ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

The draft Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework commits to achievement of equity and justice outcomes and represents a “relational turn” in how we understand inclusive conservation. Although “inclusivity” is drawn on as a means to engage diverse stakeholders, widening the framing of inclusivity can create new tensions with regard to how to manage protected areas. We first offer a set of tensions that emerge in the light of the relational turn in biodiversity conservation. Drawing on global case examples applying multiple methods of inclusive conservation, we then demonstrate that, by actively engaging in the interdependent phases of recognizing hybridity, enabling conditions for reflexivity and partnership building, tensions can not only be acknowledged but softened and, in some cases, reframed when managing for biodiversity, equity, and justice goals. The results can improve stakeholder engagement in protected area management, ultimately supporting better implementation of global biodiversity targets.
Perspective
Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global
Biodiversity Framework: Tensions and prospects
Christopher M. Raymond,
1,2,3,4,
*Miguel A. Cebria
´n-Piqueras,
5
Erik Andersson,
6,7
Riley Andrade,
8,9
Alberto Arroyo Schnell,
10
Barbara Battioni Romanelli,
10
Anna Filyushkina,
11
Devin J. Goodson,
9
Andra Horcea-Milcu,
12
Dana N. Johnson,
13
Rose Keller,
14
Jan J. Kuiper,
6
Veronica Lo,
4
Marı
´aD.Lo
´pez-Rodrı
´guez,
15
Hug March,
15,16
Marc Metzger,
17
Elisa Oteros-Rozas,
15,18
Evan Salcido,
9
My Sellberg,
6
William Stewart,
9
Isabel Ruiz-Malle
´n,
15
Tobias Plieninger,
5,19
Carena J. van Riper,
9
Peter H. Verburg,
11
and Magdalena M. Wiedermann
20
1
Helsinki Institute for Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
2
Ecosystems and Environment Research Program, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
3
Department of Economics and Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
4
Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
5
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Go
¨ttingen, Go
¨ttingen, Germany
6
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
7
Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
8
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
9
Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL USA
10
IUCN European Regional Office, Brussels, Belgium
11
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
12
Hungarian Department of Biology and Ecology, Babes¸ -Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
13
Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
14
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Lillehammer, Norway
15
Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona, Spain
16
Estudis d’Economia i Empresa, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona, Spain
17
School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
18
FRACTAL Collective, Madrid, Spain
19
Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany
20
Department of Geology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
*Correspondence: christopher.raymond@helsinki.fi
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008
SUMMARY
The draft Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework commits to achievement of equity and justice outcomes
and represents a ‘‘relational turn’’ in how we understand inclusive conservation. Although ‘‘inclusivity’’ is
drawn on as a means to engage diverse stakeholders, widening the framing of inclusivity can create new ten-
sions with regard to how to manage protected areas. We first offer a set of tensions that emerge in the light of
the relational turn in biodiversity conservation. Drawing on global case examples applying multiple methods
of inclusive conservation, we then demonstrate that, by actively engaging in the interdependent phases of
recognizing hybridity, enabling conditions for reflexivity and partnership building, tensions can not only be
acknowledged but softened and, in some cases, reframed when managing for biodiversity, equity, and jus-
tice goals. The results can improve stakeholder engagement in protected area management, ultimately sup-
porting better implementation of global biodiversity targets.
INTRODUCTION
To achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
as well as the 2050 vision of the Convention for Biological Diver-
sity to ensure that biodiversity is conserved and restored (and
valued), area-based conservation will diversify in the 21st cen-
tury to deliver not only increased coverage across different ele-
ments of biodiversity but also inclusive and equitable gover-
nance outcomes.
1
The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity
Framework (First Draft)
2
has targets on the fair and equitable
sharing of nature’s benefits (target 13) and ensuring equitable
and effective biodiversity decision-making (target 21). However,
the draft framework has been criticized for not foregrounding
local communities’ rights and agency in biodiversity manage-
ment and policy.
3
For example, the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
4
and United Nations (UN) High
Commissioner for Human Rights
5
have encouraged the expan-
sion of targets to recognize and secure the rights of indigenous
peoples, women, and local communities to lands, territories,
and resources as well as rights to environmental information,
public participation, environmental justice, and inter-genera-
tional equity. It is thus timely to consider how protected area
management can widen its frame to include biodiversity conser-
vation, equity, and well-being goals through ‘‘inclusive conserva-
tion,’’ which seeks to recognize the plurality of values and visions
of multiple stakeholders. Inclusive conservation is grounded in
distributional justice regarding the fair allocation of benefits
and burdens from ecosystem services production and
ll
OPEN ACCESS
252 One Earth 5, March 18, 2022 ª2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
consumption; procedural justice concerning transparent,
accountable, and participatory management of ecosystems;
and recognition justice that respects the different rights, identi-
ties, and ecosystem management practices in a given area.
4–6
Inclusive conservation builds on multiple approaches,
including (1) co-management and multi-centered conservation
where the emphasis is governed by, with, and/or for local and
indigenous communities;
7,8
(2) mosaic governance with an
emphasis on engagement of diverse actors and active citizen
groups within and across planning sectors to support multi-
functional landscape outcomes;
9,10
and (3) convivial conserva-
tion, which looks beyond nature and culture dichotomies to
establish visions, politics, and governance principles to pro-
mote social and ecological justice and long-lasting and open-
ended relationships with biota and ecologies.
11
The practice-
oriented literature provides standards for the creation of legiti-
mate, equitable, and functional protected area governance ar-
rangements and processes for identifying, hearing, and
resolving conflicts and recognizing gender issues.
12,13
Accord-
ing to this literature, protected areas need to encourage diver-
sity by including areas governed by multiple actors under
different arrangements or by recognizing and supporting per-
ceptions and values of stakeholders in the conserved territories
and outside of the system. Protected area governance needs to
enhance quality by respecting good governance principles like
legitimacy, performance, accountability, fairness, and rights. In
addition, protected area governance needs to be vital by being
responsive to changing contexts and needs; by organizing
timely responses to emerging environmental conditions, prob-
lems, and opportunities; and by being aware of socio-ecolog-
ical histories and being open to new ideas and solutions.
13,14
Although these standards are broadly supported, their opera-
tionalization is not straightforward. Efforts until now have
largely focused on examining the opportunities/positive as-
pects of inclusive conservation strategies while omitting anal-
ysis of the underpinning tensions that may arise if such strate-
gies are implemented. We define ‘‘tensions’’ as well-
intentioned but differing perspectives on protected area man-
agement that emerge when diverse groups are asked to elicit
and deliberate on visions for protected area management in
pursuit of managing different targets.
Tensions become more pronounced when studying different
management contexts. Conservation policies in Europe have
traditionally relied on natural resource management directives
(e.g., Birds and Habitats and Water Framework Directives) to
protect biodiversity in agricultural systems. Sustainable agricul-
ture approaches, such as high nature value farming, have been
encouraged, entailing low use of chemical inputs, low stocking
densities, and labor-intensive management practices.
15,16
Most of these farming systems in Europe are associated with a
long history of shaping and maintaining semi-natural habitats
of high biodiversity.
17
In contrast, protected area management,
which began in the United States, was strongly influenced by
the Wilderness movement, underpinned by values for ‘‘pristine’’
nature. This movement was paralleled by resource management
practices focused on wise use and sustainable yield driven by
utilitarian concerns (e.g., access to game, mining, and forest pro-
duction). Principles around ecosystem management and the
land ethic ensued, followed by an emphasis on complexity,
integrity, and interconnectedness of human and ecological sys-
tems across changing landscapes.
18
In this perspective, we contribute to the global discussion on
how to navigate biodiversity conservation, equity, and human
well-being outcomes in the context of protected area manage-
ment. We go beyond earlier work identifying the needs for inclu-
sive conservation by discussing tensions associated with
defining land uses, managing values, integrating knowledge sys-
tems, and acknowledging power asymmetries that need to be
navigated to successfully operationalize inclusive conservation
in biodiversity conservation and protected area management.
We also offer insights into how to recognize, soften, and reframe
tensions to enable the consideration of biodiversity, equity, and
well-being goals in protected area management. Our perspec-
tive is informed by a 3-year effort to develop a new approach
for inclusive conservation of protected areas in Europe and the
United States.
19,20
Drawing on multi-method approaches, we
first present an overview of different theoretical perspectives
on inclusive conservation. We then outline tensions associated
with inclusive conservation and illustrate their implications for
conservation with examples from protected area practice. We
finally offer some insights for managing such tensions as part
of the efforts to ensure better implementation of the Post-2020
Global Biodiversity Framework.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE
CONSERVATION
The concept of ‘‘inclusive conservation’’ has emerged to theorize
and operationalize equity concerns in biodiversity and protected
area management scholarship. Tallis and Lubchenco,
21
with 238
co-signatories, called for inclusive conservation to embrace
diverse voices in biodiversity conservation, including stronger
representation of scientists and practitioners from under-repre-
sented genders, cultures, and contexts, and advancing and
sharing knowledge across disciplines. The debate has
expanded through forums such as the Inter-governmental Sci-
ence-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES) Values Assessment and Nature’s Future Framework
22
to consider the voices and values of not only technical experts
but also a range of Indigenous and local knowledge systems
23,24
and their diverse values of nature.
25,26
Also, recent perspectives
call for a pluralistic lens on the conceptualization of biodiver-
sity,
27
including consideration of biodiversity through the array
of ways in which humans live and experience nature.
28,29
It has
been established that inclusive conservation supports conserva-
tion effectiveness and emphasizes the role of morality in estab-
lishing trust between stakeholders, which can explain perceived
inclusivity in protected area decisions.
30
A review of 165 pro-
tected areas and 171 published papers found that, overall, bene-
ficial conservation outcomes were more likely to be achieved
when protected areas adopted co-management regimens,
engaged a diversity of local actors, reduced economic inequal-
ities, and maintained cultural and livelihood outcomes.
31
Over the past 5 years, the scope of inclusive conservation in
academia has been widened in response to the ‘‘relational
turn.’’
32
This turn is characterized by the adoption of relational
ontologies that seek to overcome the nature/culture divide
and other dualisms (e.g., mind/matter, subjectivity/objectivity,
ll
OPEN ACCESS
One Earth 5, March 18, 2022 253
Perspective
men/women, expert/non-expert);
33,34
acknowledge the ob-
server’s role in shaping knowledge;
34,35
respect a range of
non-instrumental, relational values;
36,37
and consider the interre-
lations between place-based and global drivers of change
24
and
the use of inter- and trans-disciplinary methods to understand
the iterative relations between social, ecological, and technolog-
ical systems.
34,38,39
It emphasizes place, contextualization, and
local agency
40,41
and challenges the researcher to interrogate
their assumptions through the process of reflexivity.
42,43
It seeks
to create multi-level networks and collaborative relationships by
promoting equity and the central role of women as agents of pos-
itive change, reframing conservation action through reconcilia-
tion and redress, ensuring rights-based approaches to conser-
vation, and revitalizing customary and local institutions.
44
However, inclusive conservation also has its critics. Matulis
and Moyer
45
argued that the dominant views on inclusive con-
servation at that time assumed that intrinsic values can be
compatible with economic values. They cautioned that ‘‘deliber-
ative consensus politics conceals uneven power relations’’(p.
281) and overlooks the potential for competing publics and the
existence of marginal views. Other scholars question the useful-
ness of ‘‘inclusive’’ neoliberal conservation leading to the
commodification of carbon and under-representation of struc-
tural inequalities
46,47
and the potential for new protected areas
to discount the historical, social, and cultural contexts of the
affected region.
