ArticlePDF Available
What is conservation?
In a recent Editorial in Conservation Biology, Michael Soulé,
a founding father of the discipline of Conservation Biology,
took issue with a group of scholars and practitioners who
have developed the so-called new conservation. He argued
that because [new conservations] goal is to supplant the
biological diversity-based model of traditional conservation
with something entirely different, namely an economic
growth-based or humanitarian movement, it does not de-
serve to be labelled conservation(Soulé, ). What is re-
markable about this statement is Soulés presumption that
there is a clear definition of what conservation is. As his art-
icle makes clear, he believes that conservation should be
about protecting nature for its own sake, and that a move-
ment that focuses on delivering benefits to people is there-
fore not conservation at all.
Some might see the debate about new conservation to
which Soulés article seeks to contribute as a sideshow
alongside the daily business of getting conservation work
done. Certainly the debate has been at times ill-tempered,
but it does serve to reveal an uncomfortable truth that lies
at the heart of the conservation movementnamely, that
there are profound disagreements about what conservation
is. This is more than just an academic question, because so
many of the choices that conservation entails about what to
conserve, where and how, grow out from how it is defined,
whether implicitly or explicitly. There is much disagreement
about all of these things within conservation, as demon-
strated by the debate about new conservation and earlier
disagreements about the proper relationship between con-
servation and development (Oates, ). These differences
are confirmed by empirical research into the values held by
conservationists (Sandbrook et al., ). Given this level of
disagreement it seems reasonable to ask whether there are
any shared characteristics that cut across all different
forms of conservation and, if so, what might the answer to
this question tell us about the future of the conservation
The Oxford English Dictionary defines conservation as
the action of conserving something. To unpack the word
conservingin this sentence, the dictionary provides two
relevant definitions of the verb to conserve: to protect
from harm or destructionand to prevent the wasteful over-
use of a resource. These points describe two important
themes in conservation thinking, and for some people the
implicit acceptance of sustainable use in the second of
these definitions is a defining feature of conservation that
distinguishes it from preservation, where the latter is fo-
cused on protecting areas of wilderness entirely free from
people (Sarkar, ; see Cronon, , for a critique of
the idea of wilderness). However, others see wilderness pres-
ervation as an important part of conservation, so this dis-
tinction is not universally recognized.
Most definitions of conservation provided by conserva-
tionists reflect their authorsparticular view of what conser-
vation ought to be. For example, Leader-Williams et al.
() define conservation as actions that directly enhance
the chances of habitats and species persisting in the wild.
This emphasizes habitats and species, and persistence in
the wild, which in turn suggest a particular set of actions in-
tended to achieve these goals. There is nothing wrong with
this definition, and many people who call themselves con-
servationists would agree with it. Others would not, how-
ever. For example, some are particularly concerned with
conserving the genetic diversity within single species of agri-
cultural crops, and others may not wish to limit their con-
cern to the wild. So the Leader-Williams et al. definition of
conservation, like Soulés and most others, describes a
branch of the conservation tree rather than the tree itself.
It is possible to engage in lengthy debates about the merits
or demerits of each definition (the new conservation litera-
ture is just such an example) but this does not help with the
broader task of identifying shared ground.
Given the diversity of perspectives on what conservation
is, it is necessary to take several steps back from the specifics
of conservation objectives and practice to find a definition
that might be acceptable to everybody. The broad definition
of conservation that I propose is: actions that are intended
to establish, improve or maintain good relations with na-
ture. This definition highlights the idea of conservation as
something that is active rather than passive (actions). It re-
cognizes that some conservation actions create new relation-
ships with nature (establish) whereas others build on
existing relationships (improve or maintain). At the same
time it recognizes that despite good intentions, not all con-
servation actions are successful (intended to). It captures the
positive intentions of conservation towards nature (good re-
lations), whilst leaving room for different perspectives on
what these relations might entail. Finally, it allows for di-
verse understandings of the entity with which these relations
are held (nature), which for some may include people and
even non-living geodiversity.
