Content uploaded by Reed Noss
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Reed Noss on Jan 20, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Editorial
Bolder Thinking for Conservation
Should conservation targets, such as the proportion of a
region to be placed in protected areas, be socially accept-
able from the start? Or should they be based unapologet-
ically on the best available science and expert opinion,
then address issues of practicality later? Such questions
strike to the philosophical core of conservation. Ambi-
tious targets are often considered radical and value laden,
whereas modest targets are ostensibly more objective and
reasonable. The personal values of experts are impossible
to escape in either case. Conservation professionals of a
biocentric bent might indeed err on the side of protecting
too much. Anthropocentric bias, however, more com-
monly affects target setting. The pro-growth norms of
global society foster timidity among conservation profes-
sionals, steering them toward conformity with the global
economic agenda and away from acknowledging what is
ultimately needed to sustain life on Earth.
The 2010 Nagoya Conference of the Convention on
Biological Diversity demonstrates the pitfalls of timidity.
Rands et al. (2010) summarized the calamitous global
decline of biodiversity (which they defined as “the va-
riety of genes, species, and ecosystems that constitute
life on Earth”) and challenged participants at the Nagoya
Conference to develop a strategy to confront this crisis.
Unfortunately, the biodiversity targets for the year 2020
developed at Nagoya fall short of what is needed to main-
tain the “ecosystem services” upon which Perrings et al.
(2010) suggest human welfare and economic well-being
depend. These targets are even less likely to maintain
the full breadth of biodiversity. Targets for 2020 set at
the Nagoya Conference include protected areas covering
17% of terrestrial areas and inland waters, 10% of ma-
rine and coastal areas, and restoration of at least 15% of
degraded ecosystems (Convention on Biological Diver-
sity 2010). These targets are woefully below what the
results of most scientific studies show are necessary to
meet widespread conservation goals such as maintaining
viable populations of native species, representing ecosys-
tems across their range of variation, and promoting re-
silience of ecosystems to environmental change (Noss &
Cooperrider 1994).
Set Targets Designed to Achieve Goals
Biodiversity is on a downward slide, and those best
equipped to say why and how this must be stopped are
not being assertive. Conservation scientists and practi-
tioners were not always so shy about developing conser-
vation strategies. In the early 20th century Victor Shelford
and colleagues in the Ecological Society of America pro-
posed a continent-wide network of protected areas that
would establish “a nature sanctuary with its original wild
animals for each biotic formation” (Croker 1991). In the
1980s, when the promise of sustainable development
seemed real, the Brundtland Commission (1987) set a
target of tripling the amount of Earth’s surface then pro-
tected (approximately 4%). Such progress was followed
in 1992 by global treaties signed in Rio de Janeiro at
the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Earth Summit,
which promised to address human-caused climate change
and halt biodiversity loss. The goals were commendable,
but their implementation faltered.
By 2005 it was clear that these conventions and com-
missions were not meeting their stated goals (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Shortly thereafter, the In-
tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated bluntly:
“The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be ex-
ceeded this century by an unprecedented combination
of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g., flood-
ing, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification), and
other drivers of global change (e.g., land-use change, pol-
lution, overexploitation of resources)” (Parry et al. 2007).
According to the 2010 IUCN Red List, an estimated 20%
of Earth’s vertebrates are now threatened with extinc-
tion (IUCN 2010). We suggest these profound failures to
achieve conservation goals are partly due to the reluc-
tance of conservation professionals to articulate a bolder
and more honest vision.
Protect at Least 50% Globally
Empirical data, models, and prioritization algorithms can
be used to set quantitative and transparent conservation
targets. The proportion of a region needed to meet a
given set of conservation goals will vary widely depend-
ing on physical heterogeneity, degree of endemism, past
land-use decisions, and many other factors (Noss 1996).
