Seizing opportunities to diversify conservation

Gould, Rachelle K.; Phukan, Indira; Mendoza, Mary E.; Ardoin, Nicole M.; Panikkar, Bindu

doi:10.1111/conl.12431

Cited by 41 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sustainable trajectories that achieve biodiversity targets and sustainable development goals entail a major escalation of conservation and restoration efforts (Díaz et al., 2019; Mace et al., 2018; Zabel et al., 2019). A diverse constituency, combined with intentional effort to create inclusive conservation initiatives and spaces, are crucial to this effort (Gould, Phukan, Mendoza, Ardoin, & Panikkar, 2018). Globally, a prime focus to increase inclusivity is to achieve large‐scale engagement of IPLCs in governance and management of protected areas and other area‐based conservation measures; successful efforts would maintain or enhance health and livelihood outcomes (Naidoo et al., 2019), including via local ecosystem services, which are particularly important to many IPLCs (Bawa & Gadgil, 1997).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre‐emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision‐making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non‐substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling‐up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such approaches, often aligned with upper‐middle‐class European American culture and aesthetic of the wild, can be problematic for many people of other backgrounds (Finney , Taylor , Gould et al. ). Environmental sensitivity likely arises from multiple aspects of peoples’ backgrounds, and not everyone comes to caring about the environment through direct interaction with flora, fauna, or undeveloped spaces (Ardoin et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scale and sense of place among urban dwellers

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Place connections are core to being human: Every person lives in, and thus has direct experience of, at least one place and likely of numerous places throughout a lifetime. Sense of place—or the meanings, knowledge, and bonds that arise from the biophysical, social, and political–economic aspects of places—in turn influences people's interactions with those places. Of particular interest to researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, such interactions can impact place‐protective, stewardship, or conservation behaviors. However, how sense of place develops and what it represents is shifting in today's rapidly urbanizing, globalizing world. Especially when considering the integrated social–ecological context, questions related to how sense of place forms and is enacted in urban settings and at a range of geographic scales are challenging to study. Our study addresses this dynamic space: We examined how people's place connections intersect with their notions of geographic scale and levels of urbanity. Specifically, we conducted a 1201‐person randomized telephone survey in the San Francisco Bay Area ecoregion of California, USA, to explore how sense of place varies by (1) the scale of what people consider to be their place, and (2) the urbanity of where people live. In comparison with respondents who perceived their place as the larger‐scale ecoregion, we found that respondents who perceived their place as primarily focused on the urban area rated their connection to the biophysical aspects of place (the plants, animals, and landscape‐related elements) lower. Similarly, overall, respondents who lived in urban areas rated their connections to the biophysical aspects of place lower than did respondents who lived in non‐urban areas. Our findings suggest the importance of encouraging conceptualizations of place at broader geographic scales and, particularly, of supporting notions of urban spaces that stretch beyond urban boundaries. We also call for supporting increased engagement with urban nature, especially among residents of urban areas.

show abstract

“…This is not surprising; socially focused projects more directly relate to social issues such as equity. Yet attention to equity and justice is crucial for the future of conservation (Gould, Phukan, Mendoza, Ardoin, & Panikkar, ; Taylor, ). Since much conservation research focuses on biology, we hope the examples and ideas we provide in this article can increase attention to equity in all types of conservation research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Broader impacts in conservation research

Gould

Coleman

Krymkowski

et al. 2019

Conservat Sci and Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the “broader impacts” of research related to biodiversity conservation. We analyze a sample of abstracts of proposals funded by the United States National Science Foundation's (NSF) Biology (BIO) and Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) directorates. The analysis, based on the NSF conceptualization of broader impacts, identified 21 important types of broader impacts mentioned in the abstracts. Our results show that the vast majority of NSF grant recipients propose a small range of broader impacts, and that predictable differences exist in the types of broader impacts that are more and less common for conservation‐related work in the biological and social sciences. BIO abstracts contained proportionally fewer mentions of equity, case studies, international links, and workshops for conservation practitioners. SBE abstracts contained proportionally fewer mentions of dissemination to local communities, data sharing, websites, and curriculum. We discuss multiple forms of broader impact (e.g., process‐based impacts vs. sharing of results), and then, like the abstracts we analyzed, focus on communication and engagement mechanisms. In order to aid future efforts, we provide examples of unusual and particularly creative approaches that conservation scientists can use to enhance the broader impacts of their work.

show abstract

Seizing opportunities to diversify conservation

Cited by 41 publications

References 25 publications

Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability

Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability

Scale and sense of place among urban dwellers

Broader impacts in conservation research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About