UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

A framework for conservation in a human-dominated world

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.1111/cobi.12432

Auteurs

Scott A. Morrison

Année déclarée

2014

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:15:29.104855+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:15:29.104855+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

The Nature Conservancy

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

Human impacts on the planet are profound (Crutzen 2002), driving losses of biodiversity (Pimm et al. 2014), and ecosystem services (Costanza et al. 2014). Human population growth and climate change exacerbate these strains. Concern that conservation is not keeping pace has fueled debate regarding the effectiveness of traditional conservation strategies and how conservation org–anizations should prioritize human well-being outcomes when allocating limited conservation funds (e.g., Kareiva 2014; Soulé 2014). Perhaps spurred by such concern, and a recognition of the interdependence and inseparability of humans and nature, many large conservation organizations currently describe themselves as focusing on both "people and nature" (Supporting Information). What is often unclear, however, is what that focus means in terms of how nature conservation organizations prioritize human outcomes. Are meeting the needs of people and wild nature coequal objectives? Or, is the primary objective to improve conditions for biodiversity, recognizing the imp–ortance of providing cobenefits to people? Or, is the objective to improve conditions for people, recognizing that conservation can be an important means to that end? Science-based conservation organizations need to clarify which ultimate objective they seek, as each leads to different priorities, strategies, and outcomes (e.g., Chan et al. 2006). Without such clarity, organizations cannot be maximally efficient and effective in meeting their objective—whatever it may be. I propose a framework for characterizing the relationship between people and nature objectives in a conservation strategy, or theory of change (i.e., a hypothesis of how an intervention will lead to a desired future condition) of a conservation organization. The framework is premised on 5 assumptions. First, the primary objective and role of a conservation organization is to protect nature—a focus and niche distinct from socially focused organizations with which conservation organizations now regularly partner. Although nature can be broadly defined to include both nonhuman elements (e.g., biodiversity) and human dimensions (e.g., ecosystem services), the framework I present separates those constituent parts in order to be explicit about how they are integrated in a conservation strategy. Second, people are integral to any conservation outcome, and understanding motivations of potential supporters—and opponents—of conservation is essential in planning a theory of change. Ultimately, biodiversity protection is an expression of human values, so its proponents need to successfully advocate those values—and any associated trade-offs—among a multitude of other, often competing, societal values. Moreover, if conservation outcomes are to be sustained they need a lasting constituency, which underscores the importance of people experiencing and valuing the relevance of conservation to human well-being. Third, nature cannot be relegated exclusively to areas on the planet formally designated for wild nature. Conservation in the human-dominated world (Ellis 2013) requires strategies to enhance the conservation compatibility of lands and waters where people make their livelihoods. Fortunately, working lands and waters can provide important benefits for biodiversity and produce myriad social, cultural, and economic benefits. And, enhancing the nature in those places can deliver important returns to people. Fourth, conservation solutions are more durable the more they are mainstreamed in policy and practice to be self-sustainable (e.g., Cowling et al. 2008). Because most large conservation organizations cannot work in a place or on an issue forever, they should design interventions to foster market, regulatory, or cultural mechanisms that support conservation outcomes and lessen their dependence on ongoing investment by the organization. Finally, because conservation organizations cannot work everywhere, they should strive to effect change beyond just the places they directly work. One strategy for broader impact is to develop a conservation solution to a problem affecting one place that others can then apply elsewhere. Addressing socioeconomic drivers that degrade conservation values can help accomplish that scaling. Although people and nature are inextricably linked in a socioecological system, in the proposed framework (Fig. 1) I separated nature and people to be explicit about how they are linked. People, being the willful actors in the system, play specific roles in conservation theories of change. By considering people and nature as distinct, and focusing on the linkages between them most salient to conservation planning, this framework helps conservationists be more precise in their interventions. At the core of this framework are places where conservation interventions are needed to deliver outcomes for nature (e.g., habitat) and people (e.g., services). Those places include the full spectrum of use intensities of lands and waters, not just wild places and working lands and waters where nature is harvested (e.g., for forage and fish), but also the more engineered, human-dominated landscapes and seascapes of commodity-based agriculture and mariculture and the built environment. Using this model, a conservation intervention would be planned to protect biodiversity and enhance the resiliency of nature. There are a variety of definitions for diversity and resiliency and methods for setting priorities to achieve those outcomes; users of the framework can decide among them. For many, resiliency has long been an implicit attribute of biodiversity conservation, but here it is made explicit because of the extraordinary impact of climate change and the role conservation can play in enhancing resilience of the overall socioecological system. Although interventions are often designed to change policy or practice and to engage the socioecological system in multiple ways, the framework depicts the intervention touching down in place (Fig. 1a) because, ultimately, changes need to manifest in places in order to benefit nature. A conservation strategy needs to be based on an understanding of its impact on people. Although conservation organizations have long worked with people, they have generally