Almost universally, when conservation targets are based
on the research and expert opinion of scientists they
far exceed targets set to meet political or policy goals
(Svancara et al. 2005). In contrast to policy-driven targets,
scientific studies and reviews suggest that some 25–75%
1
Conservation Biology, Volume 26, No. 1, 1–4
C
2011 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01738.x
2Editorial
Figure 1. Estimates of the percentage of terrestrial region required to meet conservation goals on the basis of
various sources (A-P) arranged from left to right in increasing order of percentage of area conserved. Current
protected areas and political conservation targets (e.g., based on international conventions; triangles) tend to be
smaller (left portion of graph) than targets derived from scientific research, reviews, and expert opinion (right
portion of graph). Vertical lines are ranges of values within published studies and points are reported means or
medians of range. Estimates are from Brooks et al. (2004) (land area covered by protected areas designated
explicitly for biodiversity conservation, IUCN categories I through IV); Rodrigues and Gaston (2001) (land area
needed to represent all higher vertebrate species at least once); Myers (1979) and Miller (1984) (goal of area in
protected status set by Bali Action Plan); Brooks et al. (2004) (extent of land currently covered by all protected
areas); Brundtland Commission (1987) (new goal of area in protected status); Svancara et al. (2005) (mean
target derived from policy-driven assessments, n=17 published and unpublished references); Rodrigues and
Gaston (2001) (mean of the minimum percentage of the area needed to represent all species, n=21 published
and unpublished studies); Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) (goal for area of land and inland waters in
protected status); Svancara et al. (2005) (mean from assessments of evidence-based conservation plans, n=112
published and unpublished references); Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) (sum of targets for protected
areas and restored land); Svancara et al. (2005) (mean from evidence-based threshold assessments, n=33
published and unpublished references); Schmiegelow et al. (2006) (mean of percentage-based targets, n=24
published and unpublished studies); Soule and Sanjayan (1998) (mean of the minimum area needed for
biodiversity protection, n=4 published and unpublished studies); Noss and Cooperrider (1994) (median of range
of conservation targets, n=11 published and unpublished studies); DellaSala et al. (2011) (median of range of
area of temperate and boreal rainforests needed for biodiversity protection, n=8 published and unpublished
studies); Rodrigues & Gaston (2001) (global land area needed to represent all terrestrial plant species once).
References are available as Supporting Information.
of a typical region must be managed with conservation of
nature as a primary objective to meet goals for conserving
biodiversity (Fig. 1). These results echo earlier models of
habitat loss and fragmentation, in which the transition
from one continuous patch to multiple patches of de-
creasing size and increasing isolation begins after around
40% loss of original habitat (Andr´
en 1994).
From a strict scientific point of view, the only defen-
sible targets are those derived from empirical data and
rigorous analyses. The people who develop conservation
strategies and global treaties prefer to set targets apri-
ori. When establishing global targets, as at Nagoya, it
would be prudent to consider the range of evidence-
based estimates of “how much is enough” from many
regions and set a target on the high side of the median
as a buffer against uncertainty. From this precautionary
perspective, 50%—slightly above the mid-point of recent
evidence-based estimates (Fig. 1)—is scientifically defen-
sible as a global target. We suggest that conservation tar-
gets and plans be regularly updated and synthesized into
Conservation Biology
Volume 26, No. 1, 2012
Noss et al. 3
country- and continent-wide strategies, accompanied by
specific steps and a timetable for implementation.
Maintain or Restore Connectivity across Large Landscapes
Large contiguous reserves should be functionally con-
nected to allow movement of organisms and genes, for
example the migratory and dispersal movements of large
animals (Berger 2004) and distributional shifts of multi-
ple species in response to climate change. Although a
well-managed landscape matrix may provide connectiv-
ity and other conservation benefits (Franklin & Linden-
mayer 2009), it cannot be assumed to conserve biodiver-
sity unless legally binding and enforced regulations keep
land use compatible with conservation objectives. This is
usually not the case.
To date, only 3 countries—Bhutan, India, and
Tanzania—have identified major corridors at national ex-
tents. In Australia a national conversation about con-
nectivity includes a proposed 2800-km corridor from
Queensland to Victoria (New South Wales Government
2010), mirroring the Yellowstone to Yukon corridor
(3200 km) in the United States and Canada (Yellow-
stone to Yukon Conservation Initiative 2010). We recom-
mend that other countries carry out similar transbound-
ary assessments and develop implementation plans that
transcend political demarcations.
