The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided

Abstract

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.

from$8.99

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 http://futureconservation.org/about-the-project for full details of the Future of Conservation project’s ethics and data security protocols.

References

  1. 1.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

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

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

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.

Corresponding author

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

Cite this article

Sandbrook, C., Fisher, J.A., Holmes, G. et al. The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nat Sustain 2, 316–323 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0267-5

Download citation

Further reading

Search

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