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.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Including stewardship in ecosystem health assessment

Nature Sustainability volume 6, pages 731–741 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

To adapt to the ecological crises and social inequities of the Anthropocene, a new conservation paradigm is emerging that embraces people in nature and the positive roles people play in ecosystem health through land stewardship. We discuss the emergence of this new model and explore the methods needed to research and coordinate stewardship as part of conservation landscape planning through a practical case study. Updating conservation frameworks to include the positive impacts people have on ecosystems, we argue, is a powerful leverage point for catalysing more effective and equitable nature conservation and other large-scale societal transformations necessary for just sustainability.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: A revised conceptual framework of interactions among people and nature.
Fig. 2: Conservation landscape is a stewardship mosaic.
Fig. 3: Example of social–ecological feedbacks among fire, redwoods and stewardship.
Fig. 4: Components of the sustainable landscape health assessment.
Fig. 5: The landscape viewed from three different lenses of health.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zalasiewicz, J. et al. The Anthropocene: comparing its meaning in geology (chronostratigraphy) with conceptual approaches arising in other disciplines. Earths Future 9, e2020EF001896 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barnosky, A. D. et al. Introducing the scientific consensus on maintaining humanity’s life support systems in the 21st century: information for policy makers. Anthropocene Rev. 1, 78–109 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  4. Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8252–8259 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  6. Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A., Reyers, B. & Rockström, J. Social–ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 21, 41 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Heller, N. E. & Zavaleta, E. S. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 142, 14–32 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cole, D. N. & Yung, L. (eds) Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change (Island Press, 2010).

  9. Heller, N. E. & Hobbs, R. J. Development of a natural practice to adapt conservation goals to global change. Conserv. Biol. 28, 696–704 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kashwan et al. From racialized neocolonial global conservation to an inclusive and regenerative conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 63, 4–19 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Artelle, K. A. et al. Decolonial model of environmental management and conservation: insights from Indigenous-led grizzly bear stewardship in the Great Bear Rainforest. Ethics Policy Environ. 24, 283–323 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Halpern, B. S. et al. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488, 615–620 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosa, I. M. D. et al. Multiscale scenarios for nature futures. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1416–1419 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bieling, C. & Plieninger, T. (eds) The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

  16. Chapin, F. S. et al. Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 241–249 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Folke, C. et al. Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio 40, 719–738 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bennett, N. J. et al. Environmental stewardship: a conceptual review and analytical framework. Environ. Manage. 61, 597–614 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wolf, K. L., Blahna, D. J., Brinkley, W. & Romolini, M. Environmental stewardship footprint research: linking human agency and ecosystem health in the Puget Sound region. Urban Ecosyst. 16, 13–32 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. & Wright, A. Nature’s Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Biodiversity Conservation and Food Sovereignty (Routledge, 2019); https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429028557

  21. Whyte, K. Settler colonialism, ecology, and environmental injustice. Environ. Soc. 9, 125–144 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ellis, E. C. & Ramankutty, N. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 439–447 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J. M. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499 (1997).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cockburn, J. et al. Collaborative stewardship in multifunctional landscapes: toward relational, pluralistic approaches. Ecol. Soc. 24, 32 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tsing, A. L. et al. (eds) Arts of Living on a Damaged Planet: Ghosts and Monsters of the Anthropocene (Univ. Minnesota Press, 2017).

  26. Cronon, W. (ed.) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature (W. W. Norton, 1996).

  27. Taylor, D. E. The Rise of the American Conservation Movement: Power, Privilege, and Environmental Protection (Duke Univ. Press, 2016).

  28. Domínguez, L. & Luoma, C. Decolonising conservation policy: how colonial land and conservation ideologies persist and perpetuate Indigenous injustices at the expense of the environment. Land 9, 65 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Neumann, R. P. Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa (Univ. California Press, 1998).

  30. Agrawal, A. & Redford, K. Conservation and displacement: an overview. Conserv. Soc. 7, 1–10 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Walley, C. J. Rough Waters: Nature and Development in an East African Marine Park (Princeton Univ. Press, 2004).

