What does it mean

It rather acted a kind of acknowledgement of failure. One can bet they do not all share the same definition of this concept, especially between different disciplines, but this hypothesis cannot be answered as none of these papers dare providing a definition of this word, or even a mere bibliographical reference giving a hint of their point of view on it.

There is, once again, a lot to bet on the fact that divergences on their representation of nature feed many controversies in the field of nature conservation. These four definitions are exclusive of each other, according to many parameters. We identified in particular the inclusion of mankind or not explicitly excluded from 1, included in all others , its dynamic or static quality fundamentally dynamic in 3 and its inclusivity including the whole of reality only in 2 and 3.

This definition, already provided by Aristotle, is by far the most inclusive, and hence supposed to be the least political one, as we cannot act on it. In the second one, nature is a process of change, which can be conserved by a proper understanding of its mechanisms, including eventually an active participation in its dynamic. The last one implies an idea of fundamental character, which is to protect against any denaturation or distortion. These definitions hence imply very different conservation policies, which can hardly be merged.

For example, when the aim is conserving nature as a non-human natural heritage, there is need to limit as much as possible human intervention, such intervention being done mostly in order to remove previous human disturbance restoration ecology. Last but not least, if the aim is to conserve the fundamental character of a space, there is a theoretical idea of this place to showcase, in spite of its actual material reality.

One will recognize here echoes of the classical conservationist debate between preservationists and conservationists Callicott and Nelson, , or between conservation and restoration ecology Wiens and Hobbs, , which both may also be seen as incarnations of the more general scientific opposition between patterns and processes Underwood et al. It both partakes of the most ancient, and is something always new [ Last but not least, many debates about ecological restoration actually rely mostly on conflicting definitions of nature obvious in works such as Katz, , while this particular issue is rarely put in light.

As these debates all participate in political decision about conservation, there is a capital need of a clear definition of the vision of nature at the basis of each speech. Such conception cannot be erased with the sweep of the hand just because they are opposed to more mainstream ecological world views, but they need to be put in perspective with other widespread conceptions, and discussed on the basis on their own principles.

The diversity of meanings of nature also depends on who is using it and in what context Rolston III, However, ecology in the Anthropocene cannot behave as if mankind did not exist. Such vision entails very specific conceptions of conservation Sarrazin and Lecomte, Contemporary ecologists, lastly, have an analytic vision of nature: their aim is to divide it in units and relationships, so the holistic concept appears less useful as nature is mostly an abstract network of many scientific objects.

Once again, none of these definitions is right or wrong: they all stem from the history of sciences, and share analogies with philosophical traditions Callicott and Ames, , hence the standardization of one synthetic definition for all sciences and publics would probably entail a loss of scientific richness, as no definition is more legitimate than any other, and all possess their particular scientific, intellectual and political fecundity. However, with the progress of evolution sciences in ecology and conservation, along with global change as a dynamic evolutionary pressure on life, the evolutionist vision of nature may soon spread to other sciences and popular conceptions.

However, such shift must be conscious: it is not about erasing an obsolete vision and replacing it by a more accurate one, but what is at stake is the evolution of a philosophical trend that must keep all of its potential new ways open for future science.

On the other hand, trying to avoid it in conservation sciences seems unrealistic, and even dangerous, as it could make ecologists cutting themselves off from their popular support and flagship. One of the few major works to have taken into account the diversity of natures in the process of nature conservation appears to be the IUCN, through the IUCN protected area categories, first established in and revised in IUCN, Such vision of conservation is by nature static and fixist, and aims at transmitting such features to the next generations in the same state, hence closer to the fourth definition; it is noteworthy that many places protected under this category shelter hardly any biodiversity volcanoes, caves, high mountains, etc , diverging with a vitalist vision of nature as in the third definition.

This pluralistic grid is especially useful to protect a wide array of very different places, adapting to the numerous conceptions of nature and of its protection.

The dualistic American vision of wilderness VS man-devoted places is quite efficient and culturally significant in the US and a handful of other countries such as Australia , but has neither biological nor cultural groundings in most countries, especially western Europe or India Guha, Therefore, sticking artificially such culturally situated grid on inappropriate places or situations has very little chances of success, and faces local population incomprehension or opposition Campbell et al.

