دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله پایداری اکولوژیکی یا بوم شناختی – 1997
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی مقوله حفاظت در پایداری اکولوژیکی و زیست محیطی به همراه ترجمه فارسی
عنوان فارسی مقاله: | بررسی مفهوم حفاظت در پایداری اکولوژیکی یا بوم شناختی |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: | Ecological Sustainability as a Conservation Concept |
رشته های مرتبط: | مهندسی محیط زیست، مهندسی منابع طبیعی، مهندسی طراحی محیط زیست، برنامه ریزی و علوم محیطی |
فرمت مقالات رایگان | مقالات انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی رایگان با فرمت PDF میباشند |
کیفیت ترجمه | کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله خوب میباشد |
دانشگاه | گروه فلسفه و دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه ویسکانسین |
توضیحات | ترجمه به صورت خلاصه انجام شده است |
کد محصول | F110 |
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان |
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
ترجمه فارسی رایگان |
دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله |
جستجوی ترجمه مقالات | جستجوی ترجمه مقالات محیط زیست |
بخشی از ترجمه فارسی: اگر چه افراد خوشبین فناوری ممکن است چنین تصور کنند که جایگزین انوانتوری فعلی منابع طبیعی را می توان کشف و اختراع کرد، با این حال تا ان جا که ما می دانیم هیچ کس هیچ گونه جایگزینی را برای خدمات اکولوژیکی نظیر گرده افشانی تثبیت نیتروژن تخلیص اب و غیره که بتوان اختراع ایجاد کرد گزارش نکرده است. در واقع برخی از اکولوژیست ها و طرفداران محیط زیست عنوان کرده اند که می توان چنین اذعان کرد که مهندسان می توانند یکسری جایگزین های مصنوعی برای فرایند های اکولوژیکی و کارکرد های ان در اقتصاد طبیعت ایجاد کنند به طوری که بتواند یک سری خدمات رایگان را برای اقتصاد بشری به ارمغان بیاورد.اگر چه این مسئله مورد انتقاد شدید بسیاری از طرفداران محیط زیست قرار گرفته است با این حال دیگر سند بین المللی موثر یعنی محافظت از زمین(اتحادیه ی بین المللی حفاظت از طبیعی،برنامه ی محیط زیست سازمان ملل،سرمایه ی جهانی طبیعت 1991)گزارش حفاظت مدارانه در خصوص پایداری در اختیار گذاشته اند. عنوان ان راهبردی برای زندگی یا حیات پایدار و نه راهبردی برای توسعه ی پایدار است. حیات پایدار بر خلاف توسعه ی پایدار به عنوان یک فعالیت اقتصادی بشری عنوان می شود که به طور جد به فرایند های اکولوژیکی و کارکرد های ان اخلال وارد نمی کند و در عوض به عنوان یک سری اکوسیستم های مصنوعی (اقتصاد بشری )محسوب می شود که به صورت همزیست با اکوسیستم های طبیعی نزدیک سازگاری پیدا می کند که طرح ان توسط جکسون 1980 و 1987 عنوان شده است. |
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی: Abstract: Neither the classic resource management concept of maximum sustainable yield nor the concept of sustainable development are useful to contemporary, nonanthropocentric, ecologically informed conserva- tion biology. As an alternative, we advance an ecological definition of sustainability that is in better accord with biological conservation: meeting human needs without compromising the health of ecosystems. In addi- tion to familiar benefit-cost constraints on human economic activity, we urge adding ecologic constraints. Projects are not choice-worthy if they compromise the health of the ecosystems in which human economic sys- tems are embedded. Sustainability, so defined, is proffered as an approach to conservation that would com- plement wildlands preservation for ecological integrity, not substitute for wildlands preservation. Sustentabilidad Ecológica como Concepto de Conservación Resumen: Ni el concepto clásico de manejo de recursos, ni el concepto de cosecha máxima sostenida son aplicables en biología de la conservación contemporanea, no antropocéntrica y ecológicamente informada. Como una alternativa, proponemos una definicion ecológica de sustentabilidad que es mas acorde con la conservación biológica: alcanzar las necesidades humanas sin comprometer la salud de los ecosistemas. Además de las restricciones familiares de costo-beneficio en las actividades económicas humanas, solicitamos agregar las restricciones ecológicas: Proyectos no deberán ser seleccionados si comprometen la salud de los ecosistemas en los cuales se desarrollan actividades económicas humanas. La sustentabilidad, así definida, se sugiere como una aproximación a la conservación que complementaría la conservación de áreas silvestres para la integridad ecológica, sin sustituirla. Introduction Like biodiversity , sustainability is a buzz word in cur- rent conservation discourse. And like biodiversity, sus- tainability evokes positive associations. According to Allen and Hoekstra (1993:98), “everyone agrees that sus- tainability is a good thing.” Both sustainability and biodi- versity, however, are at grave risk of being coopted by people primarily concerned about things other than bio- logical conservation. Noss (1995:26) notes that “virtually everyone who has used the term [sustainability] seems to have had ‘human needs and aspirations’ as their pri- mary concern.” Angermeier (1994) and Angermeier and Karr (1994) point out that local biodiversity can be artifi- cially increased (at least temporarily) by introducing non- indigenous species into a biotic community; and, indeed, sport fishers more concerned about angling opportunities than about biological conservation have cloaked their ar- gument for introducing nonindigenous game fish to the Great Lakes in the mantle of enhanced biodiversity (Tho- mas 1995). One response would be for conservation biologists to write both biodiversity and sustainability off