CHRIS SANDBROOK United Nations Environment Programme World
Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, and Department of Geography,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
, 2015, 49(4), 565566 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000952
I feel this definition is broad enough to capture all things
that might be thought of as conservation (ranging from the
strict protection of national parks and the eradication of in-
vasive species right through to forms of farming and gar-
dening), and yet narrow enough to exclude things that are
done deliberately to harm nature. In this sense, it does its
job. However, it is certainly too broad to be used as the
basis for determining conservation priorities or actions.
This conclusion demands careful thought. If the conserva-
tion movement is so diverse that a definition of conservation
that suits everybody is this vague, is it useful to think of con-
servation as a single movement at all? Perhaps instead the
process of developing this definition demonstrates that con-
temporary conservation is not one thing but many, and that
there can be more that separates different conservations
from each other than binds them together.
Recognition of the diversity of conservation has two im-
portant implications for the future of the conservation
movement. Firstly, it challenges the view of those who
have argued for an end to internal debates over the meaning
of conservation in favour of a unified and diverse conserva-
tion ethic; one that recognizes and accepts all values of na-
ture, from intrinsic to instrumental, and welcomes all
philosophies justifying nature protection and restoration,
from ethical to economic, and from aesthetic to utilitarian
(Tallis & Lubchenco, ). This sounds good and might be
pragmatic when speaking to diverse audiences, but if con-
servation is not one thing but many then attempts to fold
them into a single movement under the banner of inclusivity
seem unrealistic in practice, and potentially stifling of debate
over what are real and meaningful differences of opinion.
Secondly, it raises the question of which version(s) of
conservation thinking different conservation organizations
and individuals actually subscribe to. It is remarkable that
so much energy has been invested in efforts to characterize
and champion particular forms of conservation without
asking conservationists themselves whether they recognize
these positions and/or agree with them. This is an area
ripe for further empirical research.
The new conservation debate has been a source of frus-
tration for many conservationists who see it as divisive and
dichotomizing. However, it highlights the fact that conser-
vation in the st century is such a broad movement that it
resists straightforward definition and is riddled with contra-
dictory values and viewpoints. Given this situation, it is
tempting to argue that the word conservation (with its back-
ward looking and conservative connotations) should be jet-
tisoned altogether. But it is a deeply embedded and widely
recognized label for those who care about nature, and
here to stay. Rather, it might make sense for those with
closely aligned values and preferred means of action to
come up with titles and definitions for their own form of
conservation. The resulting conservations would then fit
(sometimes uncomfortably) within the broader singular cat-
egory of conservation. In this vision conservation becomes a
forest rather than a single treea parliament not a
This might appear an admission of failure, as the ortho-
dox view has been that conservation is strengthened by pre-
senting a united front to the outside world because a
patchwork approach to conservation synergizes its ineffect-
iveness(Child, ). However, it could instead be seen as a
sign of maturity as conservation grows in scale and influ-
ence. In this vision, different (and sometimes contradictory)
perspectives could be promoted unashamedly by those who
support them rather than swept under the carpet. This
would make it easier for conservationists to identify who
they would, or would not, like to work with, and enable
niche forms of conservation to get on with their work with-
out worrying about undermining the integrity of the conser-
vation movement as a whole. There are many conservations,
and it is time to stop pretending otherwise.
I am grateful to Bill Adams and Martin Fisher for helpful
CHILD, M.F. () The Thoreau ideal as a unifying thread in the
conservation movement. Conservation Biology,,.
CRONON,W.() The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the
wrong nature. Environmental History,,.
LEADER-WILLIAMS, N., ADAMS, W.M. & SMITH, R.J. (eds) ()
Trade-offs in Conservation: Deciding What to Save. John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, UK.
OATES,J.()Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How
Conservation Strategies are Failing in West Africa. University of
California Press, Berkley, USA.
plurality among conservation professionals. Conservation Biology,
SARKAR,S.() Wilderness preservation and biodiversity
conservationkeeping divergent goals distinct. BioScience,,
SOULÉ,M.() The New Conservation.Conservation Biology,,
TALLIS,H.&LUBCHENCO,J.() Working together: a call for
inclusive conservation. Nature,,.
