The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided

Article metrics


Biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate, making the conservation movement of critical importance for life on Earth. However, recent debates over the future of conservation have been polarized, acrimonious and dominated by an unrepresentative demographic group. The views of the wider global conservation community on fundamental questions regarding what, why and how to conserve are unknown. Here we characterize the views of 9,264 conservationists from 149 countries, identifying specific areas of consensus and disagreement, and three independent dimensions of conservation thinking. The first two dimensions (people-centred conservation and science-led ecocentrism) have widespread support, whereas conservation through capitalism is more contentious. While conservationists’ views on these three dimensions do not fall into distinct clusters, there are clear relationships between dimension scores and respondents’ gender, age, educational background, career stage and continent of nationality. Future debates and policy processes should focus on the most contentious issues, and do more to include the perspectives of under-represented groups in conservation who may not share the views of those in more powerful positions.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The views of conservationists on key issues relating to the future of conservation.
Fig. 2: Conservationists’ views form one cluster, not many.
Fig. 3: Links between personal characteristics and views.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available, to maintain the respondent anonymity that was a condition of the ethical approval of the study (University of Leeds Research Ethics Committee reference LTSEE-054). All data gathered are stored securely and anonymously by UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Please see for full details of the Future of Conservation project’s ethics and data security protocols.


  1. 1.

    Rands, M. R. W. et al. Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329, 1298–1303 (2010).

  2. 2.

    Hoffmann, M. et al. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330, 1503–1509 (2010).

  3. 3.

    Tittensor, D. P. et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241–244 (2014).

  4. 4.

    Büscher, B. et al. Half-Earth or whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications. Oryx 51, 407–410 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Noss, R. F. et al. Bolder thinking for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 26, 1–4 (2012).

  6. 6.

    Kareiva, P. & Marvier, M. What is conservation science? BioScience 62, 962–969 (2012).

  7. 7.

    Soulé, M. The ‘new conservation’. Conserv. Biol. 27, 895–897 (2013).

  8. 8.

    Wilson, E. O. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life (Liveright, 2016).

  9. 9.

    Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience 67, 534–545 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Marvier, M. New conservation is true conservation. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1–3 (2014).

  11. 11.

    Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. Communities, wildlife and the ‘new conservation’ in Africa. J. Int. Dev. 11, 277–285 (1999).

  12. 12.

    Noss, R., Nash, R., Paquet, P. & Soulé, M. Humanity’s domination of nature is part of the problem: a response to Kareiva and Marvier. BioScience 63, 241–242 (2013).

  13. 13.

    Doak, D. F., Bakker, V. J., Goldstein, B. E. & Hale, B. What is the future of conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 77–81 (2014).

  14. 14.

    Miller, T. R., Minteer, B. A. & Malan, L.-C. The new conservation debate: the view from practical ethics. Biol. Conserv. 144, 948–957 (2011).

  15. 15.

    Meine, C. in Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of Earth (eds Wuerthner, G. E. et al.) 45–54 (Island, 2014).

  16. 16.

    Mace, G. M. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558–1560 (2014).

  17. 17.

    Minteer, B. A. in Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy (eds Baird Callicott, J. & Frodeman, R.) 58–62 (Macmillan Reference USA, 2008).

  18. 18.

    Silvertown, J. Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 641–648 (2015).

  19. 19.

    Adams, W. M. The value of valuing nature. Science 346, 549–551 (2014).

  20. 20.

    Adams, W. M. et al. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306, 1146–1149 (2004).

  21. 21.

    Holmes, G., Sandbrook, C. & Fisher, J. A. Understanding conservationists’ perspectives on the new-conservation debate. Conserv. Biol. 31, 353–363 (2017).

  22. 22.

    Matulis, B. S. & Moyer, J. R. Beyond inclusive conservation: the value of pluralism, the need for agonism, and the case for social instrumentalism. Conserv Lett 10, 279–287 (2017).

  23. 23.

    Tallis, H. & Lubchenco, J. Working together: a call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515, 27–28 (2014).

  24. 24.

    Gavin, M. et al. Effective biodiversity conservation requires dynamic, pluralistic, partnership-based approaches. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 10, 1846 (2018).

  25. 25.

    Hunter, M. L., Redford, K. H. & Lindenmayer, D. B. The complementary niches of anthropocentric and biocentric conservationists. Conserv. Biol. 28, 641–645 (2014).

  26. 26.

    Lute, M. L., Carter, N. H., López-Bao, J. V. & Linnell, J. D. C. Conservation professionals agree on challenges to coexisting with large carnivores but not on solutions. Biol. Conserv. 218, 223–232 (2018).

  27. 27.

    McShane, T. O. et al. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144, 966–972 (2011).

  28. 28.

    Locke, H. in Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness, the Foundation for Conservation (eds Wuerthner, G. et al.) 3–15 (Island/Center for Resource Economics, 2015).

  29. 29.

    Agrawal, A. & Redford, K. Conservation and displacement: an overview. Conserv. Soc. 7, 1 (2009).

  30. 30.

    Locke, H. & Dearden, P. Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm. Environ. Conserv. 32, 1–10 (2005).

  31. 31.

    Kidner, D. W. in Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of Earth (eds Wuerthner, G. E. et al.) 10–16 (Island, 2014).

  32. 32.

    Samejima, F. Estimation of Latent Ability Using a Response Pattern of Graded Scores (Psychometric Society, 1969).

  33. 33.

