Reconciling conservation paradigms.

In spite of decades of conservation efforts, biological diversity throughout the world continues to dwindle. Prevailing conservation models have had greater success in determining which species and ecosystems to conserve than in fully taking into account the social and cultural landscapes within which these conservation targets are embedded. International conservation organizations have tended to define conservation targets (and approaches) at large spatial scales in hopes that they may apply broadly. Thus, over the last few decades we have seen a succession of generalized, monolithic conservation models replacing one another or competing with one another for attention and resources (for a recent review see Redford et al. 2003. Conservation Biology 17:116–131). These models have been developed within large international conservation organizations and are thus partly driven by a need for general application. The models, based on conservation science, seek unifying principles reflecting science’s quest for general and widely applicable concepts.They tend to view the world through relatively coarse filters and may fail to encourage the emergence and spread of fine-grained models adapted to local conditions. Moreover, most models are directed toward the achievement of particular outcomes, rather than the support of systemic resilience.