A very thought provoking article - thanks...I'll certainly read the full paper on the back of this. Certainly, there is much that NRM (in its broad sense) can learn from the highly systematic approaches taken by the medical world - the Centre for Evidence Based Conservation and the rise of the systematic review/meta-analysis is one example. However, as critically important as soil is to our own persistence, I wonder if the very personal and direct nature of medical issues means that it is at the forefront of most people's concerns, most of the time,, and hence is well-funded and acted upon with relative vigor.
Soil on the other hand may be more distant to the broad concerns of society (a mistaken separation, I hasten to add, but societal dislocation from food production is a major concern in many regions), and hence may be more difficult to galvanize public support and hence policy support and intervention. Hope I'm wrong. Thanks again.
A very thought provoking article - thanks...I'll certainly read the full paper on the back of this. Certainly, there is much that NRM (in its broad sense) can learn from the highly systematic approaches taken by the medical world - the Centre for Evidence Based Conservation and the rise of the systematic review/meta-analysis is one example. However, as critically important as soil is to our own persistence, I wonder if the very personal and direct nature of medical issues means that it is at the forefront of most people's concerns, most of the time,, and hence is well-funded and acted upon with relative vigor.
Soil on the other hand may be more distant to the broad concerns of society (a mistaken separation, I hasten to add, but societal dislocation from food production is a major concern in many regions), and hence may be more difficult to galvanize public support and hence policy support and intervention. Hope I'm wrong. Thanks again.