48
A second critique concerns how stakeholder
participation linked to ’’inclusivity’’ can be punctual, isolated,
and often counterproductive, creating undesirable sustainability
outcomes,
49
such as the exclusion of key social actors from the
management of national parks because of selective participa-
tion.
50
Third, inclusive conservation has been criticized for depo-
liticizing conservation efforts. Turnhout et al.
51
demonstrate how
the dynamics in knowledge co-production processes reinforce
unequal power relations and inhibit societal transformation.
This is not only relevant to societal processes. The research pro-
cess itself is a power-laden process, where ‘‘mutually reinforcing
power structures, interests, needs and norms within the institu-
tions of global environmental change science obstruct rethinking
and reform’’ (p. 1).
52
Issues of power have raised important ques-
tions about what actors do to co-produce, how human agency is
conceptualized, how power relations are changed, and how im-
pacts are catalyzed through collaborative modes of knowledge
co-production, management, and governance.
53
TENSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH INCLUSIVE
CONSERVATION
Tension 1: Supporting area-based conservation versus
cross-boundary landscape management
The performance of protected areas under area-based manage-
ment strategies assigns importance to the relation between the
environmental qualities of a protected area or network of pro-
tected areas and their translation into ecosystem services, their
relevance for overall conservation targets, and their effective-
ness.
1,54
Interest in system-wide connectivity has led to substan-
tial research and discussions about whether to devote efforts to
stricter area-focused conservation versus cross-boundary and
cross-scale management. The latter accounts for ecosystem
and social dynamics across sectors, landscapes, and seascapes
in an interconnected and tightly coupled world (sensu
55
). Pro-
tected areas also influence and are influenced by neighboring
land uses, which, by necessity, extends the definition of who is
a stakeholder and what is at stake.
56
Protected areas are often
short of the personnel and financial resources required for effec-
tive management.
57
Aligning management with adjacent land
uses (e.g., grazing needs and rearing livestock) as mosaic conser-
vation areas
14
can bring management operations to economically
feasible scales. Beyond the near hinterland, protected areas and
their values are affected by tele-coupling and the increasing influ-
ence of distant land owners, investors, and companies.
58–60
Boundaries and cross-boundary relations are not static. In situa-
tions of land use conflict or active transformation in response to
changing circumstances (socioeconomic, political, climate), pro-
tected area boundaries and regulations are often renegotiated,
61
as evidenced by protected area downgrading, downsizing, and
degazettement (PADDD) events.
62
An analysis of 36 countries
shows that PADDD may substantially decrease mean area-based
target (i.e., the current 30% target) achievement,
63
emphasizing
the need to focus on both sides of the protected area boundary
to ensure robust conservation outcomes.
To support resilient and robust conservation strategies for
conservation areas, inclusive conservation thus needs to
address not only what to protect but also how conservation
can be aligned with other land uses and associated individual
and societal interests. This is especially the case in small-scale,
heterogeneous landscapes where economic and political real-
ities are influenced by the larger region
4
and governance is
divided by multiple autonomous actors. Intra- and inter-country
and regional cooperation pathways for future conservation of
biodiversity are emerging,
64
but calls to manage biodiversity
are not matched by efforts to manage the interrelationships be-
tween biodiversity, natural resource use, and cultural diversity
and heritage for both biodiversity outcomes across scales.
65
Proactive work with adjusting and mainstreaming conservation
measures is essential to ensure multiple conservation outcomes,
and emerging research on the factors behind temporal dynamics
of protected areas
66
may provide input to locally grounded,
collaborative efforts to identify flexible governance strategies.
A participatory resilience assessment approach,
67
as devel-
oped by our team in the V
astra Harg lo
¨vskogar nature reserve,
Sweden (Box 1), is helpful for managing the interconnections
and tension between interests and land uses across scales.
68
The approach was organized into four phases: (1) inventory
and process design; (2) problem and target formulation, identi-
fying strategy components; (3) articulating and describing strate-
gies; and (4) connecting strategies.
69
The process used inter-
views, surveys, workshops, and webinars and sought to foster
system knowledge (i.e., landscape components, drivers of
change, functional processes, and interrelated dynamics), target
knowledge (stakeholders’ subjective perceptions, goals, and as-
pirations), and transformative or operational knowledge (feasible
solutions, knowledge about mandates and roles of other actors,
and process skills).
70
The process engaged private landholders
involved in forestry, tourism, and livestock husbandry; the O
¨ster-
go
¨tland County Administration Board responsible for manage-
ment of the V
astra Harg lo
¨vskogar nature reserve and the
county’s green infrastructure strategy; the farmers’ association
gathering interests of local landowners; and local village
ll
OPEN ACCESS
254 One Earth 5, March 18, 2022
Perspective
associations in V
astra Harg (some of which also have responsi-
bilities for practical management of the nature reserve).
Our process enabled discussions between different actors in a
way that respected different and common interests and without
necessarily having to reach a broad consensus. We explored po-
tential shared interests in alternative strategies that support
biodiversity and are economically viable, ranging from certifica-
tion schemes to eco-tourism initiatives. Although tensions be-
tween interests were not necessarily resolved, the process
opened up an additional platform to allow further collaboration
around common goals. The process contributed to the subse-
quent establishment of a local management council for the
V
astra Hargs lo
¨vskogar nature reserve that will meet biannually,
where the County Administrative Board’s interest in a regional
green infrastructure will meet and negotiate with interests of local
residents and landowners.
Tension 2: Recognizing versus reducing plurality in the
visions for and values of nature
Different views exist in the conservation sector about which of
the multiple values of nature should be managed and when.
Some groups suggest that the intrinsic values of nature,
including aspects of biotic diversity and variety, should be privi-
leged in protected area management and biodiversity conserva-
tion decision-making.
71
In contrast, others advance plurality as a
way to bring equity and justice to needs and wants of all legiti-
mate stakeholders.
27
However, legal frameworks, skewed distri-
bution of financial resources, and a lack of sensitivity to local cul-
tural norms can obscure or impede the consideration of
relational values of equity and justice in conservation planning.
72
The tension between recognizing versus reducing plurality be-
comes more complicated when eliciting the values of various
land management sectors and seeking to manage trade-offs
related to use of natural resources coupled with management
of native species.
73
Harma
´
ckova
´et al.
29
found that, although
stakeholders from different land management sectors could bal-
ance diverse visions, including cultural heritage, economic
development, rural lifestyle, and providing space for wilderness
and managed/cultural landscapes, conflicts emerged more
frequently when seeking to balance management options asso-
ciated with each vision. Navigating plurality toward protected
area management may happen through spatial planning, using
Box 1. Managing for cross-boundary dynamics in the V
astra H
arg conservation area, Sweden
The V
astra Hargs Lo
¨vskogar nature reserve is a relatively small (345-hectare) protected area (IUCN category iv) in southern Swe-
den that preserves grasslands and ancient oak wood pastures, including a rich diversity of traditional grassland species. It is
located in a mosaic landscape defined by more or less conspicuous edges and boundaries that simultaneously separate and con-
nect different land uses, interest, and activities. Dead wood maintained in the reserve provides a habitat to support regional pop-
ulations of pollinators as well as threatened species but also sparks concern of surrounding forest owners about outbreaks of
spruce bark beetle. To preserve the herb, insect, and bird species associated with species-rich grasslands, the old hay meadows
and pastures require frequent grazing, for which the reserve’s management relies on sheep from neighboring farms and the
farmers’ knowledge. This, in turn, requires economic and social viability of the countryside, promoted by public investments in
the nature reserve to increase recreation and tourism. Multi-actor governance arrangements can be helped by processes that sup-
port actors’ understanding of each others’ different perspectives and agencies. More information can be found at Panorama So-
lutions.
68
ll
OPEN ACCESS
One Earth 5, March 18, 2022 255
Perspective
different parts of the landscape to represent different functions
and values, and, thus, providing space for sharing conflicting in-
terests. However, this approach is only viable when neighboring
uses of the landscape do not conflict or present undesirable
trade-offs that reduce the value of other parts of the landscape.
Methods applied in the Kromme Rijn and Utrechtse Heuvelrug
region of the Netherlands provide an example of how to repre-
sent different functions and values of protected areas (Box 2).
74
In this case, we asked residents to identify the trade-offs be-
tween diverse visions for protected area management, in addi-
tion to which areas were key for multi-functionality within the
landscape. We asked residents to share their individual visions
for the landscape based on a series of A3 cartoons in an arts-
based engagement tool named STREAMLINE,
75
which was fol-
lowed by a survey to deepen the understanding of how these
diverse visions could be managed. Four visions for protected
area management emerged from these efforts: (1) an inclusive
cultural landscape for sustainable living, a holistic approach to
landscape management with a strong belief in the possibility to
balance productivity and biodiversity goals; (2) a productivity-
oriented landscape, managing for economic productivity and ef-
ficiency; (3) an environmentally friendly landscape, supporting
biodiversity conservation, good quality of drinking water, and
climate mitigation; and (4) a peri-urban landscape, focusing on
maintaining and increasing attractiveness of the area for recrea-
tional purposes.
The results highlighted the possibility for spatial planning to
contribute to accommodating (some of) the plurality of visions,
softening the tension. At the same time, the survey indicated
the overall high demands on the area for different functions,
directly resulting from the peri-urban character of the region. Re-
sults indicate that multi-functionality also comes with trade-offs,
which are acknowledged by the respondents. Recognizing the
plurality of visions and values does not exclude the need to pri-
oritize some values over others, possibly informed by national-
level policy targets or by an analysis of the trade-offs.
Tension 3: Incorporating local and experiential
knowledge into the dominant Western knowledge
system
Two distinct trajectories, being driven by complementary socie-
tal forces, are converging to underscore the need for inclusive
conservation practices. One trajectory is related to the develop-
ment of geographies of exclusion in protected area decision-
making, where power has shifted in the direction of local stake-
holders.
76
In reaction to the global tide of populism and rise of
regional powers, local stakeholders and nearby communities
are increasingly becoming stronger forces in protected area
Box 2. Managing for local residents’, conservation sectors’, and agricultural sectors’ interests in Kromme Rijn
The Utrechtse Heuvelrug National Park and adjacent Kromme Rijn region are located near one of the largest cities in the
Netherlands, Utrecht. The Park, founded in 2003, includes important forest areas and biodiversity values and is being co-managed
by several nature organizations together with private land owners. The Kromme Rijn area next to the Park (220 km
2
, approximately
86,000 inhabitants) is a dynamic cultural landscape with different Dutch landscapes varying from mosaics with patched forests to
wide open pastures on the river banks. Multi-functionality is the norm and valued by local actors but can lead to strong trade-offs
between multiple functions, including wood harvesting, over-crowding of recreational areas, conflicting recreational activities
(exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic), and intensive agricultural use in the Kromme Rijn area, leading to high nitrogen loads
on the sensitive nature of the national park. More information can be found at Panorama Solutions.
74
ll
OPEN ACCESS
256 One Earth 5, March 18, 2022
Perspective
policy decisions.
77,78
The second trajectory is that of a growing
global conservation framework closely tied to professional
expertise, scientific forums, and inter-governmental policy net-
works as well as legal and regulatory frameworks favoring glob-
ally applicable knowledge.
72
New techniques have been devel-
oped for integrating multiple forms of evidence and building a
more holistic understanding of conservation contexts, drawing
on tools like Bayesian belief networks, Q-methodology, and sce-
nario planning,
79
and processes for promoting dialogue within
and across local, Indigenous, and scientific knowledge sys-
tems.