not been systematic or rigorous in assessing potential effects—positive and negative—of conservation on people. This framework prompts the user to be specific about which people are focal in the intervention—the people whose behavior is needed to change—and what benefits may flow to them from nature or the intervention that can motivate that change. Conservation can provide myriad cobenefits for human well-being, and those should be planned for, maximized, quantified, and communicated to build constituencies for their continued accrual. Often, helping nature can align with other societal values. When values are in conflict, conservationists should strive to reduce trade-offs. The clarity of objective and strategy provided by this framework can be especially helpful when negotiating such trade-offs. Finally, durable conservation requires investment by people. Therefore, the framework completes the theory of change with people—perhaps beneficiaries of provided ecosystem services—acting to create mechanisms (e.g., a change in policy or practice) to sustain the conservation outcome through time. This feedback creates a virtuous cycle that contributes to mainstreaming the conservation solution. The more cobenefits and the more the cobenefits are valued and acted upon, the stronger the cycle and the more robust the outcome. Ideally, virtuous cycles that alone may be insufficient to secure diversity and resiliency would be reinforced and complemented by others (e.g., combining carbon sequestration payments and branding of certified timber to make conservation forestry economically feasible). This feedback from people (Fig. 1d) returns not to diversity and resiliency directly but to the places that support the nature (habitat) and people (service) outcomes. Importantly, the framework does not explicitly link nature back to places or people, even though diversity and resiliency provide important benefits to both. Because the framework is foremost a planning tool, its aim is not to represent general benefits of nature to people or benefits to people who are not key actors in the theory of change. Rather, it aims to account for the specific elements or aspects of nature that will drive the theory of change. Specific aspects of diversity or resilience that are integral to a conservation strategy (e.g., viability of species of economic or cultural value, reduced vulnerability of a community to extreme weather events) are accounted for in the link from places to people. Other values, including benefits to people who are not the focus of the intervention, and existence and option values of nature, are accounted for implicitly in N of Fig. 1. A place in the framework for the full complement of biodiversity allows for intrinsic rights of nature—and is precautionary. Many elements of biodiversity are not currently valued by people or are insufficiently understood, but it would be imprudent to assume that they do not have value or would not to future generations. This feature of the framework helps differentiate it from a basic ecosystem service feedback model and helps reconcile tensions between anthropo- and biocentric motivations for conservation (Hunter et al. 2014). This framework articulates the essential components of a theory of change for lasting nature conservation outcomes (Fig. 2 & Supporting Information). The framework is scale independent and highlights where multidisciplinary science inputs are especially needed, for example, in defining and prioritizing diversity and resiliency; identifying, delivering, measuring, and communicating benefits to people (perhaps with an emphasis on social, economic, and decision sciences, and the humanities); and designing data-driven campaigns to effect change in policy and practice (employing political and behavioral sciences). To operationalize the model, one identifies what nature is, where it is (or could be), and what it needs, in order to identify the problem of status quo in the socioecological system that needs to be solved. What is the problem for nature? What is the problem for people, for which conservation might offer a solution, or that has to be addressed to achieve the needed conservation? Standard conservation planning methods can be used to identify which people might be affected by conservation and or be needed to create and drive a virtuous cycle. Establishing virtuous cycles can be a means for scaling conservation solutions and effecting systemic change (Fig. 3 & Supporting Information). Key to this theory of change is being specific about the people whose interaction in the system needs to change (e.g., an industrial sector, bush meat hunters, voters, an agency) and what relevance conservation will have to them (Fig. 1c) that will motivate change (Fig. 1d). A clear imperative for the planet is that we balance the needs of people with the needs of nature. The question for conservation organizations is what role they should play in moving humanity toward that balance, among all the other actors and interests in the socioecological system, most of which very ably advocate the needs of people. In the face of tremendous global change, conservation organizations must be effective in representing the needs of nature and assisting society to meet them. This framework can help conservationists keep focused on that ultimate objective and the critical connections with people that are foundational to achieving it. That clarity of focus will improve the prospects for nature in the human-dominated world and in turn better secure the myriad benefits of diversity and resiliency for people. Thanks to my colleagues in The Nature Conservancy, whose creativity and accomplishment in conservation helped crystalize this framework; to M. Brown and L. Crane for review of Appendix S2; and to A. Bowman, M. Burget, M. Burgman, D. Cameron, R. Cox, J. Hoekstra, M. Hunter, P. Kareiva, M. Sweeney, and anonymous reviewers for critiques that greatly improved this paper. Disclaimer: Supplementary materials have been peer-reviewed but not copyedited. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W1552032144

DOI

10.1111/cobi.12432

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Entités naturelles mentionnées

Écosystème · Espèce · Paysage

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12432
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W1552032144

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w1586844381 · CITES
• openalex:w1758976756 · CITES
• openalex:w1981502333 · CITES
• openalex:w2005307596 · CITES
• openalex:w2010635848 · CITES
• openalex:w2103391039 · CITES
• openalex:w2130509491 · CITES
• openalex:w2147542652 · CITES
• openalex:w2168691836 · CITES

0 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.