生物多样性和物种灭绝:分类、计算和交流

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Griffith Law Review Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.1080/10383441.2020.1925204
E. Turnhout, A. Purvis
{"title":"生物多样性和物种灭绝:分类、计算和交流","authors":"E. Turnhout, A. Purvis","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1925204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT After the launch of the Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in May 2019, the message that 1 million species are threatened with extinction made headlines in news and social media across the world. These headlines also resulted in critical responses that questioned the credibility of this number and – by extension – the Global Assessment report and the institution of IPBES. In this article, we – as two authors of the Global Assessment – draw lessons from the GA about how to represent biodiversity in assessments and how biodiversity knowledge can inform effective and legitimate actions that contribute to conservation as well as equity, justice, and human well-being. Specifically, we highlight the inherent multiplicity of meanings and definitions of biodiversity to reflect on the limitations of using species richness and extinction as proxies for biodiversity and biodiversity loss. It is crucial to communicate clearly and in a balanced way that biodiversity loss is broader than species extinction, and how this broader loss of biodiversity jeopardises human wellbeing irrespective of whether species die out. Consequently, the post-2020 biodiversity framework will require multiple targets around not only species extinction but also broader biodiversity loss and human well-being.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1925204","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biodiversity and species extinction: categorisation, calculation, and communication\",\"authors\":\"E. Turnhout, A. Purvis\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10383441.2020.1925204\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT After the launch of the Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in May 2019, the message that 1 million species are threatened with extinction made headlines in news and social media across the world. These headlines also resulted in critical responses that questioned the credibility of this number and – by extension – the Global Assessment report and the institution of IPBES. In this article, we – as two authors of the Global Assessment – draw lessons from the GA about how to represent biodiversity in assessments and how biodiversity knowledge can inform effective and legitimate actions that contribute to conservation as well as equity, justice, and human well-being. Specifically, we highlight the inherent multiplicity of meanings and definitions of biodiversity to reflect on the limitations of using species richness and extinction as proxies for biodiversity and biodiversity loss. It is crucial to communicate clearly and in a balanced way that biodiversity loss is broader than species extinction, and how this broader loss of biodiversity jeopardises human wellbeing irrespective of whether species die out. Consequently, the post-2020 biodiversity framework will require multiple targets around not only species extinction but also broader biodiversity loss and human well-being.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1925204\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1925204\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Griffith Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1925204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

摘要2019年5月,政府间生物多样性和生态系统服务平台(IPBES)启动全球评估后,100万物种面临灭绝威胁的消息成为全球新闻和社交媒体的头条新闻。这些头条新闻也引起了批评,质疑这一数字的可信度,进而质疑全球评估报告和IPBES机构的可信度。在这篇文章中,作为《全球评估》的两位作者,我们从GA中汲取了关于如何在评估中代表生物多样性以及生物多样性知识如何为有助于保护、公平、正义和人类福祉的有效和合法行动提供信息的经验教训。具体而言,我们强调了生物多样性的内在含义和定义的多样性,以反思使用物种丰富度和灭绝作为生物多样性和生物多样性丧失的指标的局限性。至关重要的是,要清楚、平衡地传达生物多样性的丧失比物种灭绝更广泛,以及无论物种是否灭绝,这种更广泛的生物多样性丧失如何危害人类福祉。因此,2020年后生物多样性框架不仅需要围绕物种灭绝,还需要围绕更广泛的生物多样性丧失和人类福祉制定多个目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Biodiversity and species extinction: categorisation, calculation, and communication
ABSTRACT After the launch of the Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in May 2019, the message that 1 million species are threatened with extinction made headlines in news and social media across the world. These headlines also resulted in critical responses that questioned the credibility of this number and – by extension – the Global Assessment report and the institution of IPBES. In this article, we – as two authors of the Global Assessment – draw lessons from the GA about how to represent biodiversity in assessments and how biodiversity knowledge can inform effective and legitimate actions that contribute to conservation as well as equity, justice, and human well-being. Specifically, we highlight the inherent multiplicity of meanings and definitions of biodiversity to reflect on the limitations of using species richness and extinction as proxies for biodiversity and biodiversity loss. It is crucial to communicate clearly and in a balanced way that biodiversity loss is broader than species extinction, and how this broader loss of biodiversity jeopardises human wellbeing irrespective of whether species die out. Consequently, the post-2020 biodiversity framework will require multiple targets around not only species extinction but also broader biodiversity loss and human well-being.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Reconceptualising the crimes of Big Tech The current legal regime of the Indonesian outer small islands Mainstreaming climate change in legal education Skeletons in the cupboard: reading settler anxiety in Mabo and Love Post-enlargement (free) movement in the EU: who really counts as EU CITIZEN? understanding Dano through the lens of Orientalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1