23,80
As the plurality of knowledge perspectives considered
in protected area management widens, tensions inevitably
emerge around what counts as evidence and how this evidence
can be systematically collated and presented to inform conser-
vation decisions.
Mechanisms and institutional arrangements exist for man-
aging power differentials in policy arenas and for recognizing
multiple forms of knowledge in conservation decision-mak-
ing.
24,81–83
At the local scale, co-production between scienti-
fic and Indigenous knowledge is seen as a way to support
adaptation pathways for conservation at the place-specific
scale,
23,84
but often scientific investigations proceed in igno-
rance of contested histories of nation-state colonization.
85
Addressing tensions concerning how knowledge is repre-
sented and combined requires rethinking how issues of po-
wer, agency, trust, and partnership are considered in pro-
tected area management.
In Denali National Park, Alaska, United States (Box 3), we
tested and validated a set of methods for building trust and part-
nerships between diverse stakeholders and local commu-
nities.
86
In Denali, there are generally low but variable degrees
of trust instilled in federal agencies among stakeholders, span-
ning positive working relations to suspicion and distrust. This
variability in trust spills over to researchers and the information
generated from research projects and influences perceptions
of inclusivity in land management decision-making among
stakeholders, including residents, decision-makers, and scien-
tists.
30
Specifically, this case study sought to soften the tensions
between local and science-based knowledge systems by imple-
menting a mixed-method design that engaged decision-making
authorities and local residents in co-production of knowledge
with the research team. Early stages of our study drew on inter-
pretive methods to generate an in-depth understanding of the re-
gion, and these findings informed the development of generaliz-
able models and the application of an experimental design
employed in the final stages of research. Informal meetings
with representatives from multiple sectors also helped in efforts
to come to know one another and build familiarity, trust, and
partnerships with local stakeholders, along with hiring a re-
spected local resident to support the project through its various
Box 3. Co-producing knowledge in Denali National Park to align local and regional conservation aspirations
Established in 1917, Denali National Park and Preserve is a protected area covering nearly 2.5 million hectares. Each year, Denali
National Park attracts around 600,000 visitors who come to see the charismatic wildlife, sub-arctic tundra, and vast, wild land-
scape that hosts the highest peak in North America, Mt. Denali (6,190 m). The population of communities adjacent to Denali nearly
doubles during peak tourism season (June–August) because of the influx of seasonal employees, increasing from about 2,000 to
4,000 residents. Local stakeholders include Native Alaskan corporations, Alaska Native Tribal councils, a collection of distinct local
communities spanning up to 325 km apart, and federal, state, and local governments.
87
More information can be found at Pano-
rama Solutions.
86
ll
OPEN ACCESS
One Earth 5, March 18, 2022 257
Perspective
phases. Additionally, the research team formed an Executive
Committee comprised of local and regional stakeholders to pro-
vide stakeholder updates, interpret interim results, and advise
subsequent phases of study.
The multi-method approach adopted in this case helped to re-
frame conservation as a process of developing trust and partner-
ships, with outcomes tied to fairness in knowledge exchange be-
tween local residents and regional decision makers. Early in the
research process, we conducted focus groups in each of the
study communities and encouraged broad participation by co-
sponsoring the events with community-based organizations
and meeting at local venues such as a school library, Native
Tribal community center, and town hall. The focus groups were
usually part of regularly scheduled meetings and framed as an
opportunity to voice opinions on the future of the Denali region.
Our introductions to communities were extensive and critical to
set the tone for the engagement process and encourage open
discussion. We spent time characterizing ourselves and the po-
litical ideology behind our efforts, such as our history of research
working to connect voices of people to decision-making,
research that helps democratize policy-making, and sensitivity
to the portrayal of dissent. These introductions generated open
discussions about our trustworthiness as well as spirited stories
of frustration with the contested histories of relations with Denali
National Park and Preserve.
30
We also employed ‘‘fuzzy cogni-
tive mapping’’ exercises with individuals and groups of residents
to visualize perceptions of landscape conditions and change in
the region along with a regional household survey.
87
The project culminated in a social learning experiment that
engaged a group of 35 participants from 10 Denali communities
in a longitudinal, online discussion about landscape change.
Residents were engaged in three focus groups, a 5-week facili-
tated exchange, and final webinar to understand how values shift
when diverse stakeholders are involved in deliberation. Comple-
mentary to recent work on reframing agency,
53
this case demon-
strates how frequent dialogue coupled with an iterative social
learning evaluation can promote convergence in values and pro-
tected area management visions across diverse stakeholder
groups.
Tension 4: Acknowledging power relations in
conservation: Seeking consensual outcomes versus
embracing dissent
Plural and discordant voices are a constitutive part of current
development in conservation.
88
Various, non-exclusive options
exist for managing diverse voices and competing interests in
conflict-ridden conservation governance: (1) to build consensual
solutions,
89
(2) to allow conflicts to surface dissenting visions
and un/under-represented voices,
45,90
and (3) to use dissent to
open up new possibilities for more transformative action in con-
servation governance.
91
Political ecologists have argued that
engaging dissent instead of permanently seeking for consensus
is a way of avoiding the suppression of marginal visions within
conservation and to open up innovative ways to tackle current
socio-environmental problems.
45
In other words, there is a
trade-off between representing dissent through the recognition
of conservation conflicts or looking for consensual outcomes
to appreciate the points of agreement and contextualize conflict
in ways that minimize harm.
Part of the process of allowing the emergence of dissent in
conservation practice implies opening up the possibility of diver-
gent understandings of what nature means for different actors
while seeking collective action in conservation governance. As
has been highlighted, ‘‘there are a multitude of natures and a
multitude of existing, possible or practical socio-natural relations
–and proper politicization of the environment needs to endorse
this heterogeneity fully’’ (p. 255).
92
In both cases, governance
processes influencing conservation targets (e.g., policies gov-
erning protected areas establishment, strategies determining
PADDD events) are embedded with power asymmetries
51,93,94
that need to first be acknowledged and actively managed.
95,96
Increasing evidence shows that dominant power dynamics in
such processes and the diversity of interests that power holders
may have (e.g., environmental protection versus economic
development) raise important implications for conservation out-
comes.
94,97
Despite recognition of power dynamics, questions
remain about how to enable diverse voices to feel comfortable
while engaging in management strategies for protected areas
and how to allow issues of interest to emerge and be openly
shared toward encouraging transformative action.
98
In Sierra de Guadarrama National Park, Spain (Box 4), we
tested and applied multi-methods that enabled sharing of issues
of interest from diverse perspectives.
99
More specifically, we
explored how stakeholders participate and interact with the
park’s governance system to manage the tension between
seeking consensual outcomes and embracing dissent. Results
from 76 semi-structured interviews show that stakeholder partic-
ipation is shaped through a wide variety of formal and informal
mechanisms with distinct equity conditions and power distribu-
tion.
19
We then combined consensus and dissent-based ap-
proaches in an online participatory scenario planning exercise
in the National Park that involved decision-makers, researchers,
local users, and non-governmental organizations. Participants
discussed whether and how the area might continue to
contribute to the quality of life of those who currently enjoy its
ecosystem services, the advantages and disadvantages of the
envisioned future scenarios, and who would lose or gain in the
various scenarios.
To navigate consensus and dissent as inherent aspects of
conservation, we asked stakeholders about their degree of pub-
lic participation in protected area management and then invited
them to create scenarios for the intensity of desired recreational
uses in the park. We also utilized a ‘‘barometer of power’’ using
the ‘‘Spatial Chat’’ software for the participants to deliberate on
their roles and power relations and invited participants to visu-
alize and draw stakeholders’ positions in relation to power in
conservation decision-making, in current and future scenarios
via the ‘‘Canva’’ digital platform. We also used a context-specific
graphical tool as a boundary object to explore different levels of
stakeholders’ willingness to engage in the strategies for pro-
tected area management they collectively defined.
The participatory scenario planning process helped elicit
stakeholders’ roles, responsibilities, and abilities to influence de-
cision-making and reflect on how power relations could be arti-
culated in the future. This facilitated a better understanding of the
extent to which each stakeholder can participate and influence
decision-making in the context of their own positions in relation
to power.
ll
OPEN ACCESS
258 One Earth 5, March 18, 2022
Perspective
MANAGING TENSIONS THROUGH MULTI-LEVEL
ENGAGEMENT
This perspective has presented multi-method approaches for
identifying and, where possible, managing tensions inherent to
inclusive conservation in protected area management. Such ten-
sions are likely to surface when addressing biodiversity conser-
vation and equity targets in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity
Framework. Placing consideration of equity and justice on equal
footing with biodiversity requires a transformation of the pro-
cesses, structures, and outcomes underpinning research and
decision-making.
100
In this discussion, we focus on process re-
form. We demonstrate that tensions can, in many cases, be soft-
ened or reframed by not only surfacing hybridity in views but also
by enabling conditions for reflexivity, committing to reframing
tensions, and forging new partnerships in support of protected
area management. We also highlight a dynamic interplay across
phases: hybridity, which commits protected area managers to
acknowledging diverse visions and values for protected area
management the agency of other local actors; reflexivity, which
seeks to develop a collective understanding of protected area
management problems and creating space for shared and con-
flicting values to be heard on an equal footing; and partnership
building, which connects diverse stakeholders in ways that forge
a better understanding of controversy through deeper explora-
tion of the problem or issue, particularly among groups adversely
affected by proposed protected area management strategies.
This stage ultimately may mean reframing problems to find
new solution spaces (Figure 1).
Each case sought to recognize hybridity with respect to elicit-
ing and assessing different power relations, plural and dominant
values, and/or multiple knowledge systems but from different
starting points. This phase sought to empower diverse voices
and recognize the multiple ways of knowing and doing, aligning
with knowledge co-production principles discussed previously
in the sustainability literature.
38,53
It also explicitly acknowledges
difference, which is core to pluralistic governance.
101
In the
V
astra Hargs Lo
¨vskogar nature reserve, the participatory resil-
ience assessment sought to articulate and describe the diverse
protected area management strategies of foresters, graziers,
and the County Administration Board applicable at different
scales of management. In contrast, in Denali, the fuzzy cognitive
mapping was able to create a visual representation of the
differing views on landscape conditions, which was followed
by a community discussion forum to encourage social learning
about place-based values and preferences for future landscape
conditions. The Kromme Rijn case employed STREAMLINE as a
way to visualize diverse visions for protected area management
Box 4. Dealing with power relations and diverse voices to foster social engagement and cooperation in Sierra de Guadarrama National
Park, Spain
Sierra de Guadarrama National Park is part of a mountain system in central Spain (34,000 hectares), very close to Madrid (the coun-
try’s capital, over 6.5 million inhabitants), that features unique granite rock formations and Iberian endemic species. Local stake-
holders are engaged in diverse activities, such as extensive livestock farming, research, and environmental education. The Na-
tional Park is also heavily used for recreation and sports activities by visitors (almost 2.5 million visitors per year). There are
also multiple state administrations at different decision-making scales with governing competencies in the site, with two regional
administrations sharing the main legal authority in conservation decisions. The multiple and sometimes competing uses and values
create social tensions around how the park should be governed. More information can be found at Panorama Solutions.
99
ll
OPEN ACCESS
One Earth 5, March 18, 2022 259
Perspective
and the trade-offs between different landscape functions. In the
Sierra de Guadarrama case, we combined document analysis,
interviews, participatory scenario planning, and deliberative
spaces to show the wide variety of equity and power distribution
conditions under the protected area governance arrangements
as well as the narratives of consensus and dissent in relation to
current protected area management strategies. Despite the
different entry points, each case reveals that surfacing hybridity
alone does not manage tensions. Like several ropes knotted
tightly together, the solution space seems quite small, and it is
challenging to find ways to unlock the different points of view
(Figure 1). For example, the four visions for protected area man-
agement that emerged from the Kromme Rijn engagements on
face value represent opposing ways of managing the landscape,
with seemingly no options to resolve the differing views.
