PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16903118

Theories about consensus-based conservation.

William D Leach
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

"Conservation and the Myth of Consensus" (Peterson et al. 2005) levels several serious indictments against consensus-based approaches to environmental decision making. Namely, the authors argue that consensus processes (1) reinforce apathy and ignorance of conservation issues; (2) legitimize damage to the environment; (3) quash public debate about conservation; (4) solidify the existing balance of power in favor of prodevelopment forces; and (5) block progress toward an ecologically sustainable future. Careful scrutiny of consensus-based approaches is important, especially considering their surging use in conservation policy. In the spirit of advancing the debate further, I review some of the limitations of the essay and its modes of inquiry.

Explore related subjects

ConsensusConservation of Natural ResourcesDissent and DisputesPoliticsPublic PolicyResearchJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

William D Leach. 2006. Theories about consensus-based conservation.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00408.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT.

When homeopathy is tested in clinical trials, understanding and appraisal is likely to be improved if published reports contain details of prescribing strategies and treatments. An international Delphi panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines for reporting homeopathic methods and treatments. The panel agreed 28 treatment- and provider-specific items that supplement the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement items 2, 3, 4 and 19. The authors recommend these for adoption by authors and journals when reporting trials of homeopathy.

Consensus↗
PubMed2007

Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines for newborns at a Copenhagen University Hospital - a cross-sectional study.

AIM: To assess the agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines of a University Neonatology Department, to evaluate the reasons for potential disagreements and to ascertain whether Cochrane reviews were considered for the guidelines development. METHODS: The recommendations in the reviews and guidelines were compared and classified as being in 'agreement', 'partial agreement' or 'disagreement'. The guideline authors were interviewed for reasons about disagreement and whether Cochrane reviews were considered during the guideline development. RESULTS: Agreement between reviews and guidelines was found for 133 interventions (77%), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18%) and disagreement for nine interventions (5%). Six interventions were recommended in the guidelines, but not in the reviews. Three interventions were recommended in the reviews, but not in the guidelines. Use of consensus statements, evidence on surrogate markers, observational studies, basic immunology and pathophysiological knowledge, expert opinion, economical constraints, reservations about the external validity and unawareness of reviews were reasons for disagreement. Cochrane reviews were rarely (22%) used during the guideline development. CONCLUSION: We found agreement between more than three quarters of Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines. However, few important disagreements occurred. Reviews were only used for guideline development in about a fifth of cases.

Consensus↗