Whatever It Takes for Conservation: The Case for Alternatives Analysis

Summary

Conservation biologists are increasingly called on to contribute to ecological risk assessments but should insist on the preparation of broader alternatives assessments. Ecological risk assessments generally fail to examine a broad range of options for human behaviors and generally attempt to determine what cannot be determined: The assimilative capacity of the environment to withstand particular levels of human disturbance. Alternatives assessments, on the other hand, consider the pros and cons of diverse options available to humans to alter noncon-serving behaviors. Although allowing conservation biologists to avoid defending any alternative as “safe,” alternatives assessment involves examination of ecological and social benefits of particular activities as well as the hazards (i.e., “risk”) of those activities. Although risk assessment generally employs experts to estimate the threshold for risks of a narrow range of unwise options, alternatives assessment is based on a broader range of options (including conservation and restoration), utilizes more diverse bodies of knowledge, and reveals the ecological and social hope offered by particular options.