When implementing the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Frame-
work, recognizing hybridity could involve
dtranslating, synthesizing, and applying multiple forms of
local and indigenous knowledge;
23,80
dcombining system knowledge, target knowledge, and
transformative or operational knowledge to address
cross-boundary management challenges; and
destablishing multiple engagement platforms, given that all
methods have their inherent biases and represent interests
in different ways.
72
Combining methods for surfacing hybridity with processes
that enabled conditions for reflexivity (being aware of one’s
own assumptions and biases and fostering learning
100,102
) led
to the softening of tensions, which helped to contextualize the
points of conflict and dissensus that remained. In the V
astra
Harg case, the cross-scale tension was softened by developing
a collective understanding of different strategies for supporting
biodiversity and livelihoods at different scales of management.
The various uncertainties associated with each strategy (e.g.,
market demand and support for different products and the crit-
ical roles played by different actors, organizations, or associa-
tions) were critically reflected on as part of establishing connect-
ing points between strategies (stage 4) of the participatory
resilience assessment. In the Sierra de Guadarrama case, results
from the interviews informed a (virtual) place-based participatory
scenario workshop that enabled stakeholders to critically reflect
on the advantages and disadvantages of the envisioned future
scenarios and the various injustices that could result from
them. By combining methods for surfacing hybridity with pro-
cesses for enabling reflexivity, new options for partnership-
based protected area management emerged, softening tensions
as represented by the undoing of knots in ropes (Figure 1,
phase 2).
When implementing the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Frame-
work, softening tensions could involve
dteasing apart the underpinning assumptions and uncer-
tainties in visions for protected area management identi-
fying associated biases and power relations, and deter-
mining how each stakeholder can participate in and have
influence on protected area governance;
djointly identifying the multiple ways stakeholders relate and
connect (to open up for more common ground); and
dexplicitly acknowledging the losses for some stakeholders
if certain values are prioritized over others and finding
appropriate schemes for compensation or helping to adapt
to the new situation.
Building on previous work,
38,51,100
we suggest that multi- or
mixed-method research designs are needed to support the re-
framing of tensions. In the Denali case, researchers invested
time and resources in developing new partnerships and support-
ing the bidirectional flow of knowledge and information
throughout the research process. The social learning forum
involved five weeks of knowledge exchange. This process
sought to validate different knowledge systems and to build trust
and a sense of empowerment that residents could form a collec-
tive voice on issues that mattered. Social learning was acknowl-
edged during the process. Points of conflict, although still pre-
sent, became hybridized in ways that complicated their
histories and invited reflexive re-positioning of previous dichot-
omies. Decision-makers across federal, state, and local levels
were eager for a wider application of the social learning assess-
ment and discussed options of incorporating content into school
curricula to sustain outcomes from the project and teach about
inclusive conservation in the context of protected area man-
agement.
When implementing the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Frame-
work, reframing tensions could involve
dfacilitating knowledge exchange, respecting rights, and
building partnerships and trust in an environment of care
and mutuality
80
and
demphasizing not only adaptability, biases, and power rela-
tions but also the development of processes that seek to
define, critically reflect on conflicts, and reframe existing
assumptions regarding who is responsible for protected
area governance.
Some of the cases demonstrate that hybridity, reflexivity, and
partnership building inform each other and are not independent
in their action (Figure 1, phases 1–3). By actively engaging in the
interdependent phases of recognizing hybridity, enabling condi-
tions for reflexivity, and partnership building, tensions can not
only be acknowledged but also softened and, in some cases, re-
framed. In the latter phase, metaphorically speaking, ropes not
only unlock but become reconfigured through the development
of new partnerships and creating an environment for trust build-
ing (Figure 1). Negotiations at this part of the process need to be
approached with empathy, trust, and a commitment to within-
knowledge rather than cross-knowledge validation. Negotiation
and facilitation techniques can be used to reframe problems and
identify new solutions for transformative action. However,
shared identification of solutions is sometimes not possible. In
these cases, the reframing turns from conflict resolution to
advancing parties’ causes by less destructive means.
103
CONCLUSIONS
In this perspective, we argued that tensions evident in inclusive
conservation approaches can be acknowledged, softened,
and, in some cases, reframed in protected area management
by employing multiple interlinked methods and processes of
ll
OPEN ACCESS
260 One Earth 5, March 18, 2022
Perspective
stakeholder engagement that invite stakeholders to critically
reflect on their values, visions, and positions and open grounds
for rethinking existing dichotomies and points of conflict. The
proposed actions for protected area governance presented in
this perspective do not obviate the need for difficult protected
area management decisions that lead to gains and losses for
biodiversity and human well-being but, when employed system-
atically, provide grounds for improved understanding of chal-
lenges and the building of trust and new partnerships to achieve
global conservation targets. Although our arguments are salient
to distribution and procedural discussions about protected area
governance globally, we do not engage with wider issues of
recognition, including status equality, decolonialism, and the
cultural or institutional roots of discrimination pertaining to biodi-
versity conservation in the global south (see Martin et al.
104
for an
overview). Future research could investigate how the multi-
method approach presented here for recognizing hybridity, soft-
ening tensions, and reframing tensions could be developed
further or upscaled in other contexts, including in the global
south and countries that are parties to the Convention of Biolog-
ical Diversity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ENVISION was funded through the 2017–2018 Belmont Forum and Bio-
divERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net CO-
FUND program, and with the support of the following national funders: the
Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (FORMAS, 2018-
02429); the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
(FKZ:01LC1806A), Germany; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific
Research (NWO); the National Science Foundation (1854767); a Cooperative
Figure 1. Process for identifying, softening,
and reframing tensions in inclusive
conservation of protected areas globally
ll
OPEN ACCESS
One Earth 5, March 18, 2022 261
Perspective
Agreement with the US National Park Service (P18AC00175); the University of
Illinois Campus Research Board (RB19119); and the Ministerio de Ciencia e In-
novacio
´n, Spain. E.O.-R. has been funded by Juan de la Cierva Incorporation
Fellowship of the Ministry of Science Innovation and Universities (IJCI-2017-
34334). I.R.-M. gratefully acknowledges support from grant RYC-2015-
17676 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by ‘‘ESF Investing
in your future.’’ J.J.K. received support from the Swedish Research Council
for Sustainable Development FORMAS (2019-01648). C.M.R. also received
support from the VIVA-PLAN project, funded by FORMAS (2018-00175).
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
The authors declare no competing interests.
REFERENCES
1. Maxwell, S.L., Cazalis, V., Dudley, N., Hoffmann, M., Rodrigues, A.S.L.,
Stolton, S., Visconti, P., Woodley, S., Kingston, N., Lewis, E., et al.
(2020). Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature
586, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2773-z.
2. Convention on Biological Diversity (2021). First Draft of the Post-2020
Global Biodiversity Framework. https://www.cbd.int/article/draft-1-
global-biodiversity-framework.
3. Reyes-Garcı
´a, V., Ferna
´ndez-Llamazares, A
´., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y.,
Benyei, P., Bussmann, R.W., Diamond, S.K., Garcı
´a-del-Amo, D., Gua-
dilla-Sa
´ez, S., Hanazaki, N., Kosoy, N., et al. (2021). Recognizing Indige-
nous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020
Biodiversity Agenda. Ambio 51, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-
021-01561-7.
4. Andersson, E., Langemeyer, J., Borgstro
¨m, S., McPhearson, T., Haase,
D., Kronenberg, J., Barton, D.N., Davis, M., Naumann, S., Ro
¨schel, L.,
et al. (2019). Enabling green and blue infrastructure to improve contribu-
tions to human well-being and equity in urban systems. Bioscience 69,
566–574. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz058.
5. Langemeyer, J., and Connolly, J.J.T. (2020). Weaving notions of justice
into urban ecosystem services research and practice. Environ. Sci. Pol.
109, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.021.
6. Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington, D., Coolsaet, B., Cortes-Vaz-
quez, J.A., Gross-Camp, N., Palomo, I., and Burgess, N.D. (2017). To-
wards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected
areas. Biol. Conserv. 211, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.
2017.05.014.
7. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge gen-
eration, bridging organizations and social learning. J. Environ. Manag.
90, 1692–1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001.
8. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., and Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-man-
agement and the paradox of learning. Global Environ. Change 18, 86–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002.
9. Buijs, A., Mattijssen, T., Van der Jagt, A., Ambrose-Oji, B., Andersson, E.,
Elands, B., and Møller, M. (2016). Active citizenship for urban green infra-
structure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions
through mosaic governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 22, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002.
10. Buijs, A., Hansen, R., Van der Jagt, S., Ambrose-Oji, B., Elands, B., Lor-
ance Rall, E., Mattijssen, T., Pauleit, S., Runhaar, H., Stahl Olafsson, A.,
et al. (2019). Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: upscaling
active citizenship from a local government perspective. Urban For. Urban
Green. 40, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.011.
11. B
uscher, B., and Fletcher, R. (2019). Towards convivial conservation.
Conserv. Soc. 17, 283–296.
12. IUCN (2017). IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas: Stan-
dard, Version 1.1. https://iucngreenlist.org/.
13. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Bueno, P., Hay-Edie, T., Lang, B., Rastogi, A.,
and Sandwith, T. (2014). A Primer on Governance for Protected and
Conserved Areas: Stream on Enhancing Diversity and Quality of Gover-
nance. https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/primer_
protected_and_consserved_areas.pdf.
14. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., and Hill, R. (2015). Governance for the conserva-
tion of nature. In Protected Area Governance and Management, G.L.
Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, and I. Pulsford, eds. (ANU Press),
pp. 169–206. https://doi.org/10.22459/PAGM.04.2015.
15. Grass, I., Bata
´ry, P., and Tscharntke, T. (2021). Combining land-sparing
and land-sharing in European landscapes. In The Future of Agricultural
Landscapes, Part II, D.A. Bohan and A.J. Vanbergen, eds. (Academic
Press). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2020.09.002.
16. Ober
c, B., and Arroyo Schnell, A. (2020). Approaches to Sustainable
Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.07.en.
17. Plieninger, T., Flinzberger, L., Hetman, M., Horstmannshoff, I., Reinhard-
Kolempas, M., Topp, E., Moreno, G., and Huntsinger, L. (2021). Dehesas
as high nature value farming systems: a social-ecological synthesis of
drivers, pressures, state, impacts, and responses. Ecol. Soc. 26.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12647-260323.
18. Nash, R. (2014). Wilderness and the American Mind, Fourth Edition (Yale
University Press). https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300153507.
19. Lo
´pez-Rodrı
´guez, M.D., Ruiz-Malle
´n, I., Oteros-Rozas, E., March, H.,
Keller, R., Lo, V.B., Cebria
´n-Piqueras, M.A., and Andrade, R. (2020).
Delineating participation in conservation governance: insights from the
Sierra de Guadarrama national park (Spain). Environ. Sci. Pol. 114,
486–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.019.
20. ENVISION (2021). Summary of ENVISION: Decision-Making Toolbox for
Inclusive Conservation in Protected Areas (ENVISION BiodivERsA Proj-
ect). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5810576.
21. Tallis, H., and Lubchenco, J. (2014). Working together: a call for inclusive
conservation. Nature 515, 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/515027a.