566 Chris Sandbrook
, 2015, 49(4), 565566 ©2015 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605315000952
... The convivial conservation vision encompasses several different elements Fletcher 2019, 2020). Firstly, it proposes shifting from PAs to promoted areas, which do not suggest that 'anything goes', but instead propose a more positive, democratic way of engaging with these spaces, which celebrates the many links between humans and nonhumans (Sandbrook 2015;Fletcher 2017). Secondly, it suggests moving from framing conservation as 'saving nature' to celebrating both human and nonhuman nature, thereby challenging the above-discussed human-nature dichotomy and the notion of saving only nonhuman nature. ...
... The suggestion of promoted areas, based on Fletcher (2019, 2020), differs from PAs in several key respects relevant to the decolonisation and deconstruction of the dominant conservation philosophy. Very explicitly, they are not about protecting nature from certain people, which emphasises boundaries between human and nonhuman nature despite the many links which connect them (Sandbrook 2015;Fletcher 2017). Rather, promoted conservation areas are to "promote nature for, to and by humans" (Büscher and Fletcher 2019: 286;: 92) without relying on revenue from tourism and elite access, welcoming people as visitors, dwellers, or travellers, and not temporary invaders. ...
Full-text available
Given growing human influence on the earth system’s functioning, caring for nature has never been this critical. However, whether for economic interests or ‘wilderness’ preservation, attempts to save nature have been grounded on a Western scientific philosophy of separating it from people’s ways of living, especially through ‘protected areas’. Under the banner ‘convivial conservation’, which advocates socio-ecological justice and structural transformations in the global economic system, an alternative idea called ‘promoted areas’ has been proposed, advocating for conservation which promotes nature for, to, and by humans. Here, we argue that ‘promoted areas’ are best fitted with decolonial thinking in conservation science and practice. In southern Africa, one available ‘decolonial option’ is Ubuntu philosophy, which is anchored on the ethical principle of promoting life through mutual caring and sharing between and among humans and nonhumans. Ubuntu disengages from western ways of knowing about human–environment interactions, as it is predicated on promoting the many links between humans and nonhumans. From this, we argue that instituted through Ubuntu, ‘promoted areas’ re-initiate a harmony between human beings and physical nature, as practices of individualistic, excessive extractions of nonhuman nature are discouraged, and human–nonhuman relationships based on respect, solidarity, and collaboration are celebrated.
... Ideas of conservation, such as what nature to aim for, and how what humans relate and matter to that nature, shape different organizations and individuals' approaches (e.g. Brockington et al., 2008;Cronon, 1996;Sandbrook, 2015;Sandbrook et al., 2019). Consequently, there is a need to explore what ideas of conservation the SDGs champion, and with what implications. ...
... Despite the SDGs' stated objective of indivisibility, there appear to be significant limits in the degree to which SDG 15's connections and interactions with social and economic SDGs can be measured or monitored. This lacking acknowledgement of connections continues an abiding understanding in conservation of humans and nature as being separable and separated (Plumwood, 2003;Salleh, 2016) despite the manifold, intricate connections between them (Sandbrook, 2015). ...
Full-text available
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include a goal focusing on terrestrial biodiversity conservation: SDG 15, dubbed Life on land. There has been little critical social-science analysis of how SDG 15, its targets and indicators understand conservation. This article contributes to closing this gap by analysing in detail SDG 15 and affiliated progress reports. Contravening the SDGs’ stated objective of leaving no one behind, the paper shows that SDG 15 ignores vital connections between human and nonhuman nature, fails to centre people and champion justice systematically, while reaffirming unsuccessful previous indicators. The article argues that SDG 15, its targets and indicators thus perpetuate ideas of conservation which exacerbate inequalities and prevent ‘transforming our world’. These structural shortcomings risk placing SDG 15 in the same intellectual vein as other contemporary large-scale conservation planning efforts in terms of lacking inclusion and recognition of human lives and livelihoods.
... Conservation is mission-driven (Soulé 1985), so goals are expected to direct conservationists' attention and effort. We consider conservationists to be actors intending to "establish, improve or maintain good relations with nature" (Sandbrook 2015). But how satisfied are conservationists with progress towards goals important to them? ...