    James, S. P. Environmental Philosophy: An Introduction (John Wiley & Sons, 2015).

  34. 34.

    Callicott, B. J. In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy (SUNY Press, 1989).

  35. 35.

    Kirby, K. R. ‘New conservation’ as a moral imperative. Conserv. Biol. 28, 639–640 (2014).

  36. 36.

    Batavia, C. & Nelson, M. P. Heroes or thieves? The ethical grounds for lingering concerns about new conservation. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 7, 394–402 (2017).

  37. 37.

    Wuerthner, G., Crist, E. & Butler, T. (eds) Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of Earth (Island, 2014).

  38. 38.

    Büscher, B., Sullivan, S., Neves, K., Igoe, J. & Brockington, D. Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capital. Nat. Social. 23, 4–30 (2012).

  39. 39.

    Christov-Moore, L. et al. Empathy: gender effects in brain and behavior. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 46, 604–627 (2014).

  40. 40.

    West, P., Igoe, J. & Brockington, D. Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 251–277 (2006).

  41. 41.

    Adams, W. Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation (Routledge, 2013).

  42. 42.

    Holmes, G. Biodiversity for billionaires: capitalism, conservation and the role of philanthropy in saving/selling nature. Dev. Change 43, 185–203 (2012).

  43. 43.

    Blanchard, L., Sandbrook, C. G., Fisher, J. A. & Vira, B. Investigating consistency of a pro-market perspective amongst conservationists. Conserv. Soc. 14, 112 (2016).

  44. 44.

    Lindsey, P. A., Roulet, P. A. & Romañach, S. S. Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biol. Conserv. 134, 455–469 (2007).

  45. 45.

    Garland, E. The elephant in the room: confronting the colonial character of wildlife conservation in Africa. Afr. Stud. Rev. 51, 51–74 (2008).

  46. 46.

    Gaston, K. J. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405, 220–227 (2000).

  47. 47.

    Miller, B., Soulé, M. E. & Terborgh, J. ‘New conservation’ or surrender to development? Anim. Conserv. 17, 509–515 (2014).

  48. 48.

    Marvier, M. A call for ecumenical conservation. Anim. Conserv. 17, 518–519 (2014).

  49. 49.

    Green, S. J. et al. Conservation needs diverse values, approaches, and practitioners. Conserv. Lett. 8, 385–387 (2015).

  50. 50.

    Gould, R. K., Phukan, I., Mendoza, M. E., Ardoin, N. M. & Panikkar, B. Seizing opportunities to diversify conservation. Conserv. Lett. 15, e12431 (2018).

  51. 51.

    Watts, S. & Stenner, P. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation (SAGE, 2012).

  52. 52.

    Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L. & Dietsch, A. M. Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 30, 287–296 (2016).

  53. 53.

    R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).

  54. 54.

    Reckase, M. D. Multidimensional Item Response Theory (Springer, 2009).

  55. 55.

    de Boeck, P. & Wilson, M. Explanatory Item Response Models: A Generalized Linear and Nonlinear Approach (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013).

  56. 56.

    Gorsuch, R. L. Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item analysis. J. Pers. Assess. 68, 532–560 (1997).

  57. 57.

    Velicer, W. F. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika 41, 321–327 (1976).

  58. 58.

    Chalmers, R. mirt: a multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–29 (2012).

  59. 59.

    Chalmers, R. P. Extended mixed-effects item response models with the MH-RM algorithm. J. Educ. Meas. 52, 200–222 (2015).

  60. 60.

    Furr, M. Scale Construction and Psychometrics for Social and Personality Psychology (SAGE, 2011).

  61. 61.

    Maydeu-Olivares, A. Goodness-of-fit assessment of item response theory models. Measurement 11, 71–101 (2013).

  62. 62.

    Thissen, D., Pommerich, M., Billeaud, K. & Williams, V. S. L. Item response theory for scores on tests including polytomous items with ordered responses. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 19, 39–49 (1995).

  63. 63.

    Cai, L. & Hansen, M. Limited-information goodness-of-fit testing of hierarchical item factor models. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 66, 245–276 (2013).

  64. 64.

    Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6, 1–55 (1999).

  65. 65.

    Maydeu-Olivares, A. & Liu, Y. Item diagnostics in multivariate discrete data. Psychol. Methods 20, 276–292 (2015).

  66. 66.

    Embretson, S. E. & Reise, S. P. Item Response Theory for Psychologists (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000).

  67. 67.

    Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M. & Stahl, D. Cluster Analysis (Wiley, 2011).

  68. 68.

    Scrucca, L., Fop, M., Murphy, T. B. & Raftery A. E. mclust 5: clustering, classification and density estimation using gaussian finite mixture models. R J. 8, 289–317 (2016).

  69. 69.

    Biernacki, C., Celeux, G. & Govaert, G. Assessing a mixture model for clustering with the integrated completed likelihood. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 22, 719–725 (2000).

Download references


We thank all those who assisted with the piloting of the survey instrument, all respondents to the main survey, the Informatics team at UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre for building the survey website and B. Adams and D. Juffe Bignoli for comments on the draft manuscript.

Author information

C.S., J.A.F and G.H. conceived the project and designed the survey. C.S., J.A.F., G.H. and R.L.-L. wrote text for the survey website and promoted its uptake. A.K. analysed the data. All authors wrote the manuscript.

Correspondence to Chris Sandbrook.

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.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes, Supplementary Tables 1–4, Supplementary Figs. 1–6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Further reading