22. Pereira, L.M., Davies, K.K., den Belder, E., Ferrier, S., Karlsson-Vinkhuy-
zen, S., Kim, H., Kuiper, J.J., Okayasu, S., Palomo, M.G., Pereira, H.M.,
et al. (2020). Developing multiscale and integrative nature–people sce-
narios using the Nature Futures Framework. People Nat. 2, 1172–1195.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10146.
23. Tengo
¨, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C.M., Spierenburg, M., Daniel-
sen, F., Elmqvist, T., and Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in
IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. 26, 27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005.
24. Dı
´az, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martı
´n-Lo
´pez, B., Watson, R.T., Mol-
na
´r, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A., Brauman, K.A., et al. (2018). As-
sessing nature’s contributions to people: recognizing culture, and
diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science
359, 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826.
25. Zafra-Calvo, N., Balvanera, P., Pascual, U., Merc¸ on, J., Martı
´n-Lo
´pez, B.,
van Noordwijk, M., Mwampamba, T.H., Lele, S., Ifejika Speranza, C.,
Arias-Are
´valo, P., et al. (2020). Plural valuation of nature for equity and
sustainability: insights from the Global South. Global Environ. Change
63, 102115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102115.
26. Arias-Are
´valo, P., Martı
´n-Lo
´pez, B., and Go
´mez-Baggethun, E. (2017).
Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable
management of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 22.https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443.
27. Pascual, U., Adams, W.M., Dı
´az, S., Lele, S., Mace, G.M., and Turnhout,
E. (2021). Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat. Sustain. 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7.
28. O’Connor, S., and Kenter, J.O. (2019) . Making intrinsic values work; inte-
grating intrinsic values of the more-than-human world through the Life
Framework of Values. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1247–1265. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11625-019-00715-7.
29. Harma
´
ckova
´, Z.V., Bl
attler, L., Aguiar, A.P.D., Dan
ek, J., Krpec, P., and
Va
cka
´
rova
´, D. (2021). Linking multiple values of nature with future im-
pacts: value-based participatory scenario development for sustainable
landscape governance. Sustain. Sci. 1,3.https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11625-021-00953-8.
30. Goodson D.J., van Riper C.J., Andrade R., Cebria
´n-Piqueras M., Hauber
M. Evaluating levels of perceived inclusivity and trust among stake-
holders in Alaska. People Nat. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10312.
31. Oldekop, J.A., Holmes, G., Harris, W.E., and Evans, K.L. (2016). A global
assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas.
Conserv. Biol. 30, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12568.
32. West, S., Haider, L.J., Sta
˚lhammar, S., and Woroniecki, S. (2020). A rela-
tional turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points
and transformations. Ecosyst. People 16, 304–325. https://doi.org/10.
1080/26395916.2020.1814417.
33. Djoudi, H., Locatelli, B., Vaast, C., Asher, K., Brockhaus, M., and Basnett
Sijapati, B. (2016). Beyond dichotomies: gender and intersecting inequal-
ities in climate change studies. Ambio 45, 248–262. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13280-016-0825-2.
34. Walsh, Z., Bo
¨hme, J., and Wamsler, C. (2021). Towards a relational para-
digm in sustainability research, practice, and education. Ambio 50,
74–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01322-y.
35. Hakkarainen, V., Anderson, C.B., Eriksson, M., van Riper, C.J., Horcea-
Milcu, A., and Raymond, C.M. (2020). Grounding IPBES experts’ views
on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collab-
orative science. Environ. Sci. Pol. 105, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2019.12.003.
ll
OPEN ACCESS
262 One Earth 5, March 18, 2022
Perspective
36. Chan, K.M.A., Balvanera, P., Benessaia h, K., Chapman, M., Dı
´az, S., Go
´-
mez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., et al.
(2016). Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environ-
ment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1525002113.
37. Himes, A., and Muraca, B. (2018). Relational values: the key to pluralistic
valuation of ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005.
38. Norstro
¨m, A.V., Cvitanovic, C., Lo
¨f, M.F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balva-
nera, P., Bednarek, A.T., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A.,
et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability
research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-
019-0448-2.
39. McPhearson, T., Raymond, C.M., Gulsrud, N., Albert, C., Coles, N., Fa-
gerholm, N., Nagatsu, M., Olafsson, A.S., Soininen, N., and Vierikko, K.
(2021). Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good
Anthropocene. Npj Urban Sustain. 1, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s42949-021-00017-x.
40. Martı
´n-Lo
´pez, B., Balvanera, P., Manson, R., Mwampamba, T.H., and
Norstro
¨m, A. (2020). Contributions of place-based social-ecological
research to address global sustainability challenges. Global Sustain. 3.
https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.18.
41. Grenni, S., Horlings, L.G., and Soini, K. (2020). Linking spatial planning
and place branding strategies through cultural narratives in places. Eur.
Plan. Stud. 28, 1355–1374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.
1701292.
42. Horlings, L.G., Nieto-Romero, M., Pisters, S., and Soini, K. (2020). Oper-
ationalising transformative sustainability science through place-based
research: the role of researchers. Sustain. Sci. 15, 467–484. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11625-019-00757-x.
43. Borie, M., Gustafsson, K.M., Obermeister, N., Turnhout, E., and Bridge-
water, P. (2020). Institutionalising reflexivity? Transformative learning and
the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and
ecosystem services (IPBES). Environ. Sci. Pol. 110, 71–76. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.005.
44. Armitage, D., Mbatha, P., Muhl, E., Rice, W., and Sowman, M. (2020).
Governance principles for community-centered conservation in the
post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e160.
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.160.
45. Matulis, B.S., and Moyer, J.R. (2017). Beyond inclusive conservation: the
value of pluralism, the need for agonism, and the case for social instru-
mentalism. Conserv. Lett. 10, 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/
conl.12281.
46. Scheba, A., and Scheba, S. (2017). REDD+ as ‘inclusive’ neoliberal con-
servation: the case of Lindi, Tanzania. J. East. Afr. Stud. 11 , 526–548.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2017.1357102.
47. Chomba, S., Kariuki, J., Lund, J.F., and Sinclair, F. (2016). Roots of ineq-
uity: how the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices. Land
Use pol. 50, 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.021.
48. Anaya, F.C., and Espı
´rito-Santo, M.M. (2018). Protected areas and terri-
torial exclusion of traditional communities: analyzing the social impacts
of environmental compensation strategies in Brazil. Ecol. Soc. 23.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09850-230108.
49. Wamsler, C., Alkan-Olsson, J., Bjo
¨rn, H., Falck, H., Hanson, H., Oskars-
son, T., Simonsson, E., and Zelmerlow, F. (2020). Beyond participation:
when citizen engagement leads to undesirable outcomes for nature-
based solutions and climate change adaptation. Clim. Change 158,
235–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02557-9.
50. Maestre-Andre
´s, S., Calvet-Mir, L., and Apostolopoulou, E. (2018). Un-
ravelling stakeholder participation under conditions of neoliberal biodi-
versity governance in Catalonia, Spain. Environ. Plan. C Polit. Space
36, 1299–1318. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417753624.
51. Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., and Louder, E. (2020). The
politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr.
Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.
11.009.
52. Lahsen, M., and Turnhout, E. (2021). How norms, needs, and power in
science obstruct transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Res.
Lett. 16, 25008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abdcf0.
53. Chambers, J.M., Wyborn, C., Ryan, M.E., Reid, R.S., Riechers, M., Ser-
ban, A., Bennett, N.J., Cvitanovic, C., Ferna
´ndez-Gime
´nez, M.E., Galvin,
K.A., et al. (2021). Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat.
Sustain. 1–14, 983–996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x.
54. Hoffmann, S. (2021). Challenges and opportunities of area-based con-
servation in reaching biodiversity and sustainability goals. Biodivers.
Conserv. 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02340-2.
55. Folke, C., Polasky, S., Rockstro
¨m, J., Galaz, V., Westley, F., Lamont, M.,
Scheffer, M., O
¨sterblom, H., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., et al. (2021).
Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio 50, 834–869. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8.
56. Tanaka, T. (2019). Governance for protected areas ‘‘beyond the bound-
ary’’—a conceptual framework for biodiversity conservation in the
anthropocene. In Charting Environmental Law Futures in the Anthropo-
cene (Springer Singapore), pp. 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-13-9065-4_6.
57. Coad, L., Watson, J.E.M., Geldmann, J., Burgess, N.D., Leverington, F.,
Hockings, M., Knights, K., and Di Marco, M. (2019). Widespread short-
falls in protected area resourcing undermine efforts to conserve biodiver-
sity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2042.
58. Verburg, P.H., Alexander, P., Evans, T., Magliocca, N.R., Malek, Z.,
Rounsevell, M.D.A., and van Vliet, J. (2019). Beyond land cover change:
towards a new generation of land use models. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sus-
tain. 38, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.05.002.
59. Folke, C., O
¨sterblom, H., Jouffray, J.B., Lambin, E.F., Adger, W.N.,
Scheffer, M., Crona, B.I., Nystro
¨m, M., Levin, S.A., Carpenter, S.R.,
et al. (2019). Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere
stewardship. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1396–1403. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41559-019-0978-z.
60. Carrasco, L.R., Chan, J., McGrath, F.L., and Nghiem, L.T.P. (2017).
Biodiversity conservation in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 22, 24.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26270174.
61. Golden Kroner, R.E., Siyu, Q., Cook, C.N., Roopa, K., Pack, S.M., Bonilla,
O.D., Anne, C.-K.K., Bruno, C., Mingmin, F., Isabel, M.G.M., et al. (2019).
The uncertain future of protected lands and waters. Science 364,
881–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104437.
62. Mascia, M.B., and Pailler, S. (2011). Pro tected area downgrading, down-
sizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications.
Conserv. Lett. 4, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.
00147.x.
63. Kuempel, C.D., Chauvenet, A.L.M., Symes, W.S., and Possingham, H.P.
(2021). Predicted protected area downsizing impedes conservation
progress across terrestrial ecoregions in the tropics and subtropics.
Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e529. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.529.
64. Shakya, B., Uddin, K., Yi, S., Bhatta, L.D., Lodhi, M.S., Htun, N.Z., and
Yang, Y. (2021). Mapping of the ecosystem services flow from three pro-
tected areas in the far-eastern Himalayan Landscape: an impetus to
regional cooperation. Ecosyst. Serv. 47, 101222. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecoser.2020.101222.
65. Martı
´n-Lo
´pez, B., Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Bennett, E.M., Norstro
¨m, A., Peter-
son, G., Plieninger, T., Hicks, C.C., Turkelboom, F., Garcı
´a-Llorente, M.,
Jacobs, S., et al. (2019). A novel telecoupling framework to assess social
relations across spatial scales for ecosystem services research.
J. Environ. Manage. 241, 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2019.04.029.
66. Qin, S., Golden Kroner, R.E., Cook, C., Tesfaw, A.T., Braybrook, R., Ro-
driguez, C.M., Poelking, C., and Mascia, M.B. (2019). Protected area
downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement as a threat to iconic pro-
tected areas. Conserv. Biol. 33, 1275–1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cobi.13365.
67. Enfors-Kautsky, E., J
arnberg, L., Quinlan, A., and Ryan, P. (2021). Way-
finder: a new generation of resilience practice. Ecol. Soc. 26.https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-12176-260239.
68. Kuiper, J. (2021). Building capacity for resilient and inclusive conserva-
tion of cultural landscapes. Panor. Solut. A Heal. Planet. https://
panorama.solutions/en/solution/building-capacity-resilient-and-inclusive-
conservation-cultural-landscapes.