... Nevertheless, our research demonstrates conservationists' fortitude and commitment towards protecting nature despite the challenges they face. Conservation is mission-driven and aims to improve relations between people and nature and so is implicitly aspirational (Soulé 1985;Sandbrook 2015). Reflecting on conservationists' goals might shed light on new approaches for meeting these aspirations, such as creating more sustainable career pathways that allow those in the sector to focus on delivering conservation outcomes. ...
Goals play important roles in people's lives by focusing attention, mobilizing effort, and sustaining motivation. Understanding conservationists’ satisfaction with goal progress may provide insights into real‐world environmental trends and flag risks to their well‐being and motivation. We asked 2694 conservationists working globally how satisfied they were with progress towards goals important to them. We then explored how this satisfaction varied between groups. Finally, we looked at respondents' experiences associated with goal progress satisfaction. Many (94.0%) said “making a meaningful contribution to conservation” was an important goal for them, with over half being satisfied or very satisfied in this area (52.5%). However, respondents were generally dissatisfied with progress to collective conservation goals, such as stopping species loss, echoing formal assessments. Some groups were more likely to report dissatisfaction than others. For instance, those in conservation for longer tended to be less satisfied with collective goal progress (log‐odds ‐0.21, 95% credibility interval (CI) ‐0.32 to ‐0.10), but practitioners reported greater satisfaction (log‐odds 0.38, 95% CI 0.15‐0.60). Likewise, those who are more optimistic in life (log‐odds 0.24, 95% CI 0.17‐0.32), male (log‐odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.10‐0.41), and working in conservation practice (log‐odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.08‐0.43) reported greater satisfaction with individual goal progress. Free‐text responses suggested widespread dissatisfaction around livelihood goals, particularly related to job security and adequate compensation. While contributing to conservation appeared to be a source of satisfaction, slow goal progress in other areas – particularly around making a living – looked to be a source of distress and demotivation. Employers, funders, professional societies, and others should consider ways to help those in the sector make a difference whilst making a living, including by prioritizing conservationists' well‐being when allocating funding. This support could include avoiding exploitative practices, fostering supportive work environments, and celebrating positive outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
... Ethnographic studies have explored people's sensory, spiritual and emotional connections with wildlife, demonstrating the complex ways though which local people care for and benefit from their environment that extend beyond the realm of economic profit (Singh, 2018). Greater attention should be paid to these culturally rooted socio-ecological relations, as these represent place-specific forms of coexistence and conservation in their own right (Sandbrook, 2015), and may further be harnessed as foundations to forge synergistic partnerships with external conservation organizations (Peterson et al., 2010). However, there are perils in cherry-picking congenial coexistence narratives and practices, without recognizing their diversity on the ground, their evolving nature and how they are shaped by politics. ...
Full-text available
Coexistence with large carnivores poses challenges to human well-being, livelihoods, development, resource management, and policy. Even where people and carnivores have historically coexisted, traditional patterns of behavior toward large carnivores may be disrupted by wider processes of economic, social, political, and climate change. Conservation interventions have typically focused on changing behaviors of those living alongside large carnivores to promote sustainable practices. While these interventions remain important, their success is inextricably linked to broader socio-political contexts, including natural resource governance and equitable distribution of conservation-linked costs and benefits. In this context we propose a Theory of Change to identify logical pathways of action through which coexistence with large carnivores can be enhanced. We focus on Africa's dryland landscapes, known for their diverse guild of large carnivores that remain relatively widespread across the continent. We review the literature to understand coexistence and its challenges; explain our Theory of Change, including expected outcomes and pathways to impact; and discuss how our model could be implemented and operationalized. Our analysis draws on the experience of coauthors, who are scientists and practitioners, and on literature from conservation, political ecology, and anthropology to explore the challenges, local realities, and place-based conditions under which expected outcomes succeed or fail. Three pathways to impact were identified: (a) putting in place good governance harmonized across geographic scales; (b) addressing coexistence at the landscape level; and (c) reducing costs and increasing benefits of sharing a landscape with large carnivores. Coordinated conservation across the extensive, and potentially transboundary, landscapes needed by large carnivores requires harmonization of top-down approaches with bottom-up community-based conservation. We propose adaptive co-management approaches combined with processes for active community engagement and informed consent as useful dynamic mechanisms for navigating through this contested space, while enabling adaptation to climate change. Success depends on strengthening underlying enabling conditions, including governance, capacity, local empowerment, effective monitoring, and sustainable financial support. Implementing the Theory of Change requires ongoing monitoring and evaluation to inform adaptation and build confidence in the model. Overall, the model provides a flexible and practical framework that can be adapted to dynamic local socio-ecological contexts.
