2. 职称英语
  3. To best protect threatened plants, inefficient national parks should be sold

To best protect threatened plants, inefficient national parks should be sold

游客2024-04-08  13
问题     To best protect threatened plants, inefficient national parks should be sold off and the proceeds used to buy more cost-effective ones. So says Richard Fuller at the University of Queensland in St. Lucia, Australia, who reckons that replacing 1 per cent of Australia’s protected areas could significantly increase the number of vegetation types being protected.
    Worldwide, there are 100,000 regions dedicated to bio-diversity maintenance, covering 12 per cent of countries’ land and territorial waters. "Historically, a lot of these areas were designated because we couldn’t use them for economic or agriculture purposes, not for their bio-diversity value," says Fuller. "Consequently, many species and habitats remain inadequately protected." For example, up to 83 per cent of threatened plants are found outside protected areas.
    Fuller says environmentalists who try only to increase the number of protected sites are effectively "adding to an inefficient system". Instead, he says, governments should sell off expensive land of low conservation value and buy new sites instead.
    Fuller’s team has developed a mathematical model to test their theory in Australia. The group divided the country’s landmass (国土) into around 65,000 sections before assigning each a "conservation value" based on the rarity of the vegetation type within it: higher values were given to areas where more native vegetation has been lost. They then divided each section’s conservation value by its financial value, enabling them to rank currently protected areas in terms of cost-effectiveness. In the model, the least cost-effective areas were sold off and the funds used to buy more cost-effective sites.
    For a vegetation type to be considered as "protected" in the team’s model, 15 per cent of the land area it covered must lie in protected areas. Currently, only 18 out of 60 Australian vegetation types are protected by this measure. Replacing just 1 per cent of the least cost-effective areas boosted the number to 54. "We get an enormous increase in efficiency without spending more money," says Fuller.
    "It’s a logical approach with obvious benefits for protected bio-diversity," says Jon Nevill, an environmental consultant in Hampton, Victoria, Australia. "But I have no confidence that governments could effectively manage such a difficult programme." Martin Taylor, a protected areas policy manager at environmental campaign group WWF-Australia, is less complimentary. He says the idea of "trading off protected areas to buy theoretically better ones" is "quite horrifying". Sacrificing a protected area based solely on vegetation types without consideration of native animals or local geography is troublesome, he says. "No area can be written off so lightly as these authors do."
    Fuller defends his approach, saying the study is just a demonstration. "If this idea was to be put into practice you would need to consider these other values." [br] Which of the following protected areas is taken as the most cost-effective by Fuller?
选项 A、An area of low conservation value and low financial value.
B、An area of low conservation value but high financial value.
C、An area of high conservation value and high financial value.
D、An area of high conservation value but low financial value.
答案 D        
解析 首先要理解题干中的cost-effective的意思，该词意为“划算的，有成本效益的”。文章第3段第2句提到Fuller建议应把值钱但保护价值低(expensive land of low conservation value)的区域卖掉。由此可推断，与此相反的“效率最高的”保护区应该是便宜但保护价值高的区域。因此，本题应选D。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3545510.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)