Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Appraising geodiversity and cultural diversity approaches to building resilience through conservation

Abstract

There is no single way of increasing climate resilience that works in all locations and circumstances. This Perspective examines two current approaches to climate-resilient conservation projects that draw on insights from the Earth sciences. A cultural diversity approach has long been used by conservation organizations with large and well-trained personnel, whereas a geodiversity approach is gaining support as a way to undertake large-scale conservation planning using readily available tools. Because the two approaches are not inherently incompatible with each other, and have complementary strengths and weaknesses, land trust project managers should take advantage of both approaches to achieve their local goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Map of archaeological sites at Waihe’e Coastal Dunes and Wetlands Refuge.

Theresa Donham

Fig. 2: Geodiversity fosters biological diversity.
Fig. 3: Mapping tool for geodiversity approach.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ervin, J. Integrating protected areas into climate planning. Biodiversity 12, 2–10 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Groves, C. R. et al. Incorporating climate change into systematic conservation planning. Biodivers. Conserv. 21, 1651–1671 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jones, K. R., Watson, J. E., Possingham, H. P. & Klein, C. J. Incorporating climate change into spatial conservation prioritisation: a review. Biol. Conserv. 194, 121–130 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Conserving Nature in a Changing Climate: A Three-Part Guide for Land Trusts in the Northeast (Open Space Institute, 2016).

  5. Anderson, M. G. et al. Resilient and Connected Landscapes for Terrestrial Conservation (TNC, Eastern Conservation Science, Eastern Regional Office, 2016).

  6. Comer, P. J. Ecoregional planning and climate change adaptation. Ref. Module Earth Syst. Environ. Sci. 2, 245–256 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fowler, R. & Robinson, E. Creating resilient communities through Earth science data. Eos (30 December 2015).

  8. Council, N. R. Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative (National Academies, Washington DC, 2012).

  9. Barnosky, A. D. et al. Merging paleobiology with conservation biology to guide the future of terrestrial ecosystems. Science 355, eaah4787 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  10. National Land Trust Census Report: Our Common Ground and Collective Impact (Land Trust Alliance, 2015).

  11. Morris, A. W. Easing conservation? Conservation easements, public accountability and neoliberalism. Geoforum 39, 1215–1227 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kay, K. Breaking the bundle of rights: Conservation easements and the legal geographies of individuating nature. Environ. Plan. A 48, 504–522 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Building Community Resilience by Strengthening America’s Natural Resources and Supporting Green Infrastructure (White House Press Office, 2014); https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ceq/Press_Releases/October_8_2014

  14. Resilient and Connected Landscapes (Conservation Gateway, TNC, accessed 6 April 2019); https://go.nature.com/2xNZb7w

  15. Barak, R. S. et al. Taking the long view: integrating recorded, archeological, paleoecological, and evolutionary data into ecological restoration. Int. J. Plant Sci. 177, 90–102 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Szabó, P. & Hédl, R. Advancing the integration of history and ecology for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 25, 680–687 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rick, T. C. & Lockwood, R. Integrating paleobiology, archeology, and history to inform biological conservation. Conserv. Biol. 27, 45–54 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Howell, E. A., Harrington, J. A., Glass, S. B. Introduction to Restoration Ecology (Island Press, Washington DC, 2012).

  19. Athens, J. S., Rieth, T. M. & Dye, T. S. A paleoenvironmental and archaeological model-based age estimate for the colonization of Hawai’i. Am. Antiq. 79, 144–155 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kirch, P. V. Late Holocene human-induced modifications to a central Polynesian island ecosystem. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 5296–5300 (1996).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Paulay, G. & Starmer, J. Evolution, insular restriction, and extinction of oceanic land crabs, exemplified by the loss of an endemic Geograpsus in the Hawaiian Islands. PLoS ONE 6, e19916 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Burney, D. A. & Burney, L. P. Paleoecology and “inter-situ” restoration on Kaua’i, Hawai’i. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 483–490 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kittinger, J. N. et al. Historical reconstruction reveals recovery in Hawaiian coral reefs. PLoS ONE 6, e25460 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pau, S., MacDonald, G. M. & Gillespie, T. W. A dynamic history of climate change and human impact on the environment from Keālia Pond, Maui, Hawaiian Islands. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 102, 748–762 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Prebble, M. & Dowe, J. L. The late Quaternary decline and extinction of palms on oceanic Pacific islands. Quat. Sci. Rev. 27, 2546–2567 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Folke, C. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 253–267 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mayunga, J. S. Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience: a capital-based approach. Summer Acad. Soc. Vulnerab. Resil. Build. 1, 16 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lau, L.-K. S. & Mink, J. F. Hydrology of the Hawaiian Islands (Univ. Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI, 2006).