... Por su parte, la conservación ambiental constituye una forma particular de relación con el entorno natural a fin de regular las acciones de las personas sobre él. Sin embargo, hay distintas formas de entenderla, que a su vez originan diversas prácticas y realidades (Durand, 2017;Sandbrook, 2015). En este sentido, los modelos de conservación ambiental basados en las ANP han sido muy controversiales, pues tienden a producir exclusión social e inequidades de poder entre los sectores y los actores involucrados, incluso en aquellas ANP donde hay espacios de participación bien establecidos e incluyentes (Adams y Hutton, 2007;Durand, 2014Durand, y 2017. ...
Full-text available
Objetivo: analizar las visiones de bienestar de una comunidad campesina y de la administración de la Reserva de la Biosfera Tehuacán-Cuicatlán donde ésta se ubica, a fin de brindar información que sirva para mejorar el manejo del área protegida. Metodología: se utilizaron métodos cualitativos para el estudio del bienestar subjetivo, tomando como referencia la teoría fundamentada. Resultados: en la visión comunitaria hay una fuerte necesidad de incrementar la cohesión social con el rescate de elementos tradicionales y la inclusión de aspectos más modernos, puesto que la comunidad considera que la visión de los funcionarios de la reserva es insuficiente para atender el contexto local. Limitaciones: el estudio se basó en el bienestar subjetivo, el cual no refleja con amplitud las evaluaciones sobre los indicadores materiales. Valor: se enfatiza la percepción local para mejorar la contribución de la reserva al bienestar. Conclusión: se demuestra la necesidad de incluir enfoques socioecológicos contextualizados en el manejo de la reserva.
... Recent work suggests this is a deliberate characterisation. For example, Lele [7] cites Sandbrook's [8] "What is conservation?" paper to support a claim that "'Biodiversity conservation' spans a variety of objects of and rationales for conservation." ...
Full-text available
The term “biodiversity” generally refers to living variation. Biodiversity has recognized anthropocentric values of insurance and investment. Values of “nature” include those of biodiversity and also many other aspects reflecting the scope of human-nature relationships. Systematic conservation planning methods can integrate this range of local to global values. Early case studies in Australia and Papua New Guinea show the potential for such approaches. Recently, there have been calls for a recasting of the concept of biodiversity to capture plurality of values. However, balance among sometimes conflicting values of nature is best-served by a singular biodiversity concept and definition focused on variety, because this enables effective integration with other values of nature. Attempts at pluralistic recastings of biodiversity in fact may promote neglect of global biodiversity values. Further, an extended analysis of the Papua New Guinea case study shows that it cannot be argued that focusing on localized values of nature for conservation will effectively address regional/global scale conservation needs.
... It is protection from harm or destruction and to prevent the wasteful over-use of a resource. (Sandbrook, 2015) Greening ...
Reaching Sustainable Development through retrofitting existing buildings.