It is then paramount to document local visions of nature before trying to protect it, if we are to avoid any neo-colonial spirit. Then, encompassing the different visions of nature rather than conflicting them appears as one of the seminal challenges to conservationists if they want to bring together as much people as possible under their flag. There have always been many different policies of nature, and the main reason appears that there are many different conceptions of nature, which do not entail the same priorities, objects, and methods.

These conceptions change with philosophical groundings, and are then deeply rooted in people. Hence, science cannot and must not artificially standardize them, all the more that science also experiences such philosophical discrepancies. However, this diversity of conceptions of nature can also be seen as a chance for conservation, as it can anchor inspiration for public action, help defining accurate environmental policies and set objectives in human—nature relationship, which are difficult to determine on a strictly scientific point of view.

Actually, public policies are probably more inspired by cultural conceptions of nature than by scientific arguments: if conservation gained so much success in the US at the beginning of the twentieth century, it is probably mostly thanks to cultural and religious reasons Nash, Hence, a better comprehension of local visions of nature is necessary for local protection of nature, both as a concept and as a reality: semantic and ecological dynamics must converge in order to build relevant scenarios for public policies.

On the other hand, more than just forcing different conceptions of nature to cohabit, there may also be a need to engage them in a kind of dialogue. This echoes with what Michael Rosenzweig coined as « reconciliation ecology » Rosenzweig, , postulating that nature can, in some contexts, coexist with some degree of human presence and activity, and that sometimes such presence can even be favorable to biodiversity Couvet and Ducarme, Quite different from the traditional American conception of conservation often limited to the preservation of some remote sanctuaries of pristine wilderness most often rather poorly productive biologically speaking , reconciliation ecology proposes to develop coexistence conditions between human groups and ecosystems, hence rethinking the direct relationship between mankind and nature.

Some sustainable agriculture labels go the same way, trying to conciliate biological processes with food production, and considering that the reasoned anthropization of an environment is not always its corruption Doxa et al. The elusive character of nature as a concept may be a fundamental part of its identity Hadot, : this has long been an issue, but it may turn into an opportunity.

A social—ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations. Front Ecol Environ , 11 4 Google Scholar. Batisse M The biosphere reserve: a tool for environmental conservation and management. And I mean midnight. Give it back now! I mean it. When he said three o'clock, I thought he meant in the afternoon. Charges are made on a sliding scale , which means that the amount you must pay increases with the level of your income.

If you don't know what the word means, look it up in a dictionary. You should take it as a compliment when I fall asleep in your company - it means I'm relaxed. A continuous white line in the middle of the road means no overtaking. B1 [ T ] to have a particular result :. Lower costs mean lower prices. High acidity levels in the water mean that the fish are not so large.

Shortages mean that even staples like bread are difficult to find. In a way I'd prefer it if they didn't come, because it would mean extra work. Let's say that the journey takes three hours , that means you'll arrive at two o'clock. The irregularity of English spelling means that it is easy to make mistakes. I'm sorry if I offended you - I didn't mean any harm.

The books with large print are meant for partially sighted readers. Do you think she meant to say 9 a. They didn't mean for her to read the letter. These batteries are meant to last for a year. This exercise isn't meant to be difficult. We were meant to have gone away this week , but Debbie's ill so we couldn't go.

You are meant to rub the medicine on the affected area , not swallow it. I didn't mean to be rude - it just came out like that. He doesn't really mean it - he's just being contrary. He's always making flattering remarks , but he doesn't really mean them. I didn't mean to upset her - it was just a bit of fun.

He didn't mean it - he said it in the heat of the moment. Planning, expecting and arranging. B1 [ T ] to have an important emotional effect on someone:. It wasn't a valuable picture but it meant a lot to me. Possessions mean nothing to him. Her children mean all the world to her.

She skilfully manages the side-lights, and by this means produces strong effects. This is a feature by means of which it is always possible to distinguish the Great Horsetail from any other species. The specific gravity is most conveniently estimated by means of the urinometer—Squibb's is preferable Fig.

There is cause for alarm when they bring one hundred and ten ships into these seas without any means of resistance on our part. New Word List Word List. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group.

Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Should I say "what does it means" or "what does it mean"? Ask Question. Asked 7 years, 4 months ago.

Active 6 years ago. Viewed k times. Improve this question. StoneyB on hiatus k 13 13 gold badges silver badges bronze badges.