Focus Attention on the Greatest Threat
An exclusive focus on global climate change, the current
rage, may obscure other pressing conservation problems
and divert funding from combating them. As a direct
global threat to species and ecosystems, climate change
is currently dwarfed by land-use change in response to
human population growth and conversion of wild lands
to agricultural use (Jetz et al. 2007). Current rates of land-
use change will make adaptation of species to climate
change virtually impossible. Conversely, protecting na-
tive ecosystems can increase their resilience and their
ability to store carbon (Bunker et al. 2005).
Demonstrate the Value of Nature to Humans
Biodiversity should be managed as a public good (Rands
et al. 2010), but it is narrow minded to dwell exclusively
on its material benefits to people. Discussions about hu-
man development and ecosystem services need to delve
deeper and communicate more effectively. The broader
values of nature to humans are exemplified by the Transi-
tion Towns movement in the United Kingdom, the prac-
tice of Shinrin-yoku (“forest bathing”) in Japan, and the
weak relation between material wealth and happiness
(Happy Planet Index 2010). Conservation professionals
should not assume that only economic and utilitarian val-
ues determine people’s attitudes toward conservation.
Many people value nature for its own sake.
Natural history and conservation education must be ex-
panded at all levels from preschool children to political
leaders. Educators must explicitly recognize the impor-
tance of teaching people of all ages about basic ecological
and evolutionary concepts–and getting them outdoors.
The focus of education must be on whole organisms and
ecosystems; otherwise, conservation professionals risk
losing the interest in the living world of generations of
students of all ages worldwide.
Popularize the Idea That Conservation Can Be Achieved
When continental-level conservation was proposed in the
1990s (Soul´
e & Terborgh 1999), it was viewed by many
as unrealistic, just as Victor Shelford’s ambitious pro-
posals were seen as inappropriate by some of his peers
(Croker 1991). This view is changing. The United States
Department of the Interior has initiated 21 Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives that cover the entire nation,
and the Obama Administration has recently launched the
America’s Great Outdoors Initiative to encourage public
use and appreciation of natural areas. Such efforts have
the potential to rescue conservation professionals from
their defeatist mentality and draw out the interest and
enthusiasm of citizens.
The conservation science community, as well as the
broader circle of conservation professionals, must do
a much better job communicating a compelling vision
across traditional disciplinary and societal boundaries.
The media, in turn, has a role in promoting biodiversity
as an indispensable public value. The BBC’s Planet Earth
and National Geographic’s Great Migrations series show
the promise of this approach. Conservation profession-
als of all varieties should invest more effort in explaining
and marketing biodiversity conservation in compelling
ways. When people understand and appreciate the value
of biodiversity, they will be more likely to think about
conservation when they vote, make purchases, or decide
about uses of land and natural resources.
Reasonable Targets
If the conservation community sets protection targets
based on preconceived notions of what is socially or po-
litically acceptable or on assumptions of inevitable pop-
ulation and economic growth, we will make very limited
headway in stemming extinction. We suggest that strate-
gies for conservation be passed first through a biological
Conservation Biology
Volume 26, No. 1, 2012
4Editorial
filter. Those options with a high probability of sustaining
biodiversity are retained, whereas those with a lower
probability are seen as incremental. The next step, how-
ever, is not to pass the remaining strategies through a
political filter because most would fail to pass in the cur-
rent political climate. Rather, conservation professionals
must become part of the constituency that promotes life
on Earth. Our task is not to be beaten down by political
reality, but to help change it. Nature needs at least 50%,
anditistimewesaidso.
Supporting Information
A list of the references referred to in Fig. 1 is available
online (Appendix S1). The authors are responsible for
the content and functionality of these materials. Queries
(other than the absence of the material) should be
directed to the corresponding author.