Marine conservation requires financial and human capital to effectively function. Tourism activities can provide both, if done responsibly. Marine conservation tourism (MCT) concerns tourist activities involving the engagement with—and the study, protection, and restoration of—marine wildlife and their ecosystems. There are two models that are commonly used: commercial and non-commercial. However, a combined hybrid MCT model may be more effective. To evaluate this potential, SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis was conducted on two representative programs at the Seattle Aquarium dedicated to the conservation of the iconic Giant Pacific Octopus (GPO). Octopus Survey Week is a non-commercial, research-focused program utilizing voluntary assistance of local divers. Octopus Week is a commercial program in which conservation goals are facilitated by visitor fees and donations from aquarium supporters. The study utilized a mixed-methods approach. Data collection (N=86) involved semi-structured interviews and focus groups. SWOT analysis was enhanced with (1) MECE (Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive) framework to identify prominent factors or themes, and (2) TOWS (Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and Strengths) analysis to suggest strategies relevant to the SWOT findings. Results show Octopus Survey Week program is viable but not well known. The Octopus Week program is also viable; there is an opportunity here for improvement. Importantly, interviewees would prefer a hybrid program. However, even a hybrid program would face logistical and temporal issues. To increase public interest and participation, it is recommended that the Seattle Aquarium connect them in a more proactive manner. Looking ahead, we hope the field of marine conservation tourism will expand as researchers develop new methods to improve conservation efforts.
Technical Report
Full-text available
This report emerged from a collaboration between the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) in Kenya. The NRT asked the USFS to conduct: 1) an intensive, independent assessment of the NRT Rangelands Program and 2) a regional review of rangeland programs in East Africa focusing on community-based rangeland management (or CBRM) with an eye to creating a community of practice in this area. This report describes the findings of the first comprehensive external assessment of the NRT Rangelands Program.
“Building back better” in the post-COVID-19 Anthropocene era requires novel ideas and ways of working to truly challenge “business as usual” and contribute to urgently needed systems transformations. is article invites post-normal evalu- ation professionals to engage with the concept of the Rights of Nature, a generative form of institutional innovation that recognizes ecosystems and natural communities as entities that have an independent right to exist and ourish that can be enforced under legal or social norms. Pathways are suggested to use evaluation as values- driven practice to re ect on and encourage human-nature relationships founded on mutual dependence, cooperation, and synergy.
Full-text available
Heather Tallis, Jane Lubchenco and 238 co-signatories petition for an end to the infighting that is stalling progress in protecting the planet.
Full-text available
Debate on the values that underpin conservation science is rarely based on empirical analysis of the values conservation professionals actually hold. We used Q methodology to investigate the values held by international conservation professionals who attended the annual Student Conference in Conservation Science at the University of Cambridge (U.K.) in 2008 and 2009. The methodology offers a quantitative means of examining human subjectivity. It differs from standard opinion surveys in that individual respondents record the way they feel about statements relative to other statements, which forces them to focus their attention on the issues they believe are most important. The analysis extracts the diverse viewpoints of the respondents, and factor analysis is used to reduce the viewpoints to a smaller set of factors that reflect shared ways of thinking. The junior conservation professionals attending the conference did not share a unifying set of core values; rather, they held a complex series of ideas and a plurality of opinions about conservation and how it should be pursued. This diversity of values empirically challenges recent proposals for conservation professionals to unite behind a single philosophy. Attempts to forge an artificial consensus may be counterproductive to the overall goals conservation professionals are pursuing.
IntroductionPath dependence in conservation policyPolicy changeParks and narrative changeWhat factors encourage path dependence?Addressing path dependence in conservation policyReferences
This book demonstrates that trade-offs can be very important for conservationists. Its various chapters show how and why trade-offs are made, and why conservationists need to think very hard about what, if anything, to do about them. The book argues that conservationists must carefully weigh up, and be explicit about, the trade-offs that they make every day in deciding what to save. Key Features: Discusses the wider non-biological issues that surround making decisions about which species and biogeographic areas to prioritise for conservation. Focuses on questions such as: What are these wider issues that are influencing the decisions we make? What factors need to be included in our assessment of trade-offs? What package of information and issues do managers need to consider in making a rational decision? Who should make such decisions? Part of the Conservation Science and Practice book series. This volume is of interest to policy-makers, researchers, practitioners and postgraduate students who are concerned about making decisions that include recognition of trade-offs in conservation planning.
) Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies are Failing in West Africa
  • J Oates
OATES, J. () Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies are Failing in West Africa. University of California Press, Berkley, USA.