69. Andersson, E., Sellberg, M., and Kuiper, J.J. (2020). ENVISION Fact
Sheet: Building Capacity for Resilient and Inclusive Conservation of Cul-
tural Landscapes. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4386500.
70. Kueffer, C., Schneider, F., and Wiesmann, U. (2019). Addressin g sustain-
ability challenges with a broader concept of systems, target, and trans-
formation knowledge. GAIA 28, 386–388. https://doi.org/10.14512/
gaia.28.4.12.
71. Faith, D.P. (2021). Valuation and appreciation of biodiversity: the ‘‘main-
tenance of options’’ provided by the variety of life. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9,
201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.635670.
72. Guibrunet, L., Gerritsen, P.R.W., Sierra-Huelsz, J.A., Flores-Dı
´az, A.C.,
Garcı
´a-Frapolli, E., Garcı
´a-Serrano, E., Pascual, U., and Balvanera, P.
(2021). Beyond participation: how to achieve the recognition of local
communities’ value-systems in conservation? Some insights from
Mexico. People Nat. 3, 528–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10203.
ll
OPEN ACCESS
One Earth 5, March 18, 2022 263
Perspective
73. Turkelboom, F., Leone, M., Jacobs, S., Kelemen, E., Garcı
´a-Llorente, M.,
Baro
´, F., Termansen, M., Barton, D.N., Berry, P., Stange, E., et al. (2018).
When we cannot have it all: ecosystem services trade-offs in the context
of spatial planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 566–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.10.011.
74. Filyushkina, A. (2020). Identification of visions for protected area man-
agement and quantification of their consequences in Utrechtse Heuvel-
rug and Kromme Rijn (Netherlands). Panor. Solut. A Heal. Planet.
https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/identification-visions-protected-
area-management-and-quantification-their-consequences.
75. De Vries Lentsch, A., and Metzger, M. (2018). STREAMLINE - a Visual
Interview Methodology that Makes Semi-structured Interviews, Focus
Groups and Stakeholder Workshops More Fun and Accessible (Univ. Ed-
inburgh Dataset). https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/2437.
76. Sugrue, T.J. (2014). All politics is local: the persistence of localism in
twentieth-century America. In The Democratic Experiment
(Princeton University Press), pp. 301–326. https://doi.org/10.1515/
9781400825820.301.
77. Cresswell, T. (2013). Geographic Thought: A Critical Introduction (Wiley-
Blackwell).
78. Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 104, 15188–15193. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.0702098104.
79. Gillson, L., Biggs, H., Smit, I.P.J., Virah-Sawmy, M., and Rogers, K.
(2019). Finding common ground between adaptive management and ev-
idence-based approaches to biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol.
Evol. 34, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.10.003.
80. Hill, R., Adem, C¸ ., Alangui, W.V., Molna
´r, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y.,
Bridgewater, P., Tengo
¨, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C.Y., Berkes, F.,
et al. (2020). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in
assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Curr. Opin. En-
viron. Sustain. 43, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006.
81. Balvanera, P., Jacobs, S., Nagendra, H., O’farrell, P., Bridgewater, P.,
Crouzat, E., Dendoncker, N., Goodwin, S., Gustafsson, K.M., Kadykalo,
A.N., et al. (2020). The science-policy interface on ecosystems and peo-
ple: challenges and opportunities. Ecosyst. People 16, 345–353. https://
doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1819426.
82. Kadykalo, A.N., Buxton, R.T., Morrison, P., Anderson, C.M., Bickerton,
H., Francis, C.M., Smith, A.C., and Fahrig, L. (2021). Bridging research
and practice in conservation. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1725–1737. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cobi.13732.
83. Cebria
´n-Piqueras, M.A., Filyushkina, A., Johnson, D.N., Lo, V.B., Lo
´pez-
Rodrı
´guez, M.D., March, H., Oteros-Rozas, E., Peppler-Lisbach, C.,
Quintas-Soriano, C., Raymond, C.M., et al. (2020). Scientific and local
ecological knowledge, shaping perceptions towards protected areas
and related ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 35, 2549–2567. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01107-4.
84. Lyons, I., Hill, R., Deshong, S., Mooney, G., and Turpin, G. (2019). Putting
uncertainty under the cultural lens of traditional owners from the great
barrier reef catchments. Reg. Environ. Chang. 19, 1597–1610. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01468-w.
85. Hill, R., Walsh, F.J., Davies, J., Sparrow, A., Mooney, M., Wise, R.M., and
Tengo
¨, M. (2020). Knowledge co-production for Indigenous adaptation
pathways: transform post-colonial articulation complexes to empower
local decision-making. Glob. Environ. Chang. 65, 102161. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102161.
86. Andrade, R. (2021). Inclusive conservation through social learning in
Alaska protected areas. Panor. Solut. A Heal. Planet. https://
panorama.solutions/en/solution/inclusive-conservation-through-social-
learning-alaska-protected-areas.
87. Johnson, D., and van Riper, C.J. (2021). A Social-Ecological Inventory of
the Region Surrounding Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska
(ENVISION Deliverable). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4527775.
88. Chapron, G., and Lo
´pez-Bao, J.V. (2020). The place of nature in conser-
vation conflicts. Conserv. Biol. 34, 795–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cobi.13485.
89. Redpath, S.M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W.M., Sutherland, W.J.,
Whitehouse, A., Amar, A., Lambert, R.A., Linnell, J.D.C., Watt, A., et al.
(2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 28, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021.
90. Cairns, R., Sallu, S., and Goodman, S. (2014). Questioning calls to
consensus in conservation: a Q study of conservation discourses on Gal-
a
´pagos. Environ. Conserv. 41, 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0376892913000131.
91. Skrimizea, E., Lecuyer, L., Bunnefeld, N., Butler, J.R.A., Fickel, T., Hodg-
son, I., Holtkamp, C., Marzano, M., Parra, C., Pereira, L., et al. (2020).
Sustainable agriculture: recognizing the potential of conflict as a posi tive
driver for transformative change. In Advances in Ecological Research
(Academic Press Inc.), pp. 255–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.
2020.08.003.
92. Swyngedouw, E. (2011). Depoliticized Environments: the end of nature,
climate change and the post-political condition. R. Inst. Philos. Suppl.
69, 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246111000300.
93. Sandbrook, C. (2017). Weak yet strong: the uneven power relations of
conservation. ORYX 51, 379–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605
317000618.
94. Tesfaw, A.T., Pfaff, A., Golden Kroner, R.E., Qin, S., Medeiros, R., and
Mascia, M.B. (2018). Land-use and land-cover change shape the sus-
tainability and impacts of protected areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115,
2084–2089. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716462115.
95. Peterson, M.N., Peterson, M.J., and Peterson, T.R. (2005). Conservation
and the myth of consensus. Conserv. Biol. 19, 762–767. https://www.
jstor.org/stable/3591066.
96. Mudliar, P., and Koontz, T. (2018). The muting and unmuting of caste
across inter-linked action arenas: inequality and collective action in a
community-based watershed group. Int. J. Commons 12, 225–248.
https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.807.
97. Keles, D., Delacote, P., Pfaff, A., Qin, S., and Mascia, M.B. (2020). What
drives the erasure of protected areas? Evidence from across the Brazilian
amazon. Ecol. Econ. 176, 106733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2020.106733.
98. Berbe
´s-Bla
´zquez, M., Gonza
´lez, J.A., and Pascual, U. (2016). Towards
an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.co-
sust.2016.02.003.
99. Lo
´pez Rodrı
´guez, M. (2021). Decision-making toolbox for inclusive con-
servation in the Sierra de Guadarrama national park. Panor. Solut. A Heal.
Planet. https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/decision-making-toolbox-
inclusive-conservation-sierra-de-guadarrama-national-park.
100. Wyborn, C., Montana, J., Kalas, N., Clement, S., Davila, F., Knowles, N.,
Louder, E., Balan, M., Chambers, J., Christel, L., et al. (2021). An agenda
for research and action toward diverse and just futures for life on Earth.
Conserv. Biol. 35, 1086–1097. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13671.
101. Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Razzaque, J., McElwee, P., Turnhout, E., Kele-
men, E., Rusch, G.M., Ferna
´ndez-Llamazares, A
´., Chan, I., Lim, M., Islar,
M., et al. (2021). Transformative governance of biodiversity: insights for
sustainable development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 53, 20–28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.06.002.
102. Dryzek, J.S., and Pickering, J. (2017). Deliberation as a catalyst for reflex-
ive environmental governance. Ecol. Econ. 131, 353–360. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.011.
103. Shapiro, D. (2017). Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: How to Resolve Your
Most Emotionally Charged Conflicts (Penguin).
104. Martin, A., Coolsaet, B., Corbera, E., Dawson, N.M., Fraser, J.A., Leh-
man, I., and Rodriguez, I. (2016). Justice and conservation: the need to
incorporate recognition. Biol. Conserv. 197, 254–261. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.021.
ll
OPEN ACCESS
264 One Earth 5, March 18, 2022
Perspective
... En general, estos esquemas son considerados un mecanismo más acorde con las necesidades humanas de los pueblos que las habitan (Alves-Pinto et al., 2021;Maxwell et al., 2020). En este contexto, las metas post-2020 no solo consideran el incremento de la superficie global de otras áreas de conservación, sino también atienden temas de justicia y equidad en el acceso a los territorios y sus recursos naturales (Dawson et al., 2021;Raymond et al., 2022;Zafra-Calvo y Geldmann, 2020). Como ejemplos, están las áreas conservadas voluntariamente por las comunidades indígenas y locales (ICCA), que incorporan ecosistemas naturales o modificados que contienen valores significativos de biodiversidad, servicios ecológicos y valores culturales . ...
... Se discuten también las áreas de oportunidad que podrían contribuir al fortalecimiento de estrategias de conservación a largo plazo. Este estudio puede ser un aporte relevante para el conocimiento de las áreas voluntarias de conservación en el contexto internacional de la conservación incluyente (Raymond et al., 2022). Esta se basa en múltiples enfoques que comprenden: "(1) la gestión conjunta y la conservación multicéntrica donde el énfasis está gobernado por las comunidades locales e indígenas, con ellas o para ellas; (2) gobernanza de mosaico con énfasis en la participación de diversos actores y grupos ciudadanos activos dentro y entre los sectores de planificación para apoyar los resultados multifuncionales del paisaje; y (3) la conservación convivencial, que mira más allá de las dicotomías de la naturaleza y la cultura para establecer visiones, políticas y principios de gobernanza para promover la justicia social y ecológica, relaciones duraderas y abiertas con la biota y las ecologías (Raymond et al., 2022). ...
