IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i6p1846-d150277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effective Biodiversity Conservation Requires Dynamic, Pluralistic, Partnership-Based Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Michael C. Gavin

    (Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA
    Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, D-07745 Jena, Germany)

  • Joe McCarter

    (Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA
    Melanesia Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Suva, Fiji)

  • Fikret Berkes

    (Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2M6, Canada)

  • Aroha Te Pareake Mead

    (Research Associate, Ngati Awa, Ngati Porou, Wellington 6035, New Zealand)

  • Eleanor J. Sterling

    (Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA)

  • Ruifei Tang

    (Commission on Environmental, Economic, and Social Policy, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Wellington 6035, New Zealand)

  • Nancy J. Turner

    (School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada)

Abstract

Biodiversity loss undermines the long-term maintenance of ecosystem functions and the well-being of human populations. Global-scale policy initiatives, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, have failed to curb the loss of biodiversity. This failure has led to contentious debates over alternative solutions that represent opposing visions of value-orientations and policy tools at the heart of conservation action. We review these debates and argue that they impede conservation progress by wasting time and resources, overlooking common goals, failing to recognize the need for diverse solutions, and ignoring the central question of who should be involved in the conservation process. Breaking with the polarizing debates, we argue that biocultural approaches to conservation can guide progress toward just and sustainable conservation solutions. We provide examples of the central principles of biocultural conservation, which emphasize the need for pluralistic, partnership-based, and dynamic approaches to conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael C. Gavin & Joe McCarter & Fikret Berkes & Aroha Te Pareake Mead & Eleanor J. Sterling & Ruifei Tang & Nancy J. Turner, 2018. "Effective Biodiversity Conservation Requires Dynamic, Pluralistic, Partnership-Based Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1846-:d:150277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1846/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1846/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heather Tallis & Jane Lubchenco, 2014. "Working together: A call for inclusive conservation," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7525), pages 27-28, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Koen Arts & Maiara Thaisa Oliveira Rabelo & Daniela Maimoni De Figueiredo & Georgina Maffey & Antonio Augusto Rossotto Ioris & Pierre Girard, 2018. "Online and Offline Representations of Biocultural Diversity: A Political Ecology Perspective on Nature-Based Tourism and Indigenous Communities in the Brazilian Pantanal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Inmaculada Aznar-Díaz & Francisco-Javier Hinojo-Lucena & María-Pilar Cáceres-Reche & Juan-Manuel Trujillo-Torres & José-María Romero-Rodríguez, 2019. "Environmental Attitudes in Trainee Teachers in Primary Education. The Future of Biodiversity Preservation and Environmental Pollution," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-11, January.
    3. Vincent R. Nyirenda & Bimo A. Nkhata & Oscar Tembo & Susan Siamundele, 2018. "Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Shih, Wan-Yu & Mabon, Leslie & Puppim de Oliveira, Jose A., 2020. "Assessing governance challenges of local biodiversity and ecosystem services: Barriers identified by the expert community," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. Kuang-Chung Lee & Paulina G. Karimova & Shao-Yu Yan & Yee-Shien Li, 2020. "Resilience Assessment Workshops: A Biocultural Approach to Conservation Management of a Rural Landscape in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Jill Korach & Allen R. McConnell, 2021. "The Triadic Framework: Integrating Nature, Communities, and Belief Systems into the Self-Concept for Sustained Conservation Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-14, July.
    7. Sang Hun Lee & Yi Hyun Kang & Rong Dai, 2021. "Toward a More Expansive Discourse in a Changing World: An Analysis of Political Leaders’ Speeches on Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-10, March.
    8. Kevin Chang & Kawika B. Winter & Noa Kekuewa Lincoln, 2019. "Hawai‘i in Focus: Navigating Pathways in Global Biocultural Leadership," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, January.
    9. Marjolein L.J. Mooij & Sabina Dessartre Mendonça & Koen Arts, 2018. "Conserving Biocultural Diversity through Community–Government Interaction: A Practice-Based Approach in a Brazilian Extractive Reserve," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    10. Johanna Wilkes, 2022. "Reconnecting with Nature through Good Governance: Inclusive Policy across Scales," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, March.
    11. Li-Yao Shien & Chih-Hsing Liu & Yi-Min Li, 2022. "How Positive and Negative Environmental Behaviours Influence Sustainable Tourism Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Clara-Jane Blye & Elizabeth A. Halpenny & Glen T. Hvenegaard & Dee Patriquin, 2020. "Knowledge Mobilization in the Beaver Hills Biosphere, Alberta, Canada," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-23, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthias Winfried Kleespies & Paul Wilhelm Dierkes, 2020. "Impact of biological education and gender on students’ connection to nature and relational values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    3. Emma Brush, 2020. "Inconvenient truths: pluralism, pragmatism, and the need for civil disagreement," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(2), pages 160-168, June.
    4. Sarkki, Simo & Ficko, Andrej & Miller, David & Barlagne, Carla & Melnykovych, Mariana & Jokinen, Mikko & Soloviy, Ihor & Nijnik, Maria, 2019. "Human values as catalysts and consequences of social innovations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 33-44.
    5. Kaiwen Su & Jie Ren & Chuyun Cui & Yilei Hou & Yali Wen, 2022. "Do Value Orientations and Beliefs Play a Positive Role in Shaping Personal Norms for Urban Green Space Conservation?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Jean Hugé & Behara Satyanarayana & Nibedita Mukherjee & Viviana Otero & Katherine Vande Velde & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, 2023. "Mapping research gaps for sustainable forest management based on the nominal group technique," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 10101-10121, September.
    7. Chelsea Batavia & Michael Paul Nelson, 2017. "Heroes or thieves? The ethical grounds for lingering concerns about new conservation," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(3), pages 394-402, September.
    8. Begum, Flora & de Bruyn, Lisa Lobry & Kristiansen, Paul & Islam, Mohammad Amirul, 2023. "Development pathways for co-management in the Sundarban mangrove forest: A multiple stakeholder perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    9. Jean Huge & Luc Janssens De Bisthoven & Mathilda Mushiete & Anne Julie Rochette & Soraya Candido & Hilde Keunen & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas & Nico Koedam & Maarten P M Vanhove, 2020. "EIA-driven biodiversity mainstreaming in development cooperation: Confronting expectations and practice in the DR Congo," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/298776, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Oliver Taherzadeh & Peter Howley, 2018. "No net loss of what, for whom?: stakeholder perspectives to Biodiversity Offsetting in England," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1807-1830, August.
    11. Klapper, Johanna & Schröter, Matthias, 2021. "Interregional flows of multiple ecosystem services through global trade in wild species," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    12. Cundill, Georgina & Bezerra, Joana Carlos & De Vos, Alta & Ntingana, Nokuthula, 2017. "Beyond benefit sharing: Place attachment and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding communities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 140-148.
    13. Chung, Min Gon & Dietz, Thomas & Liu, Jianguo, 2018. "Global relationships between biodiversity and nature-based tourism in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 11-23.
    14. Eerika Albrecht, 2018. "Discursive Struggle and Agency—Updating the Finnish Peatland Conservation Network," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-16, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1846-:d:150277. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.