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
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
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).
Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).
Adams, W. M. Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation (Earthscan, 2004).
Escobar, A. Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. J. Polit. Ecol. 5, 53–82 (1998).
Meine, C., Soulé, M. & Noss, R. F. A mission-driven discipline: the growth of conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 20, 631–651 (2006).
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).
Takacs, D. The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1996).
Garland, E. The elephant in the room: confronting the colonial character of wildlife conservation in Africa. Afr. Stud. Rev 51, 51–74 (2008).
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
Cronon, W. et al. Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature (WW Norton & Company, 1995).
Stephens, L. et al. Archaeological assessment reveals Earth’s early transformation through land use. Science 365, 897–902 (2019).
Brockington, D., Duffy, R. & Igoe, J. Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas (Earthscan, 2008).
Mace, G. M. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558–1560 (2014).
Mace, G. M., Norris, K. & Fitter, A. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 19–26 (2012).
Lele, S., Springate-Baginski, O., Lakerveld, R., Deb, D. & Dash, P. Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv. Soc. 11, 343–358 (2013).
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).
Díaz, S. et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework: connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 14, 1–16 (2015).
Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K. & Buizer, M. Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to ‘living with’. Conserv. Lett. 6, 154–161 (2013).
Kenter, J. O. et al. Loving the mess: navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1439–1461 (2019).
Lele, S. From wildlife-ism to ecosystem-service-ism to a broader environmentalism. Environ. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892920000466 (2020).
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).
Robertson, D. P. & Hull, R. B. Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 15, 970–979 (2001).
Tallis, H. & Lubchenco, J. Working together: a call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515, 27 (2014).
Kareiva, P. M., Marvier, M. & Silliman, B. Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).
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).
Turnhout, E. The politics of environmental knowledge. Conserv. Soc. 16, 363–371 (2018).
Louder, E. & Wyborn, C. Biodiversity narratives: stories of the evolving conservation landscape. Environ. Conserv. 47, 251–259 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
Wyborn, C. et al. Imagining transformative biodiversity futures. Nat. Sustain. 3, 670–672 (2020).
Samper, C. Planetary boundaries: rethinking biodiversity. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 118–119 (2009).
Mayer, P. Biodiversity: the appreciation of different thought styles and values helps to clarify the term. Restor. Ecol. 14, 105–111 (2006).
Morar, N., Toadvine, T. & Bohannan, B. J. Biodiversity at twenty-five years: revolution or red herring? Ethics Policy Environ. 18, 16–29 (2015).
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).
Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (HM Treasury, 2021).
Perrings, C. Our Uncommon Heritage: Biodiversity Change, Ecosystem Services, and Human Well-Being (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Gowdy, J. M. The value of biodiversity: markets, society, and ecosystems. Land Econ. 73, 25–41 (1997).
Keulartz, J. Boundary work in ecological restoration. Environ. Phil. 6, 35–55 (2009).
Chan, K. M. et al. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1462–1465 (2016).
Descola, P. The Ecology of Others (Prickly Paradigm, 2013).
Raffles, R. Intimate knowledge. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 54, 325–335 (2002).
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).
Zafra-Calvo, N. et al. Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: insights from the Global South. Glob. Environ. Change 63, 102115 (2020).
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).
Pascual, U. et al. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64, 1027–1036 (2014).
Wunder, S. et al. From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nat. Sustain. 1, 145–150 (2018).
Büscher, B. et al. Half-Earth or whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications. Oryx 51, 407–410 (2017).
Adams, W. M. in The Anthropology of Sustainability, Palgrave Studies in Anthropology of Sustainability (eds Brightman, M. & Lewis, J.) 111–126 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017).
Vatn, A. An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2207–2215 (2009).
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).
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).
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).
Mazor, T. et al. Global mismatch of policy and research on drivers of biodiversity loss. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1071–1074 (2018).
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).
Folke, C. et al. Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1396–1403 (2019).
Ceddia, M. G. Investments’ role in ecosystem degradation. Science 368, 377–377 (2020).
Neumann, R. P. Moral and discursive geographies in the war for biodiversity in Africa. Polit. Geogr. 23, 813–837 (2004).
Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T. & Steinberger, J. K. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 11, 3107 (2020).
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).
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).
Muradian, R. et al. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 6, 274–279 (2013).
Otero, I. et al. Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12713 (2020).
Nielsen, J. Ø. et al. Toward a normative land systems science. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 38, 1–6 (2019).
Lele, S. & Kurien, A. Interdisciplinary analysis of the environment: insights from tropical forest research. Environ. Conserv. 38, 211–233 (2011).
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).
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).
Jacobs, S. et al. Use your power for good: plural valuation of nature – the Oaxaca statement. Glob. Sustain. 3, e8 (2020).
Turnhout, E., Tuinstra, W. & Halffman, W. Environmental Expertise: Connecting Science, Policy and Society (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
Saberwal, V. & Chhatre, A. Democratizing Nature: Politics, Conservation, and Development in India (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).
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).
The authors declare no competing interests.
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.
About this article
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
Nature Plants (2022)
Enablers and challenges when engaging local communities for urban biodiversity conservation in Australian cities
Sustainability Science (2022)
Trees as brokers in social networks: Cascades of rights and benefits from a Cultural Keystone Species
“Engaging the Enemy”: Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus morio) Conservation in Human Modified Environments in the Kinabatangan floodplain of Sabah, Malaysian Borneo
International Journal of Primatology (2022)