REED F. NOSS,∗ANDREW P. DOBSON,†
ROBERT BALDWIN,‡PAUL BEIER,§ CORY R. DAVIS,∗∗
DOMINICK A. DELLASALA,†† JOHN FRANCIS,‡‡
HARVEY LOCKE,§§ KATARZYNA NOWAK,∗∗∗
ROEL LOPEZ,†CONRAD REINING,†††
STEPHEN C. TROMBULAK,§§§ AND GARY TABOR∗∗∗∗
∗University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, U.S.A.,
email reed.noss@ucf.edu
†Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, U.S.A.
‡Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, U.S.A.
§Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, U.S.A.
∗∗Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, U.S.A.
††Geos Institute, Ashland, OR 97520, U.S.A.
‡‡National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 20036, U.S.A.
§§WILD Foundation, Boulder, CO 80304, U.S.A.
∗∗∗Texas A & M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, College
Station, TX 77843, U.S.A.
†††Wildlands Network, Titusville, FL 32783, U.S.A.
§§§Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753, U.S.A.
∗∗∗∗Center for Large Landscape Conservation/Freedom to Roam,
Bozeman, MT 59771, U.S.A.
Literature Cited
Andr´
en, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mam-
mals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a
review. Oikos 71:355–366.
Berger, J. 2004. The longest mile: how to sustain long distance migration
in mammals. Conservation Biology 18:320–332.
Brundtland Commission. 1987. Our common future: report of the
World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford Uni-
versity Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Bunker, D. E., F. DeClerck, J. C. Bradford, R. K. Colwell, I. Perfecto,
O. L. Phillips, M. Sankaran, and S. Naeem. 2005. Species loss and
above-ground carbon storage in a tropical forest. Science 310:1029–
1031.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Strategic plan for biodiversity
2011–2020 and the Aichi targets. Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Available from http://www.
cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/2011–2020/Aichi-Targets-EN.pdf (ac-
cessed April 2011).
Croker, R. A. 1991. Pioneer ecologist: the life and work of Victor
Ernest Shelford 1877–1968. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Franklin, J. F., and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2009. Importance of matrix habi-
tats in maintaining biological diversity. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 106:349–350.
Happy Planet Index. 2010. The Happy Planet Index. Version 2.0.
Happy Planet Index, London. Available from http://www.
happyplanetindex.org/ (accessed April 2011).
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2010. IUCN red
list of threatened species. Version 2010.1. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org/ (accessed April 2011).
Jetz, W., D. S. Wilcove, and A. P. Dobson. 2007. Projected impacts of
climate and land-use change on the global diversity of birds. PLoS
Biology DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio0050157.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Current state and trends
assessment. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Available from
http://www.maweb.org/en/ (accessed April 2011).
New South Wales Government. 2010. Great eastern ranges initiative.
New South Wales Government, Sydney. Available from http://www.
environment.nsw.gov.au/ger/index.htm (accessed April 2011).
Noss, R. F. 1996. Protected areas: how much is enough? Pages 91–120
in R. G. Wright, editor. National parks and protected areas: their role
in environmental protection. Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Noss, R. F., and A. Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy:
protecting and restoring biodiversity. Island Press, Washington,
D.C.
Parry, M., O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden, and C. Hanson,
editors. 2007. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vul-
nerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working
Group 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Perrings, C., et al. 2010. Ecosystem services for 2020. Science
330:323–324.
Rands, M. R. W., et al. 2010. Biodiversity conservation: challenges be-
yond 2010. Science 329:1298–1303.
Soul´
e, M. E., and J. Terborgh, editors. 1999. Continental conservation:
scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Svancara, L. K., R. Brannon, J. M. Scott, C. R. Groves, R. F. Noss, and R.
L. Pressey. 2005. Policy-driven vs. evidence-based conservation: a
review of political targets and biological needs. Biological Sciences
55:989–995.
Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. 2010. Yellowstone
to Yukon: a blueprint for wildlife conservation. Yellowstone
to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Canmore, Alberta. Available
from http://www.y2y.net/data/1/rec_docs/675_A_Blueprint_for_
Wildlife_Conservation_reduced.pdf (accessed April 2011).
Conservation Biology
Volume 26, No. 1, 2012
