Premium
Ecoregions in Ascendance: Reply to Jepson and Whittaker
Author(s) -
Wikramanayake Eric,
Dinerstein Eric,
Loucks Colby,
Olson David,
Morrison John,
Lamoreux John,
McKnight Meghan,
Hedao Prashant
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
conservation biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.2
H-Index - 222
eISSN - 1523-1739
pISSN - 0888-8892
DOI - 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01403.x
Subject(s) - wildlife , wildlife conservation , geography , political science , library science , ecology , computer science , biology
In their essay, Jepson and Whittaker (2002 [this issue]) express three aims: (1) to place the World Wildlife Fund ( WWF ) ecoregions (Olson et al. 2001; Wikramanayake et al. 2001) in context with alternative systems for setting conservation priorities; (2) to express concern about the explicitness, transparency, and repeatability of the methods employed to define and delineate ecoregions; and (3) to ask whether the WWF ecoregions improve upon existing schemes of representing biodiversity (which they attempt to investigate by performing a qualitative test with Indonesia as a case study). Their essay contains a number of misrepresentations of our ecoregion approach. In the interest of brevity, we address only the major issues in this reply. We begin by arguing for the value of ecoregions, outlining the rationale behind the ecoregion framework and the delineation process, and comparing these with other efforts. The approach is detailed explicitly by Wikramanayake et al. (2001) and others ( Ricketts et al. 1999; Abell et al. 2000; Dinerstein et al. 2000).