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.

Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism

Nature Sustainability volume 4, pages 567–572 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The lack of progress in reversing the declining global trend in biodiversity is partly due to a mismatch between how living nature is conceived and valued by the conservation movement on the one hand, and by many different people, including marginalized communities, on the other. Addressing this problem calls for a pluralistic perspective on biodiversity. This requires consideration of the use of the concept of biodiversity, willingness to expand its ambit, and engagement with the multiple and multi-level drivers of change. We propose ways for conservation science, policy and practice to deliver more effective and socially just conservation outcomes.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

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

Fig. 1: An agenda for a pluralistic perspective about biodiversity in science, policy and practice.

References

  1. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Díaz, S. et al.) (IPBES secretariat, 2019).

  2. Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Adams, W. M. Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation (Earthscan, 2004).

  4. Escobar, A. Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. J. Polit. Ecol. 5, 53–82 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Meine, C., Soulé, M. & Noss, R. F. A mission-driven discipline: the growth of conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 20, 631–651 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sandbrook, C., Fisher, J. A., Holmes, G., Luque-Lora, R. & Keane, A. The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nat. Sustain. 2, 316–323 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Takacs, D. The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1996).

  8. 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 

  9. Thekaekara, T. Botswana elephants episode: there’s a colonial underpinning to conservation. DownToEarth (22 July 2020); https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/wildlife-and-biodiversity/botswana-elephants-episode-there-s-a-colonial-underpinning-to-conservation-72429

  10. Cronon, W. et al. Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature (WW Norton & Company, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stephens, L. et al. Archaeological assessment reveals Earth’s early transformation through land use. Science 365, 897–902 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Brockington, D., Duffy, R. & Igoe, J. Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas (Earthscan, 2008).

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mace, G. M., Norris, K. & Fitter, A. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 19–26 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lele, S., Springate-Baginski, O., Lakerveld, R., Deb, D. & Dash, P. Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv. Soc. 11, 343–358 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Martin, J.-L., Maris, V. & Simberloff, D. S. The need to respect nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 6105–6112 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Díaz, S. et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework: connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 14, 1–16 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K. & Buizer, M. Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to ‘living with’. Conserv. Lett. 6, 154–161 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kenter, J. O. et al. Loving the mess: navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1439–1461 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lele, S. From wildlife-ism to ecosystem-service-ism to a broader environmentalism. Environ. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892920000466 (2020).

  21. Muradian, R. & Pascual, U. A typology of elementary forms of human-nature relations: a contribution to the valuation debate. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 35, 8–14 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Robertson, D. P. & Hull, R. B. Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 15, 970–979 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kareiva, P. M., Marvier, M. & Silliman, B. Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).

  25. Wilshusen, P. R., Brechin, S. R., Fortwangler, C. L. & West, P. C. Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodiversity conservation. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15, 17–40 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Turnhout, E. The politics of environmental knowledge. Conserv. Soc. 16, 363–371 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Louder, E. & Wyborn, C. Biodiversity narratives: stories of the evolving conservation landscape. Environ. Conserv. 47, 251–259 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gadgil, M., Seshagiri Rao, P., Utkarsh, G., Pramod, P. & Chhatre, A. New meanings for old knowledge: the people’s biodiversity registers program. Ecol. Appl. 10, 1307–1317 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Buijs, A. E., Fischer, A., Rink, D. & Young, J. C. Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: understanding public representations of biodiversity. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Manag. 4, 65–80 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wyborn, C. et al. An agenda for research and action towards diverse and just futures for life on Earth. Conserv. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13671 (2020).

  31. Wyborn, C. et al. Imagining transformative biodiversity futures. Nat. Sustain. 3, 670–672 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Samper, C. Planetary boundaries: rethinking biodiversity. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 118–119 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mayer, P. Biodiversity: the appreciation of different thought styles and values helps to clarify the term. Restor. Ecol. 14, 105–111 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Morar, N., Toadvine, T. & Bohannan, B. J. Biodiversity at twenty-five years: revolution or red herring? Ethics Policy Environ. 18, 16–29 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Purvis, A. et al. in Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Brondízio, E. S. et al.) Ch. 2.2 (Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2019).

  36. Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (HM Treasury, 2021).

  37. Perrings, C. Our Uncommon Heritage: Biodiversity Change, Ecosystem Services, and Human Well-Being (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  38. Gowdy, J. M. The value of biodiversity: markets, society, and ecosystems. Land Econ. 73, 25–41 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Keulartz, J. Boundary work in ecological restoration. Environ. Phil. 6, 35–55 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Chan, K. M. et al. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1462–1465 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Descola, P. The Ecology of Others (Prickly Paradigm, 2013).

