landscapes and because
protected area systems alone cannot save enough of
wild nature.
Daily and colleagues issue their plea under the term
‘ countryside biogeography ’ , while Rosenzweig uses
the label ‘ reconciliation ecology ’ in recognition of the
inevitable trade - offs and compromises that need to be
made in such an undertaking. Rosenzweig ’ s case is
fi rmly based on biogeographical principles; he reasons
that, because reduction in area of suitable habitat is
the key driver of reduction in diversity, we need to halt
or reverse this trend (Rosenzweig, 2003 ; and see
Chapter 8 ).
In recent decades, a big part of the effort to do so has
been channelled through the creation of protected
areas, but at roughly 12 per cent of the terrestrial
surface of the Earth under some form of protection it
is likely to become increasingly diffi cult to argue for
signifi cant further increases in the terrestrial protected
area estate. We may be approaching the limits of this
strategy, at least in terms of the more restrictive categories of protected area (e.g. IUCN categories 1 – 4; Table
2.2 ). Rosenzweig ’ s argument is that by changing
the way we transform habitats and how we manage
already transformed habitats, we can potentially
achieve our socio - economic objectives without the
accompanying reduction in species ranges.
Both countryside biogeography and reconciliation
ecology derive directly from an understanding of