as hope- lessly tainted terms. We believe a better response would be to try to define them in ways that facilitate biological conservation and expand conservation options. Concepts (and the terms that label them) are tools. Within the limits of their etymologies and lexical definitions, terms can be defined to suit the needs and purposes of a particular discipline—conservation biology, in this case. Noss (1995) has sharpened the concept of biodiversity for purposes of biological conservation, arguing that while local biodiversity may be artificially increased, sen- sitive native species may go extinct, as a result, through competitive exclusion by weedy cosmopolitan exot- ics—thus diminishing landscape diversity regionally and species diversity globally. In accordance with a sugges- tion by Lélé and Norgaard (1996)—that scientists reflect upon and make their own values and biases clear—we try to reshape the concept of sustainability for purposes of biological conservation. And the “discourse” of the “like-minded community” that our discussion “privi- leges” (Lélé & Norgaard 1996) is the international, ethni- cally diverse community of conservation biologists. Our discussion of the concept of sustainability is stipulative rather than descriptive. Lélé and Norgaard (1996) point out that sustainability means many different things to many different people. We are concerned less, however, with how the concept of sustainability is variously inter- preted—explicitly or implicitly—and more with how it might best be crafted to serve conservation desiderata. Two familiar conservation-related concepts sprouting from the sustain radical can be immediately identified: (maximum/optimum) sustained yield and sustainable de- velopment. We give shape to a third sustain-rooted con- servation concept: ecological sustainability. For pur- poses of biological conservation, we suggest that the concept of ecological sustainability be sharply distin- guished from both sustained yield and sustainable devel- opment. Both sustained yield and sustainable develop- ment, on the other hand, are associated with the human use and/or inhabitation of nature. As a member of the sustain family of conservation-related concepts and in deference to common usage, ecological sustainability should, therefore, also be crafted for conserving the biota of ecosystems that are humanly inhabited and eco- nomically exploited. Other concepts, such as ecological integrity, might more appropriately guide the conserva- tion of biodiversity reserves (Woodley et al. 1993; Anger- meier & Karr 1994; Westra 1994; Noss 1995). Salwasser (1990) initiated a debate in this journal about the extent to which the concept of sustainability should guide conservation biology. He argues that achieving sustainability should be the principal goal of conservation biology (Salwasser 1990). Though Sal- wasser (1990:214) proposes “to put some flesh on the skeleton of the concept of sustainability,” his discussion is more programmatic than substantive. He provides no clear definition of sustainability; instead, he mostly criti- cizes the not-in-my-backyard attitude and the lack of ef- fective policies to curb resource demand and encourage recycling, while insinuating that wildlands preservation may be a quixotic conservation strategy in a world that is already overpopulated (with no end to exponential human population growth yet in sight). Salwasser’s proposal was not warmly welcomed by or- thodox conservation biologists. For example, Noss (1991:120) inveighs against “the paradigm shift” from “wilderness preservation to sustainable management” that he understands Salwasser (1990) and others (Brown 1988; USDA Forest Service 1989; Callicott 1990 a ) to be advocating. Noss’s hostility is not unwarranted. Sal- wasser (1990) proffers the sustainability philosophy of conservation (however it might eventually be specified) as a successor not only to the traditional “crop-oriented” but also to the traditional “preservation-oriented” con- servation philosophy. Although in respect to conserva- tion desiderata, the concept of wilderness is problem- atic (Guha 1989; Callicott 1992; Denevan 1992; Gomez- Pompa & Kaus 1992; Cronon 1995), we certainly do not propose that every nook and cranny of the biosphere be humanly inhibited and exploited, provided such inhabi- tation and exploitation be ecologically sustainable. On the contrary, in sharp contrast to Lélé and Norgaard (1996), who demean this conservation stratagem as “po- lice and prohibit,” we emphatically endorse the estab- lishment of biodiversity reserves (the bigger and more numerous the better), understood as areas from which human habitation and economic activities are largely if not completely excluded in order to provide habitat for viable populations of other species. Sustainably inhabit- ing and using some areas and establishing biodiversity reserves in others should be regarded as complemen- tary, not as either competing or mutually exclusive, ap- proaches to conservation. Particularly sensitive species, interior species, and species that may come into conflict with Homo sapiens need habitat that is not rendered unfit for them by human residency and/or human eco- nomic activities. We propose that ecological sustain- ability be the guiding conservation concept for those areas that remain humanly inhabited and economically exploited. |