  42. Raffles, R. Intimate knowledge. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 54, 325–335 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO 43, 579–591 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zafra-Calvo, N. et al. Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: insights from the Global South. Glob. Environ. Change 63, 102115 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lele, S., Wilshusen, P., Brockington, D., Seidler, R. & Bawa, K. Beyond exclusion: alternative approaches to biodiversity conservation in the developing tropics. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2, 94–100 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pascual, U. et al. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64, 1027–1036 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wunder, S. et al. From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nat. Sustain. 1, 145–150 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Adams, W. M. in The Anthropology of Sustainability, Palgrave Studies in Anthropology of Sustainability (eds Brightman, M. & Lewis, J.) 111–126 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017).

  50. Vatn, A. An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2207–2215 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 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 

  52. Lliso, B., Mariel, P., Pascual, U. & Engel, S. Increasing the credibility and salience of valuation through deliberation: lessons from the Global South. Glob. Environ. Change 62, 102065 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rudel, T. K., Defries, R., Asner, G. P. & Laurance, W. F. Changing drivers of deforestation and new opportunities for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 23, 1396–1405 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mazor, T. et al. Global mismatch of policy and research on drivers of biodiversity loss. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1071–1074 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Folke, C. et al. Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1396–1403 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ceddia, M. G. Investments’ role in ecosystem degradation. Science 368, 377–377 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Neumann, R. P. Moral and discursive geographies in the war for biodiversity in Africa. Polit. Geogr. 23, 813–837 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T. & Steinberger, J. K. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 11, 3107 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Svarstad, H., Petersen, L. K., Rothman, D., Siepel, H. & Wätzold, F. Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy 25, 116–125 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Gari, S. R., Newton, A. & Icely, J. D. A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems. Ocean Coast. Manage. 103, 63–77 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Muradian, R. et al. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 6, 274–279 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Otero, I. et al. Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12713 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Nielsen, J. Ø. et al. Toward a normative land systems science. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 38, 1–6 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lele, S. & Kurien, A. Interdisciplinary analysis of the environment: insights from tropical forest research. Environ. Conserv. 38, 211–233 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. West, S., Haider, L. J., Stålhammar, S. & Woroniecki, S. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosyst. People 16, 304–325 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Boivin, N. L. et al. Ecological consequences of human niche construction: examining long-term anthropogenic shaping of global species distributions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 6388–6396 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Jacobs, S. et al. Use your power for good: plural valuation of nature – the Oaxaca statement. Glob. Sustain. 3, e8 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Turnhout, E., Tuinstra, W. & Halffman, W. Environmental Expertise: Connecting Science, Policy and Society (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).

  70. Saberwal, V. & Chhatre, A. Democratizing Nature: Politics, Conservation, and Development in India (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to offer a humble tribute to the life and ideas of Georgina M. Mace who as co-author of this paper, was a firm supporter of the role of interdisciplinary biodiversity science for improving the quality of life of all people on Earth. We thank the Luc Hoffman Institute for inviting us to be part of the Biodiversity Revisited project, which created a fertile space among conservation scientists, policymakers and practitioners, and nurtured dialogue among the authors of this article. U.P. was supported under the Basque Centre for Climate Change ‘Unit of Excellence’ (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness; grant number MDM-2017-0714). S.D. was supported by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI; grant number SDG 090), CONICET and Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. S.L. was supported by the NERC-Formas-DBT project ‘Nature4SDGs’ (grant number BT/IN/TaSE/73/SL/2018-19).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Spain

    Unai Pascual

  2. Basque Foundation for Science (Ikerbasque), Bilbao, Spain

    Unai Pascual

  3. Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Unai Pascual

  4. Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    William M. Adams

  5. Centre for International Environmental Studies, The Graduate Institute, Geneva, Switzerland

    William M. Adams

  6. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV), CONICET, Córdoba, Argentina

    Sandra Díaz

  7. FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina

    Sandra Díaz

  8. Centre for Environment & Development, ATREE, Bengaluru, India

    Sharachchandra Lele

  9. University College London, London, UK

    Georgina M. Mace

  10. Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands

    Esther Turnhout

Authors
  1. Unai Pascual
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William M. Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandra Díaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sharachchandra Lele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Georgina M. Mace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Esther Turnhout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

U.P. led the writing of the paper and W.M.A., S.D., S.L., G.M.M. and E.T. all contributed equally to the writing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Unai Pascual.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Bernd Hansjürgens and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

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

Pascual, U., Adams, W.M., Díaz, S. et al. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat Sustain 4, 567–572 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7

This article is cited by

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