Species have long loomed large in nature conservation. For example, the Endangered Species Act (1973) in the USA and the French nature protection law (1976) formed the legal foundations for the notions of endangered species and protected species, which have remained without equivalent for ecosystems, at least until very recently. This supremacy of species in conservation started to be criticized in the late 1980s, when biodiversity loss seemed to accelerate and became a public problem (Grumbine, 1994). The ecosystem approach (EA) to conservation appeared as a promising, more effective and less costly response to the biodiversity crisis (Koontz and Bodine, 2008). It was adopted by numerous American agencies involved in the management of natural resources (Koontz and Bodine, 2008; Martin et al., 2016). Major international environmental institutions have gradually endorsed it, including the WWF, IUCN and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (Castro and Ollivier, 2012; Waylen et al., 2014), which decided in 1995 that “the ecosystem approach should be the primary framework of action to be taken under the Convention”. The CBD (2009) later recognized ecosystem-based adaptation as a useful approach to climate change. The EA has thus become the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation global policies. Aldo Leopold, who invited to learn to “think like a mountain” as soon as 1949, appears as its prestigious forerunner (Callicott, 2000). Whereas the EA has flourished in restoration ecology since the beginning of this discipline in the early 1990s (see e.g. Hobbs and Harris, 2001), it long had relatively little room in conservation practices (Fee et al., 2009). Ecological corridors have been created over the last twenty years, but, in protected areas and in national parks in particular, field staff still dedicate most of their time to so-called heritage animal and plant species. Ways of justifying their conservation have changed – their role as keystone, umbrella or flagship species is now frequently underlined (see Simberloff, 1998) – but they remain at the heart of monitoring, surveillance and communication activities of many conservation institutions. Most studies about the EA either defend it or criticize it, without exploring what it changes in practice, except few studies focusing on institutional and organizational factors (see Brunner and Clark, 1997; Cortner et al., 1998; Koontz and Bodine, 2008; Castro and Ollivier, 2012; Behnken et al., 2016). Very scant attention has been paid to its concrete consequences on the work of conservation practitioners, in the field. We contend that this is also where the reason for the slow dynamics of the implementation of the EA lies. EA implementation is all but straightforward, notably because of conceptual confusion. The notion of ecosystem as defined by Tansley in 1935 was already very broad. It has become even broader, as ecosystems have gradually been seen as disequilibrial, open, hierarchical, spatially patterned and scaled (O'Neill, 2001: 3276). Raffaeli and Frid (2010: 1–2) state that it is an all-things-to-all-people notion and O'Neill (2001) even wondered whether it should not be buried. According to Goldstein (1999), the idea that ecosystems have emergent properties such as ecosystem integrity, health and resilience and exert functions is too vague to orient management effectively. Also very different interpretations of the EA exist, between “panacea and Trojan horse” of conservation (Simberloff, 1998: 253–254), and there is no simple mechanism for delivering it (Frid and Raffaeli, 2010:155). Conservation practitioners, then, have no well-established and stable conceptual basis to refer to when implementing the EA. Exploring how they go about this implementation and how it changes their work is all the more important. We do this by drawing on an empirical study of a specific conservation programme, the Sentinel Mountain Pastures Programme, presenting most features of the EA. This programme is implemented in French alpine protected areas, where practitioners have so far been principally involved in species conservation. We aim to grasp the stakes and effects of the transition towards a more ecosystem-based approach to conservation, by exploring its consequences on three dimensions –cognitive, interactional, and emotional– of the practitioners' work. Developing such a sociological perspective remains uncommon among conservationists but it is important to become aware of the concrete consequences of theoretical proposals, and identify and overcome obstacles to their implementation. The paper unfolds as follows. Section 2 presents the EA and its recent evolution. Section 3 examines the three dimensions of conservation practices on which we focus. Section 4 introduces the Sentinel

