Honoring the legacy of a conservation champion: Bob Pressey (1953–2023)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
On 5 July 2023, we lost a champion for conservation—Professor Robert (Bob) Pressey. His passion was a simple one—make a difference for biodiversity conservation. He fought fiercely for evidence- and outcomes-based conservation. Bob discovered (some might say invented) conservation planning in the late 1980s and quickly became one of the premier scientists in this field (Pressey, 2002). In the 1990s and early 2000s, he defined, applied, and continuously improved the framework of systematic conservation planning, providing the foundations and scientific methods used today to identify conservation priorities (Margules & Pressey, 2000; Pressey, 1994a; Pressey & Bottrill, 2008; Pressey & Cowling, 2001; Pressey et al., 1996). Through this work, he made significant contributions to establishing representative protected area networks in Australia (Ferrier et al., 2000; Pressey, 1994a), South Africa (Cowling & Pressey, 2003; Pressey et al., 2003), South Pacific (Mills et al., 2011), and beyond. His significant contributions to conservation science and practice are shown through his staunch support of and generous donations of time to the Society for Conservation Biology and other nongovernmental organizations and societies. In 2001, he received the Society for Conservation Biology's Edward T. LaRoe III Award for translating principles of conservation biology into real-world conservation. Further recognition of his contributions to conservation includes the Eureka Prize for Biodiversity Research in 2002, the New South Wales Premier's Award in 2004, the Australian Ecology Research Award in 2008, service as a governor of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 2006, and election to the Australian Academy of Science in 2010 and to the Royal Society in 2022. In his academic career, when he felt his work in designing and implementing protected areas had not achieved the level of protection of biodiversity he sought, he shifted focus. He demonstrated that reserves are biased toward sites less threatened by extractive and commercial activities, which limits their effectiveness. He referred to this bias as “residual reservation.” In the last decade of his career, his attention was drawn to understanding the causes and consequences of residual reservation (Pressey et al., 2021). By understanding these and proposing solutions, he hoped conservation scientists and practitioners would be better equipped to argue for more effective protection in the future. In my youthful naivety and arrogance, I believed that scientific insights would quickly change the way conservation was done and make it more effective. I have since discovered that the path to effectiveness is longer, more winding, and bumpier than initially perceived, with many confusing detours. I get up most mornings willing to give it another go. La lutte continue. For those of us who knew and worked with Bob, he was a friend and mentor, a respected and inspiring colleague, a natural storyteller (Das, 2012; Pressey, 1994b), and the ultimate source for bad jokes and 1970s surf videos. Bob's never-ending love of the environment, dedication to his work, pursuit of irreproachable and robust science, and grit permeate his published works and continue to inspire us. Vale Bob, la lutte will continue.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».