And the survey says,.....
If you happened to read the What land to protect? post a couple of weeks ago we asked two basic questions about protecting land for conservation. The first was simply "What is the principle driver of conservation land acquisition?" The second challenged the premise of the first and questioned whether land acquisition is actually the best strategy for biodiversity conservation. Well, we got 11 responses to our query. Not the most robust sample size, but I'm sure only very smart people read this blog so I'm sure they represent the Truth.
Regarding the principle driver of land acquisition, a plurality of you voted for development pressure / population growth. However, most votes went to other answers including two write-ins: "Historical considerations/amount of land available" and "remoteness". The spread of answers likely reflects a reality where each decision to acquire land for conservation is made under unique circumstances and is often driven by multiple factors.
Our second question asking whether land preservation is the best way to go resulted in a bit more clarity. Nearly half of you (5/11!) agreed that indeed removing land from human use (at least disruptive use) is the way to go if your goal is conservation. However, a slight majority voted for other courses of action including restoration and government regulation. I would venture that preservation is likely most effective if possible, but that in many cases (perhaps most cases) this is not an option and other strategies should be utilized.
Thanks to all of you who participated! Happy weekend.
Google chrome users: click here to download a RSS extension