中文翻译：

---

生态系统方法对保护实践的作用

长期以来，物种在自然保护中显得尤为重要。例如，美国的《濒危物种法》（1973 年）和法国的自然保护法（1976 年）构成了濒危物种和受保护物种概念的法律基础，至少直到最近，这些概念对于生态系统仍然没有对应物。在 1980 年代后期，生物多样性丧失似乎加速并成为一个公共问题（Grumbine，1994），这种保护物种至高无上的地位开始受到批评。生态系统保护方法（EA）似乎是对生物多样性危机的一种有希望、更有效且成本更低的应对措施（Koontz 和 Bodine，2008 年）。它被许多参与自然资源管理的美国机构采用（Koontz 和 Bodine，2008 年；Martin 等人，2016 年）。包括 WWF、IUCN 和生物多样性公约（CBD）（Castro 和 Ollivier，2012 年；Waylen 等人，2014 年）在内的主要国际环境机构已逐渐认可它，并于 1995 年决定“生态系统方法应该是根据《公约》采取的主要行动框架”。CBD（2009）后来承认基于生态系统的适应是应对气候变化的一种有用方法。因此，EA 已成为生物多样性保护全球政策的基石。奥尔多·利奥波德 (Aldo Leopold) 早在 1949 年就受邀学习“像山一样思考”，作为其著名的先驱出现 (Callicott, 2000)。鉴于自 1990 年代初期该学科开始以来，EA 在恢复生态学中蓬勃发展（例如，参见 Hobbs 和 Harris，2001），长期以来，它在保护实践方面的空间相对较小（Fee 等，2009）。生态廊道已在过去二十年中建立起来，但在保护区，尤其是在国家公园，现场工作人员仍将大部分时间用于所谓的传统动植物物种。证明它们保护正当性的方式已经改变——它们作为基石、保护伞或旗舰物种的作用现在经常被强调（见 Simberloff，1998）——但它们仍然是许多保护机构监测、监视和交流活动的核心。大多数关于 EA 的研究要么捍卫它，要么批评它，而没有探索它在实践中的变化，除了少数关注制度和组织因素的研究（见 Brunner 和 Clark，1997；Cortner 等，1998；Koontz 和 Bodine，2008；卡斯特罗和奥利维尔，2012 年；本肯等人，2016 年）。很少有人注意到它对实地保护从业者工作的具体影响。我们认为这也是 EA 实施动态缓慢的原因所在。EA 实现几乎是直截了当的，尤其是因为概念上的混淆。Tansley 在 1935 年定义的生态系统概念已经非常广泛。它变得更加广泛，因为生态系统逐渐被视为不平衡的、开放的、等级化的、空间模式化和规模化的（O'Neill，2001：3276）。Raffaeli 和 Frid (2010: 1-2) 指出这是一个面向所有人的所有事物的概念，O'Neill (2001) 甚至想知道它是否不应该被埋葬。根据 Goldstein (1999)，生态系统具有生态系统完整性、健康和复原力等新兴特性并发挥功能的想法过于模糊，无法有效地确定管理方向。在保护的“灵丹妙药和特洛伊木马”之间也存在对 EA 的非常不同的解释（Simberloff，1998：253-254），并且没有简单的机制来传递它（Frid 和 Raffaeli，2010：155）。因此，保护​​从业者在实施 EA 时没有可参考的完善和稳定的概念基础。探索他们如何进行此实施以及它如何改变他们的工作更为重要。我们通过对特定保护计划（Sentinel Mountain Pastures Programme）的实证研究来实现这一点，该计划展示了 EA 的大部分特征。该计划在法国高山保护区实施，迄今为止，从业者主要参与物种保护。我们旨在通过探索从业者工作的三个维度——认知、互动和情感——的后果，掌握向更加基于生态系统的保护方法过渡的利害关系和影响。发展这样的社会学观点在环保主义者中并不常见，但重要的是要意识到理论建议的具体后果，并确定并克服其实施的障碍。论文展开如下。第 2 节介绍了 EA 及其最近的演变。第 3 节考察了我们关注的保护实践的三个维度。第 4 节介绍 Sentinel 我们旨在通过探索从业者工作的三个维度——认知、互动和情感——的后果，掌握向更加基于生态系统的保护方法过渡的利害关系和影响。发展这样的社会学观点在环保主义者中并不常见，但重要的是要意识到理论建议的具体后果，并确定并克服其实施的障碍。论文展开如下。第 2 节介绍了 EA 及其最近的演变。第 3 节考察了我们关注的保护实践的三个维度。第 4 节介绍 Sentinel 我们旨在通过探索从业者工作的三个维度——认知、互动和情感——的后果，掌握向更加基于生态系统的保护方法过渡的利害关系和影响。发展这样的社会学观点在环保主义者中并不常见，但重要的是要意识到理论建议的具体后果，并确定并克服其实施的障碍。论文展开如下。第 2 节介绍了 EA 及其最近的演变。第 3 节考察了我们关注的保护实践的三个维度。第 4 节介绍 Sentinel 和情感——从业者的工作。发展这样的社会学观点在环保主义者中并不常见，但重要的是要意识到理论建议的具体后果，并确定并克服其实施的障碍。论文展开如下。第 2 节介绍了 EA 及其最近的演变。第 3 节考察了我们关注的保护实践的三个维度。第 4 节介绍 Sentinel 和情感——从业者的工作。发展这样的社会学观点在环保主义者中并不常见，但重要的是要意识到理论建议的具体后果，并确定并克服其实施的障碍。论文展开如下。第 2 节介绍了 EA 及其最近的演变。第 3 节考察了我们关注的保护实践的三个维度。第 4 节介绍 Sentinel 第 3 节考察了我们关注的保护实践的三个维度。第 4 节介绍 Sentinel 第 3 节考察了我们关注的保护实践的三个维度。第 4 节介绍 Sentinel