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.

CONSERVATION POLICY

Diverse contributions benefit people and nature

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 3, pages 1140–1141 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

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.

The publication in May 2019 of the United Nations’ first global assessment of the state of biodiversity was a stark reminder that urgent action is needed if we are to stem the drastic deterioration of biodiversity and ecosystem services1. Although there are clear calls for an ambitious and bold conservation agenda to underpin the post-2020 framework for the Convention on Biological Diversity2, there has been vigorous, and at times acrimonious, debate about the ‘why, what and how’ of conservation3,4. Published positions have tended to emphasize differences in views and suggest that there is marked polarization within the conservation community5,6. However, the results of a survey of more than 9,000 conservationists from 149 countries, presented by Sandbrook et al.7 in Nature Sustainability, reveal that although conservationists are a diverse group with varied values, there is a lot of agreement. Approaches that capitalise on this shared understanding while acknowledging contentious and difficult issues will be helpful in the tough negotiations ahead.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Conservationist consensus.

References

  1. IPBES. Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, accessed 17th May 2019); https://www.ipbes.net/deliverables/2c-global-assessment

  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

  1. The University of Queensland, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

    James E. M. Watson

  2. Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY, USA

    James E. M. Watson

  3. College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

    Julia P. G. Jones

Authors
  1. James E. M. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia P. G. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0936-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0936-9

Search

Advanced 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