  32. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ostrom, E. & Nagendra, H. Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 19224–19231 (2006).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E. & Evans, K. L. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 30, 133–141 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Schleicher, J. et al. Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1094–1096 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ogden, L. et al. Global assemblages, resilience, and Earth Stewardship in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 341–347 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bennett, N. J. et al. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv. 205, 93–108 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jax, K. et al. Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for understanding nature’s contributions to human well-being. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, 22–29 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kimmerer, R. W. & Lake, F. K. The role of Indigenous burning in land management. J. For. 99, 36–41 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hoffman, K. M. et al. Conservation of Earth’s biodiversity is embedded in Indigenous fire stewardship. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2105073118 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bird, R. B. & Nimmo, D. Restore the lost ecological functions of people. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1050–1052 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Anderson, M. K. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources (Univ. California Press, 2013).

  43. Knudson, C., Kay, K. & Fisher, S. Appraising geodiversity and cultural diversity approaches to building resilience through conservation. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 678–685 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Barthel, S., Crumley, C. L. & Svedin, U. Biocultural refugia: combating the erosion of diversity in landscapes of food production. Ecol. Soc. 18, 71 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schuster, R., Germain, R. R., Bennett, J. R., Reo, N. J. & Arcese, P. Vertebrate biodiversity on Indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 101, 1–6 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Garnett, S. T. et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Colwell, R. et al. Revisiting Leopold: resource stewardship in the national parks. PARKS 20, 15–24 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kremen, C. & Merenlender, A. M. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362, eaau6020 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Spotswood, E. N. et al. The biological deserts fallacy: cities in their landscapes contribute more than we think to regional biodiversity. BioScience 71, 148–160 (2021).

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Mathevet, R., Bousquet, F. & Raymond, C. M. The concept of stewardship in sustainability science and conservation biology. Biol. Conserv. 217, 363–370 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Enqvist, J. P. et al. Stewardship as a boundary object for sustainability research: linking care, knowledge and agency. Landsc. Urban Plan. 179, 17–37 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Graber, D. M. in Reinventing Nature?: Responses To Postmodern Deconstruction (eds Soulé, M. E. & Lease, G.) 123–136 (Island Press, 1995).

  54. Lomba, A. et al. Back to the future: rethinking socioecological systems underlying high nature value farmlands. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 36–42 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Muñoz-Erickson, T. A., Aguilar-González, B. & Sisk, T. D. Linking ecosystem health indicators and collaborative management: a systematic framework to evaluate ecological and social outcomes. Ecol. Soc. 12, 6 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Skybrook, D. Navigating purpose and collaboration in social impact networks. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. https://doi.org/10.48558/DKNG-XM91 (2018).

  57. Spence, M., Ehrlichman, D., & Sawyer, D. Cutting through the complexity: a roadmap for effective collaboration. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. https://doi.org/10.48558/6R2C-V706 (2018).

  58. Collins, P. W., Latta, B. C. & Roemer, G. W. Does the order of invasive species removal matter? The case of the eagle and the pig. PLoS ONE 4, e7005 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Weiss, S. B. Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and management of nutrient-poor grasslands for a threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 13, 1476–1486 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rapport, D. J., Costanza, R. & McMichael, A. J. Assessing ecosystem health. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 397–402 (1998).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Oberlack, C. et al. Archetype analysis in sustainability research: meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making. Ecol. Soc. 24, 26 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Asner, G. P. & Martin, R. E. Spectranomics: emerging science and conservation opportunities at the interface of biodiversity and remote sensing. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 8, 212–219 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation. We thank G. Knoblock for his support and encouragement. Thank you to T. Robinson, C. Glazer and K. Tomozawa for geographic information system assistance with the development of the SLHA. We appreciate the input and review provided by E. Hadly and T. Matza. This work would not be possible without the cooperation and inspiration of the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Kelly McManus Chauvin

    Present address: Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

  2. Anthony D. Barnosky

    Present address: Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Nicole E. Heller

  2. Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Kelly McManus Chauvin & Anthony D. Barnosky

  3. Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network, Half-Moon Bay, CA, USA

    Dylan Skybrook

Authors
  1. Nicole E. Heller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelly McManus Chauvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dylan Skybrook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anthony D. Barnosky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.E.H., D.S., K.M.C. and A.D.B. worked collaboratively to develop this Perspective. All authors contributed to the ideas expressed, and reviewed and edited multiple drafts. N.E.H. wrote the manuscript and prepared tables and figures. K.M.C. led the development of the SLHA and prepared figures.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole E. Heller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Stuart F. Chapin, Francoise Gaill and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heller, N.E., McManus Chauvin, K., Skybrook, D. et al. Including stewardship in ecosystem health assessment. Nat Sustain 6, 731–741 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01096-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01096-7

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