Kareiva and Marvier 2012: The Aftermath
The comments below hold a series of links and short descriptions of the various responses to Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier’s controversial 2012 article “What is Conservation Science?”
Structural Ecology
The dynamic interaction between individual organisms and the structure and pattern of their surroundings
The Russell Lab at NJIT
http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.19
This article is talking about how Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier’s paper about conservation biology differs from Soulé’s paper. They include that they both agree something is needed to be done but differ in deciding the best approach to reach conservation goals.
A group of conservation biologists came together and shared their thoughts about Kareiva’s paper with Andrew Revkin. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/peter-kareiva-critic-of-environmentalism-gets-critiqued/
This article discusses the controversy about Kareiva’s article on biodiversity.
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/bridging-conservation-divide
Conservation Biologists criticize Kareiva’s paper by saying that Kareiva believes that nothing has happened between 1985 to 2012 and that conservation biologists have not done things like fence, protect areas, and consider people when thinking about conservation.
Kim, Jenn, Beril, & Cristina
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/peter-kareiva-an-inconvenient-environmentalist/?comments#permid=2
https://ideas4sustainability.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/changing-values-and-approaches-in-conservation-science/
Fischer agrees with the author of Kareiva states in his article. He states that Soule’s point of view would not remain constant and as humans we should not stay focused on only protected areas but we should expand to areas that humans have an affect on.
Gabriella, Osama, Reema and Rosena
“Biodiversity versus ecosystem services”
https://nadiah.org/blog/?p=219
Marvier and Kareiva are continuously combating the ideas that are solely environmentally based by continuing to be inclusive to human harm as well. He states, “the fate of nature and that of people are deeply intertwined”. This is explicitly in regard to oil spills impacting crop management and growth.
Karieva mentions that conservation science in the present differs than in the future because, nature can prosper and be healthy as long as humans are not neglectful about it. He means that if everyone cares just a little bit we can be in good shape. that means that we care about conservation science for people to live, rather than from people doing damage.
https://milliontrees.me/2013/12/10/peter-kareiva-redefines-conservation-biology/
Kareiva and Marvier published a new book in 2018: Effective Conservation Science: Data not Dogma.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JJg4DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Effective+Conservation+Science:+Data+Not+Dogma&ots=pv0Y8c7kT_&sig=wLtwO4OsM7oCgCUFGy7aYhhkhfk#v=onepage&q=Effective%20Conservation%20Science%3A%20Data%20Not%20Dogma&f=false
The title previews the book’s criticism of traditional conservation as a collection of beliefs that are rarely supported by empirical, observational data. In the introductory chapter, Kareiva and his collaborators explain how conservation abandoned scientific standards in order to support their advocacy. They ask the scientific community to address this failure because the consequences of inaccurately assessing perceived environmental problems has real world consequences for land, water, and ocean management. Solutions to such environmental problems cannot be found if they are masked by unfounded opinions about the source of those problems.