Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning
Abstract Conservation encompasses numerous alternative viewpoints on what to value (features such as biodiversity, ecosystem services or socio‐economic benefits) and how to convert these values into conservation policies that deliver for nature and people. Reconciling these differing values and view...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-04-01
|
| Series: | People and Nature |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10449 |
| _version_ | 1797853466492665856 |
|---|---|
| author | Charles A. Cunningham Humphrey Q. P. Crick Mike D. Morecroft Chris D. Thomas Colin M. Beale |
| author_facet | Charles A. Cunningham Humphrey Q. P. Crick Mike D. Morecroft Chris D. Thomas Colin M. Beale |
| author_sort | Charles A. Cunningham |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Conservation encompasses numerous alternative viewpoints on what to value (features such as biodiversity, ecosystem services or socio‐economic benefits) and how to convert these values into conservation policies that deliver for nature and people. Reconciling these differing values and viewpoints in policy development and implementation is a perennial challenge. Balancing differing stakeholder viewpoints within a single conservation plan risks some viewpoints overshadowing others. This can occur as some dominant viewpoints may lead to more marginal views being suppressed, and also through social biases during the planning process. Here we develop four separate ‘caricature’ conservation viewpoints, and spatially quantify each of them in order to test different approaches to equitable reconciliation. Each viewpoint prioritises different locations, dependent on the extent to which they deliver a variety of different biodiversity, well‐being and economic goals. We then show how these different viewpoints can be reconciled using numeric methods. We find that a pluralist approach, which accounts for the spatial similarities and differences between viewpoints, is able to deliver equitably for multiple conservation features. This pluralist approach provides a coherent spatial conservation strategy with the capacity to satisfy advocates of quite divergent approaches to conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T19:50:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-9e979abfd29549f9b8d69a550749fea7 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2575-8314 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T19:50:00Z |
| publishDate | 2023-04-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | People and Nature |
| spelling | doaj.art-9e979abfd29549f9b8d69a550749fea72023-04-03T08:43:59ZengWileyPeople and Nature2575-83142023-04-015262163210.1002/pan3.10449Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planningCharles A. Cunningham0Humphrey Q. P. Crick1Mike D. Morecroft2Chris D. Thomas3Colin M. Beale4Department of Biology University of York York UKNatural England Eastbrook, Shaftesbury Road Cambridge UKNatural England ℅ Natural England Mail Hub Worcester UKDepartment of Biology University of York York UKDepartment of Biology University of York York UKAbstract Conservation encompasses numerous alternative viewpoints on what to value (features such as biodiversity, ecosystem services or socio‐economic benefits) and how to convert these values into conservation policies that deliver for nature and people. Reconciling these differing values and viewpoints in policy development and implementation is a perennial challenge. Balancing differing stakeholder viewpoints within a single conservation plan risks some viewpoints overshadowing others. This can occur as some dominant viewpoints may lead to more marginal views being suppressed, and also through social biases during the planning process. Here we develop four separate ‘caricature’ conservation viewpoints, and spatially quantify each of them in order to test different approaches to equitable reconciliation. Each viewpoint prioritises different locations, dependent on the extent to which they deliver a variety of different biodiversity, well‐being and economic goals. We then show how these different viewpoints can be reconciled using numeric methods. We find that a pluralist approach, which accounts for the spatial similarities and differences between viewpoints, is able to deliver equitably for multiple conservation features. This pluralist approach provides a coherent spatial conservation strategy with the capacity to satisfy advocates of quite divergent approaches to conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10449biodiversityconsensus planningconservation viewpointsecosystem servicesinclusivenesspluralism |
| spellingShingle | Charles A. Cunningham Humphrey Q. P. Crick Mike D. Morecroft Chris D. Thomas Colin M. Beale Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning People and Nature biodiversity consensus planning conservation viewpoints ecosystem services inclusiveness pluralism |
| title | Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning |
| title_full | Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning |
| title_fullStr | Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning |
| title_short | Reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning |
| title_sort | reconciling diverse viewpoints within systematic conservation planning |
| topic | biodiversity consensus planning conservation viewpoints ecosystem services inclusiveness pluralism |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10449 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT charlesacunningham reconcilingdiverseviewpointswithinsystematicconservationplanning AT humphreyqpcrick reconcilingdiverseviewpointswithinsystematicconservationplanning AT mikedmorecroft reconcilingdiverseviewpointswithinsystematicconservationplanning AT chrisdthomas reconcilingdiverseviewpointswithinsystematicconservationplanning AT colinmbeale reconcilingdiverseviewpointswithinsystematicconservationplanning |