  29. Walker, B. & Salt, D. Resilience Practice: Building Capacity to Absorb Disturbance and Maintain Function (Island Press, Wasington DC, 2012).

  30. Beatley, T. Planning for Coastal Resilience: Best Practices for Calamitous Times (Island Press, Washington DC, 2012).

  31. Cote, M. & Nightingale, A. J. Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 475–489 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Walker, J. & Cooper, M. Genealogies of resilience from systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Secur. Dialog. 42, 143–160 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Satterthwaite, D. The political underpinnings of cities’ accumulated resilience to climate change. Environ. Urban. 25, 381–391 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pelling, M. Adapting to Climate Change, From Resilience to Adaptation (Routledge, New York, NY, 2011).

  35. Bahadur, A. V. & Tanner, T. Policy climates and climate policies: Analysing the politics of building urban climate change resilience. Urban Clim. 7, 20–32 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bahadur, A. & Tanner, T. Transformational resilience thinking: putting people, power and politics at the heart of urban climate resilience. Environ. Urban. 26, 200–214 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cannon, T. & Schipper, L. World Disasters Report 2014: Focus on Culture and Risk (IFRC, 2014).

  38. Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Rockstrom, J., Crépin, A.-S. & Peterson, G. Drivers, “slow” variables, “fast” variables, shocks, and resilience. Ecol. Soc. 17, 430–433 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jenkins, R E. Maintenance of natural diversity: approach and recommendations. Trans. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 41, 441–451 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stein, B. A., Kutner, L. S. & Adams, J. S. Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000).

  41. Anderson, M. G. et al. Case studies of conservation plans that incorporate geodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 29, 680–691 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Beier, P., Hunter, M. L. & Anderson, M. Special section: conserving nature’s stage. Conserv. Biol. 29, 613–617 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment (Island Press, 2005).

  44. Hjort, J., Gordon, J. E., Gray, M. & Hunter, M. L. Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature’s stage. Conserv. Biol. 29, 630–639 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gordon, J. E. & Barron, H. F. The role of geodiversity in delivering ecosystem services and benefits in Scotland. Scott. J. Geol. 49, 41–58 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Beier, P. & Brost, B. Use of land facets to plan for climate change: conserving the arenas, not the actors. Conserv. Biol. 24, 701–710 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Berkes, F., Folke, C. & Gadgil, M. in Biodiversity Conservation (eds Perrings, C. et al.) 269–287 (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1995).

  48. Conservation in the Northeast (Land Trust Alliance, accessed 6 April 2018); https://www.landtrustalliance.org/what-we-do/our-regional-programs/northeast

  49. Brewer, R. Conservancy: The Land Trust Movement in America (UPNE, Lebanon, NH, 2004).

  50. Holling, C. S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4, 1–23 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Holling, C. S. in Engineering Within Ecological Constraints (ed. Schulze, P.) 31–44 (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1996).

  52. Gunderson, L. H. Ecological resilience—in theory and application. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 425–439 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Timmerman, P. Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society: A Review of Models and Possible Climatic Applications Environmental Monograph 1 (Institute for Environmental Studies, Univ. Toronto, 1981).

  54. O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K. & Wisner, B. Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature 260, 566–567 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Adger, W. N. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 24, 347–364 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R. & Rockström, J. Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309, 1036–1039 (2005).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Walker, B. et al. Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conserv. Ecol. 6, 14–31 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Folke, C. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 253–267 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 441–473 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Walker, B. & Salt, D. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World (Island Press, Washington DC, 2012).

  61. Anderies, J., Janssen, M. & Ostrom, E. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol. Soc. 9, 18–35 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Turner, B. L. et al. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8074–8079 (2003).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325, 419–422 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by a seed grant from the London School of Economics Institute for Global Affairs–Rockefeller Research and Impact Fund and a Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellowship at the University of California, Berkeley.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the planning of the paper and its writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Knudson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knudson, C., Kay, K. & Fisher, S. Appraising geodiversity and cultural diversity approaches to building resilience through conservation. Nature Clim Change 8, 678–685 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0188-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0188-8

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing