Self‐sustaining populations are a conservation vision, not an operational objective

Abstract It is common for species conservation plans to identify the establishment or maintenance of a “self‐sustaining population” as an objective. However, this statement vaguely conflates different formulations and interpretations of population viability, management costs, and cultural preferences for non‐invasive population management. Hidden value judgments and assumptions about these components can create disagreement and conflict among partners. Thus, although a simple statement about “achieving self‐sustaining populations” can be a powerful strategic vision, evoking important shared values, it will not be effective as an operational objective for conservation decision making. Best practices in decision making emphasize the importance of fundamental objectives that are clear, unambiguous, and operational. Conservation planners may be better served by replacing the self‐sustaining concept with better‐defined fundamental objectives using quantitative statements about viability and clearly laying out ecological, economic, and cultural values.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conservation Science and Practice
Published
2025-03-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70033
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
9.25
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Self‐sustaining populations are a conservation vision, not an operational objective

John G. Ewen, Stefano Canessa, Sarah J. Converse, Axel Moehrenschlager
4 citations
Conservation Science and Practice
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
9.25
article

Self‐sustaining populations are a conservation vision, not an operational objective

John G. Ewen, Stefano Canessa, Sarah J. Converse, Axel Moehrenschlager
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Abstract It is common for species conservation plans to identify the establishment or maintenance of a “self‐sustaining population” as an objective. However, this statement vaguely conflates different formulations and interpretations of population viability, management costs, and cultural preferences for non‐invasive population management. Hidden value judgments and assumptions about these components can create disagreement and conflict among partners. Thus, although a simple statement about “achieving self‐sustaining populations” can be a powerful strategic vision, evoking important shared values, it will not be effective as an operational objective for conservation decision making. Best practices in decision making emphasize the importance of fundamental objectives that are clear, unambiguous, and operational. Conservation planners may be better served by replacing the self‐sustaining concept with better‐defined fundamental objectives using quantitative statements about viability and clearly laying out ecological, economic, and cultural values.

Conservation Science and PracticeVol. 7(4)
University of Bern (CH), United States Geological Survey (US), Zoological Society of London (GB), Panthera Corporation (US), University of Milan (IT), University of Washington (US)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
9.25
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Self‐sustaining populations are a conservation vision, not an operational objective — John G. Ewen, Stefano Canessa, et al. · Conservation Science and Practice (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS