Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHEWITT, Nina
dc.contributor.authorKLENK, Nicole
dc.contributor.authorSMITH, Andrea L.
dc.contributor.authorBAZELY, Dawn R.
dc.contributor.authorYan, Norman
dc.contributor.authorWOOD, Stepan
dc.contributor.authorMACLELLAN, James I.
dc.contributor.authorLIPSIG-MUMMÉ, Carla
dc.contributor.authorHENRIQUES, Irene
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-15T13:46:03Z
dc.date.available2016-03-15T13:46:03Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.citationBilogical conservation, 2011, Vol. 144, No. 11, pp. 2560-2572
dc.identifier.issn0006-3207
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/40177
dc.description.abstractAssisted migration was proposed several decades ago as a means of addressing the impacts of climate change on species populations. While its risks and benefits have been debated, and suggestions for planning and management given, there is little consensus within the academic literature over whether to adopt it as a policy. We evaluated the main features of the assisted migration literature including the study methods, taxonomic groups, geographic regions and disciplines involved. We further assessed the debate about the use of assisted migration, the main barriers to consensus, and the range of recommendations put forth in the literature for policy, planning or implementation. Commentaries and secondary literature reviews were as prevalent as first-hand scientific research and attention focussed on a global rather than regional level. There was little evidence of knowledge transfer outside of the natural sciences, despite the obvious policy relevance. Scholarly debate on this topic has intensified during the last 3 years. We present a conceptual framework for evaluating arguments in the debate, distinguishing among the direct risks and benefits to species, ecosystems and society on the one hand, and other arguments regarding scientific justification, evidence-base and feasibility on the other. We also identify recommendations with potential to advance the debate, including careful evaluation of risks, benefits and trade-offs, involvement of relevant stakeholders and consideration of the complementarity among assisted migration and less risk-tolerant strategies. We conclude, however, that none of these will solve the fundamental, often values-based, challenges in the debate. Solutions are likely to be complex, context-dependent and multi-faceted, emerging from further research, discussion and experience.
dc.language.isoen
dc.relation.ispartofBiological conservation
dc.titleTaking stock of the assisted migration debate
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.biocon.2011.04.031
dc.identifier.volume144
dc.identifier.startpage2560
dc.identifier.endpage2572
dc.identifier.issue11


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record