Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.


Diverse contributions benefit people and nature

A survey of more than 9,000 conservationists in 149 countries reveals that, despite broad diversity in people and ideas, the global conversation community is not divided. Conservation policy will benefit from drawing on this diversity as international negotiations around the post-2020 agenda for conservation proceed.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Conservationist consensus.


  1. IPBES. Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, accessed 17th May 2019);

  2. Watson, J. E. M. & Venter, O. Nature 550, 48–49 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Miller, B., Soulé, M. E. & Terborgh, J. Anim. Conserv. 17, 509–515 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kareiva, P. Conserv. Biol. 28, 634–636 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Büscher, B. et al. Oryx 51, 407–410 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dinerstein, E. et al. Bioscience 67, 534–545 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sandbrook, C., Fisher, J. A., Holmes, G., Luque-Lora, R. & Keane, A. Nat. Sustain. 2, 316–323 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kareiva, P. & Marvier, M. Bioscience 62, 962–969 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Doak, D. F., Bakker, V. J., Goldstein, B. E. & Hale, B. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 77–81 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Visconti, P. et al. Science 364, 239–241 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Oldekop, J. A., Sims, K. R. E., Whittingham, M. J. & Agrawal, A. Glob. Environ. Change 52, 66–74 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Arkema, K. K. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7390–7395 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sandbrook, C., Adams, W. M., Buscher, B. & Vira, B. Conserv. Biol. 27, 1487–1490 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bennett, N. J. et al. Biol. Conserv. 205, 93–108 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. West, P., Igoe, J. & Brockington, D. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 251–277 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Poudyal, M. et al. PeerJ 6, e5106 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Maron, M., Simmonds, J. S. & Watson, J. E. M. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1194–1195 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lele, S., Wilshusen, P., Brockington, D., Seidler, R. & Bawa, K. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 2, 94–100 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia P. G. Jones.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Watson, J.E.M., Jones, J.P.G. Diverse contributions benefit people and nature. Nat Ecol Evol 3, 1140–1141 (2019).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


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