... Este estudio puede ser un aporte relevante para el conocimiento de las áreas voluntarias de conservación en el contexto internacional de la conservación incluyente (Raymond et al., 2022). Esta se basa en múltiples enfoques que comprenden: "(1) la gestión conjunta y la conservación multicéntrica donde el énfasis está gobernado por las comunidades locales e indígenas, con ellas o para ellas; (2) gobernanza de mosaico con énfasis en la participación de diversos actores y grupos ciudadanos activos dentro y entre los sectores de planificación para apoyar los resultados multifuncionales del paisaje; y (3) la conservación convivencial, que mira más allá de las dicotomías de la naturaleza y la cultura para establecer visiones, políticas y principios de gobernanza para promover la justicia social y ecológica, relaciones duraderas y abiertas con la biota y las ecologías (Raymond et al., 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
[Introducción]: En México, la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente (LGEEPA) incluye instrumentos que promueven la participación social en la conservación de tierras, mediante mecanismos voluntarios. Las áreas destinadas voluntariamente a la conservación (ADVC) son una modalidad de área natural protegida de competencia federal, que integra una heterogénea participación social. Hasta abril del 2022 existen 374 ADVC vigentes, que conservan una superficie total de 606 132.11 hectáreas certificadas. [Objetivo]: En este artículo se analizan los alcances y desafíos que presenta la implementación de las ADVC, en una contextualización internacional de las estrategias voluntarias de conservación de tierras. [Metodología]: Aplicamos un proceso de triangulación de la información para un análisis cualitativo, que integró entrevistas estructuradas, revisión de archivos oficiales y revisión bibliográfica. [Resultados]: Se obtuvieron ocho categorías temáticas de análisis: antecedentes de la certificación, superficie certificada, tenencia de la tierra, plazos de certificación, tipos de ecosistemas, administración y operación, proceso de certificación, gestión compartida, amenazas y estrategias. [Conclusiones]: Existe una heterogeneidad de experiencias dentro de la gestión de ADVC que está determinada por los tipos de tenencia de la tierra, las capacidades locales de gestión, la vinculación con las organizaciones de sujetos propietarios, los tipos de gobernanza y los intereses que llevaron al establecimiento de las ADVC. Se identificaron 10 aspectos clave del estado actual de estas reservas, útiles para comprender las experiencias de conservación voluntaria que puede contribuir para encauzar procesos de evaluación de la efectividad de su manejo.
... The successful management of protected areas hinges on active and meaningful engagement of nearby residents in decision-making processes (Hernes and Metzger, 2017;Knapp et al., 2014;Palomo et al., 2014). The concept of 'inclusive conservation' was introduced as a goal for protected areas to better incorporate local communities and their diverse perspectives into a holistic vision for the future that can be evaluated for its feasibility, acceptability, and social equity (Mace, 2014;Tallis and Lubchenco, 2014;Raymond et al., 2022). Part of the inclusive conservation framework includes residents, decision-makers, and other stakeholders learning from one another in ways that recognize a range of diverse values giving rise to behaviors that benefit the environment (van Riper et al., 2019;Goodson et al., 2022). ...
Article
The participation of local communities in management decisions is critically important to the long-term salience and therefore, success, of protected areas. Engaging community members in meaningful ways requires knowledge of their behavior and its antecedents, particularly values. Understanding how learning influences cooperation in conservation initiatives is also fundamentally important for supporting decisions being made about public lands. However, there is little empirical evidence of how learning from different information sources works in conjunction with values that shape behavior. Using data from a household survey of residents living in the Denali region of Interior Alaska, U.S, we estimated a two-step structural equation model to understand the psychological reasons why stakeholders made decisions to collectively benefit the environment. Results showed that more diverse pathways by which learning occurred were instrumental in explaining why residents performed pro-environmental behaviors over the past year. Additionally, values that reflected the goals of eudaimonia influenced the transfer and negotiation of knowledge exchange among stakeholders as a correlate of behavior. Environmental concern and personal norms were positively associated with reported behaviors operationalized as social environmentalism and living in an environmentally conscientious manner, whereas environmental concern and willingness to pay for protected area management positively influenced civic engagement. We argue that broadening the range of learning spaces and considering a more diverse array of values in communities surrounding protected areas will encourage daily lifestyle changes, social interactions to support environmentalism, and more robust, pluralistic forms of public engagement in natural resource management.
... Most common policy goals on protected areas mostly are led by civil society organisations, or by civil society organisations that cooperate with public institutions. The leadership of civil society corroborates the general observations that conservation and biodiversity governance increasingly take an inclusive approach and involve other actors beyond the state (Raymond et al., 2022;Curet and Puydarrieux, 2020;Grorud-Colvert et al., 2019). We also find that ICIs include actors that engage at several governance levels, from local to international. ...
Article
Full-text available
Protected areas are frequently used as an important governance approach for biodiversity conservation. Even though the total area of protected areas has increased over time, the coverage, quality of management and effectiveness of these areas are still suboptimal. A large body of literature identifies four main challenges that limit the effectiveness of protected areas: lack of stakeholder participation, insufficient organisational capacity to enforce rules, poor integration across social and ecological goals, and underdeveloped accountability mechanisms for assessing management procedures. To address these challenges, scholars and policymakers increasingly debate how to foster an integrated, inclusive, and transparent “whole of society” approach to conservation. We contribute to this debate by examining the role of international cooperative initiatives (ICIs), involving non-state and subnational actors operating across national borders to steer society towards a common goal. We identify 20 ICIs that work on protected areas and analyse their potential to address the four main challenges identified in protected areas, by examining their actor constellation, governance functions, goal alignment, and monitoring and reporting mechanisms. We find that ICIs working on protected areas have the potential to directly address challenges in protected areas related to lack of capacity and accountability mechanisms, and indirectly address challenges related to lack of participation and integration across goals. We discuss these findings in relation to scholarly debates in the global environmental governance and protected areas literature respectively, as well as, to policy debates over the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
... Through envisioning carbon-related benefits of UGI as perceived by urban residents themselves we hope that co-benefits inherent to participatory planning itself, such as residential stewardship and agency, and political trust (Raymond et al., 2022), are more likely to be delivered in the implementation of these benefits than when residents of diverse contexts are excluded. Inclusivity and engagement likewise work towards understanding how UGI could advance carbon neutrality while enjoying social acceptance, as only by investigating the values and expectations residents place on the urban green may UGI be planned to respect those values and expectations (Madureira et al., 2015;Basnou et al., 2020). ...
Article
To address the inter-connected climate and biodiversity crises, it is crucial to understand how multifunctional urban green infrastructure (UGI) is perceived to contribute to carbon neutrality, biodiversity, human well-being, and justice outcomes in cities. We explore how urban residents, including youth, associate carbon-related meanings with multifunctional UGI and how these meanings relate to co-benefits to biodiversity, well-being, and broader sustainability outcomes. Our findings are based on a survey distributed among urban residents of Helsinki, Finland (n = 487) and reveal how carbon-related meanings of UGI manifest at different levels of abstraction, agency, and scale, and incorporate community values and concerns attributed to the planning, features, functions, and transformational dimensions of UGI. Core carbon-related meanings of UGI emphasize either actions towards sustainability, carbon neutrality, biodiversity, or unfamiliarity towards such meanings. Perceived justice concerns and the socio-demographic contexts of the respondents covaried with carbon-related meanings associated with UGI. The results illustrate community perceptions of how it is not only possible, but rather expected, that multifunctional UGI is harnessed to tackle climate change, human well-being, and biodiversity loss in cities. Challenges for implementing the carbon-related benefits of UGI include navigating the different expectations placed on UGI and including residents with diverse socio-economic backgrounds during the process. Our findings contribute to a holistic understanding of how multifunctional UGI can help bridge policy agendas related to carbon neutrality, biodiversity protection, and human well-being that cities can implement when aiming for sustainable, just, and socially acceptable transitions towards a good Anthropocene.
... Through envisioning carbon-related benefits of UGI as perceived by urban residents themselves we hope that co-benefits inherent to participatory planning itself, such as residential stewardship and agency, and political trust (Raymond et al., 2022), are more likely to be delivered in the implementation of these benefits than when residents of diverse contexts are excluded. Inclusivity and engagement likewise work towards understanding how UGI could advance carbon neutrality while enjoying social acceptance, as only by investigating the values and expectations residents place on the urban green may UGI be planned to respect those values and expectations (Madureira et al., 2015;Basnou et al., 2020). ...
Preprint
To address the inter-connected climate and biodiversity crises, it is crucial to understand whether, and if so how, nature-based solutions are perceived to contribute to carbon neutrality, biodiversity, human well-being and justice outcomes. We propose and explore the concept of carbon-smart green infrastructure (carbon-smart UGI) for bridging the policy agendas of climate change mitigation/adaptation and biodiversity conservation, while also accounting for environmental justice. We base our conceptualization of carbon-smart UGI on the findings of a survey distributed among urban residents of Helsinki, Finland. Using both qualitative and quantitative methods, we describe how residents (n = 487) understand carbon-smart UGI, extract clusters of core meanings associated with the concept, and relate these clusters to measures of perceived environmental (in)justice and socio-demographic contexts. In our results, carbon-smartness manifests at different levels of abstraction, agency, and scale, and incorporates community values and concerns attributed to the planning, features, functions, and transformational dimensions of urban green infrastructure. Core meanings associated with carbon-smartness emphasize either actions towards sustainability, carbon neutrality, biodiversity or unfamiliarity towards the concept. Perceived justice concerns and the socio-demographic contexts of the respondents covaried with the meanings associated with carbon-smart UGI. Namely, residents reporting high levels of perceived justice more often highlighted recreation, biodiversity, or other co-benefits than those reporting low levels of justice, while respondents 25 and older supported a more holistic understanding of the concept than those younger than 25. The results highlight the perceived multifunctionality of the urban green and illustrate community perceptions of how it is not only possible, but rather expected, that climate change and biodiversity loss are tackled together in cities. Challenges for implementing carbon-smart UGI include navigating the different meanings associated with the concept and including residents with diverse socio-economic backgrounds during the process. Carbon-smart UGI emerges as a promising boundary object for bridging policy agendas related to carbon neutrality, biodiversity protection, and human well-being that cities can implement when aiming for sustainable, just and socially acceptable transitions towards a good Anthropocene.
Article
Full-text available
The world is firmly cemented in a notitian age (Latin: notitia, meaning data) – drowning in data, yet thirsty for information and the synthesis of knowledge into understanding. As concerns over biodiversity declines escalate, the volume, diversity and speed at which new environmental and ecological data are generated has increased exponentially. Data availability primes the research and discovery engine driving biodiversity conservation. South Africa (SA) is poised to become a world leader in biodiversity conservation. However, continent-wide resource limitations hamper the establishment of inclusive technologies and robust platforms and tools for biodiversity informatics. In this perspectives piece, we bring together the opinions of 37 co-authors from 20 different departments, across 10 SA universities, 7 national and provincial conservation research agencies, and various institutes and private conservation, research and management bodies, to develop a way forward for biodiversity informatics in SA. We propose the development of a SA Biodiversity Informatics Hub and describe the essential components necessary for its design, implementation and sustainability. We emphasise the importance of developing a culture of cooperation, collaboration and interoperability among custodians of biodiversity data to establish operational workflows for data synthesis. However, our biggest challenges are misgivings around data sharing and multidisciplinary collaboration. We recommend a system that is free, user friendly, functional, stable, integrative and designed to cater for different data access agreement levels. Sharing data through this pipeline will directly advance the science and practice of conservation, giving multiple stakeholders and decision-makers access to valuable biodiversity data to support research and biodiversity conservation.
Article
Full-text available
Respecting connections between the diversity of values and forms of knowledge is essential to support a decision-making that fosters relationships between ecosystems and people. However, little theory has been developed for clarifying interactions between values and knowledge, and their relevance for environmental policy. We surfaced the overlooked relationship between values and knowledge by studying individual cognitive and emotional processes during a guided visioning exercise in the context of the multifunctional landscapes of Östergötland, Sweden. We investigated these cognitive processes using 30 semi-structured interviews and questionnaires organized around three types of relationships: vision ⇔ values, vision ⇔ knowledge, and especially values ⇔ knowledge. The analysis of the relationship between vision and values reveals that all types of values including core human values, relational, and intrinsic values are important in shaping the decision-making context in which landscape management visions arise. The relationship between vision and knowledge uncovers the mix of experiential and theoretical knowledge that informs the decision-making context. Interviews unfold three modalities in terms of how values and knowledge relate: i) linked and not necessarily connected (e.g. when individuals perceive a high conflict between their knowledge and their values leading to one construct silencing the other); ii) mutually reinforcing (e.g. when values and knowledge are seen as feeding into one another); and iii) intertwined (e.g. when individuals perceive that values and knowledge can co-exist). We discuss our findings in the context of their relevance for a collaborative decision-making process for balancing consensus and dissensus in multifunctional landscapes.
Article
Full-text available
1. The success of conservation initiatives often depends on the inclusion of diverse stakeholder interests in the decision-making process. Yet, there is a paucity of empirical knowledge concerning the factors that explain why stakeholders door do not-believe that they are meaningfully represented by government agencies. 2. Our study provides insight into the relationship between trust and stakeholder perceptions of inclusivity in public land management decisions. Here, we focus on the U.S. state of Alaska, where almost two-thirds of the land area are managed by the federal government. 3. We used structural equation modelling to test whether an individual's trust and the information sources used to learn about land management positively influenced perceived inclusivity. We conceptualized trust in terms of four dimensions that reflected an individual's disposition to trust, trust in the federal government , trust in shared values and trust that agencies adhere to a moral code. 4. We found that survey respondents across the U.S. state of Alaska had a limited disposition to trust others, did not trust federal land management agencies, did not believe agencies shared their values pertaining to protected area management and did not believe that agencies adhered to a moral code. 5. Beliefs about the morality of agencies were the primary driver of perceived inclusivity in land management decisions, indicating that agencies should focus on solving problems through deliberation and discussion about moral principles rather than by force. 6. Information acquired from professional, community-based or environmental advocacy exchanges also positively influenced perceived levels of involvement among stakeholders in resource management decisions. 7. These results provide a roadmap for how land management agencies can improve public relations and work towards a model of inclusive conservation around protected areas.
Article
Full-text available
Area-based conservation is essential to safeguard nature’s diversity. In view of expanding human land use, increasing climate change and unmet conservation targets, area-based conservation requires efficiency and effectiveness more than ever. In this review, I identify and relate pressing challenges to promising opportunities for effective and efficient protected area governance and management, to enhance research, decision-making and capacity building in area-based conservation under uncertain future developments. I reveal that protected area management is particularly challenged by human land use, climate change, invasive species, and social, political and economic limitations. Protected area management often lacks the continuous availability of data on current states and trends of nature and threats. Biocultural conservation, climate-smart management and biosecurity approaches help to overcome challenges induced by human needs, climate change and invasive species, respectively. Economic valuation and shifts in funding priorities can boost protected area effectiveness and efficiency. In-situ monitoring techniques, remote sensing and open data infrastructures can fill data and information gaps for protected area planning and management. Moreover, adaptive management is an auspicious concept in the framework of systematic conservation planning to ensure the enduring effectiveness of protected areas despite unpredictable future developments. Post-2020 international biodiversity and sustainable development goals could be met earlier if protected areas were more effective. I consequently conclude with the need for a global information system that is to support area-based conservation by synthesizing challenges and opportunities for protected area management effectiveness and efficiency at the local to global level.
Article
Full-text available
Protected areas remain a key tool in the fight against biodiversity loss and have expanded rapidly in recent decades. However, protected areas are also increasingly experiencing downsizing events that reduce the total amount of area legally under protection. Here we explore how future predicted protected area expansion and downsizing (by 2045) will impact the ability for countries to meet representation and area‐based protection targets, such as those set by the Convention on Biological Diversity. We found that predicted protected area downsizing will likely decrease habitat representation equality and mean area‐based target (30% target) achievement by 50% and >80%, respectively, of the 36 countries analyzed across four scenarios (no protection, business as usual, random and optimal protection). Prioritizing protection of underrepresented ecoregions could offset these unfavorable outcomes, increasing representation equality, on average, by >60% and mean target achievement by >30%. We identify countries that are expected to decrease both representation equality and mean target achievement (~50% of countries across scenarios) with predicted downsizing. These countries need to pay particular attention to strategic protected area expansion and policies that prevent downsizing in parks with under‐represented habitats. Finally, we identify cases where downsizing events improve protected area metrics, such as India and Nigeria, highlighting the complexities and potential trade‐offs of protected area dynamics. A deeper understanding of the influence of protected area downsizing on conservation outcomes is urgently needed to ensure representative and adequate protected area networks.
Article
Full-text available
Dehesas and montados are Mediterranean agroforestry systems characterized by scattered oak trees with an understory grazed extensively by livestock and, in some cases, periodically cropped. A long history of traditional management practices has created an open woodland widely recognized for rich biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services. Concerns about challenges to their long-term viability have motivated many disparate scientific studies in recent decades. We provide a synthesis of this growing body of international literature, focusing on the links between land use and management practices, biodiversity, and policy, from a "high nature value farming systems" perspective. The present review comprises 128 empirical studies carried out in Spain and Portugal. Conservation trends were assessed according to categories adapted from the DPSIR (Drivers-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses) framework. Socio-cultural factors, economic dynamics, and agricultural policies were found to be key drivers of change, resulting in intensification of livestock production and land use simplification, among other effects. Insufficient tree regeneration and a broad range of other factors were identified as pressures that have often negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, moving the system away from its archetypical ecological state. A variety of management and policy responses were suggested, ranging from specific conservation techniques to landscape-level initiatives. Ecosystem components and management practices were typically studied separately, and mainly from an ecological science perspective, while inter-and transdisciplinary approaches including examination of the role of people were less common. This points to a need to move from single-topic to landscape-level approaches with a broader integration of different disciplines and perspectives.
Article
Full-text available
The promise of co-production to address complex sustainability challenges is compelling. Yet, co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice, encompasses diverse aims, terminologies and practices, with poor clarity over their implications. To explore this diversity, we systematically mapped differences in how 32 initiatives from 6 continents co-produce diverse outcomes for the sustainable development of ecosystems at local to global scales. We found variation in their purpose for utilizing co-production, understanding of power, approach to politics and pathways to impact. A cluster analysis identified six modes of co-production: (1) researching solutions; (2) empowering voices; (3) brokering power; (4) reframing power; (5) navigating differences and (6) reframing agency. No mode is ideal; each holds unique potential to achieve particular outcomes, but also poses unique challenges and risks. Our analysis provides a heuristic tool for researchers and societal actors to critically explore this diversity and effectively navigate trade-offs when co-producing sustainability.
Article
Full-text available
While there is much debate on transformative change among academics and policymakers, the discussion on how to govern such change is still in its infancy. This article argues that transformative governance is needed to enable the transformative change necessary for achieving global sustainability goals. Based on a literature review, the article unpacks this concept of transformative governance. It is: integrative, to ensure local solutions also have sustainable impacts elsewhere (across scales, places, issues and sectors); inclusive, to empower those whose interests are currently not being met and represent values embodying transformative change for sustainability; adaptive, enabling learning, experimentation, and reflexivity, to cope with the complexity of transformative change; and pluralist, recognizing different knowledge systems. We argue that only when these four governance approaches are: implemented in conjunction; operationalized in a specific manner; and focused on addressing the indirect drivers underlying sustainability issues, governance becomes transformative. This review comes from a themed issue on The state of knowledge on social transformations to sustainability Edited by
Article
Full-text available
Here, we introduce Wayfinder, a novel conceptual framework and a process design for resilience practice. Framed by the Anthropocene argument, and with an explicit social-ecological system focus, the purpose of Wayfinder is to help users navigate toward trajectories of sustainable development. We present the theoretical perspectives that underpin the Wayfinder framework, which draw together and synthesize multiple strands of contemporary resilience thinking. We also describe how we operationalize this framework through an action-oriented process that is designed to facilitate transformative change on the ground. Wayfinder's contribution to resilience theory and practice emerges from the combination of: (1) framing that enables users to address the complex sustainability challenges that we face today, (2) synthesis of recent key advances in resilience science into one comprehensive framework and process, (3) practical guidance that moves beyond an assessment of the current state of affairs and provides concrete advice for planning and action, and (4) emphasis on learning as a key mode of operation in the rapidly changing Anthropocene.
Article
Full-text available
The Convention on Biological Diversity is defining the goals that will frame future global biodiversity policy in a context of rapid biodiversity decline and under pressure to make transformative change. Drawing on the work of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, we argue that transformative change requires the foregrounding of Indigenous peoples' and local communities' rights and agency in biodiversity policy. We support this argument with four key points. First, Indigenous peoples and local communities hold knowledge essential for setting realistic and effective biodiversity targets that simultaneously improve local livelihoods. Second, Indigenous peoples' conceptualizations of nature sustain and manifest CBD's 2050 vision of "Living in harmony with nature." Third, Indigenous peoples' and local communities' participation in biodiversity policy contributes to the recognition of human and Indigenous peoples' rights. And fourth, engagement in biodiversity policy is essential for Indigenous peoples and local communities to be able to exercise their recognized rights to territories and resources.
Article
Full-text available
Reaching sustainable and just futures for people and nature requires tackling complex social-ecological challenges across multiple scales, from local to global. Pathways towards such futures are largely driven by people’s decisions and actions, underpinned by multiple types of motivations and values. Thus, understanding the link between potential futures and the values underpinning them represents a key question of current sustainability research, recently embraced by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Particularly the understanding of causal chains leading from values to futures across different contexts and scales is vital to identify which sustainability pathways to collectively pursue. In this study, we build on a transdisciplinary knowledge co-creation process in an array of local case studies in protected areas in the Czechia (Central Europe). We apply the Life Framework of Values and the Three Horizons framework in an innovative value-based participatory scenario building process to explore the relationships between (1) multiple types of values, (2) actions taken by different types of stakeholders, and (3) their potential impacts on nature, nature’s contributions to people (including ecosystem services) and good quality of life. The resulting local-scale value-based pathways show the complex relationship between multiple types of values for nature and potential future trajectories. Finally, we reflect on the utility of value-based participatory scenario planning as a means to strengthen sustainable governance. We highlight that if participatory deliberation of values is to support decision-making processes, its design needs to carefully reflect local context and institutional set-up.
Article
Full-text available
“Nature’s contributions to people” (NCP) is an important expansion beyond the standard ecosystem services framework, particularly as a pathway to better address global/regional biodiversity values. NCP18, “maintenance of options,” refers broadly to the capacity of ecosystems, habitats, species, or genotypes to keep options open to support a good quality of life. “Biodiversity,” interpreted as living variation, is an important, but under-appreciated, aspect of “maintenance of options.” IPBES refers to “the “option values of biodiversity,” that is, the value of maintaining living variation in order to provide possible future uses and benefits.” IPBES assessments include biodiversity option value, and use phylogenetic diversity (PD) as an indicator of change in status of NCP18. At the same time, IPBES notes the need for greater appreciation of option values of biodiversity. Popular ecosystem services framings forget the long history of consideration of these global benefits of biotic diversity to humanity, and their normative links. Popular ecological definitions mean that many current valuations of “biodiversity” neglect the benefits of biodiversity-as-variety. Economic valuations of “biodiversity” typically have focused on ecosystem aspects, not variety; related ecosystems framings value “biodiversity” with a focus on those critical elements relating to functioning of ecosystems. Greater appreciation of biodiversity option value and NCP18 may depend on clearer messaging from academia, better highlighting of the link between biodiversity and intergenerational justice, and greater communication of stories of past surprising discoveries of benefits from species that highlight biodiversity as an ongoing source of future benefits. An important pathway for better appreciation of insurance and investment benefits of variety is to understand and communicate the reasons why we value these benefits from variety. Biodiversity-as-variety is valued because we care about the welfare of future generations.