Kareiva - What Is Conservation Science
Kareiva - What Is Conservation Science
Kareiva - What Is Conservation Science
In 1985, Michael Soulé asked, “What is conservation biology?” We revisit this question more than 25 years later and offer a revised set of core
principles in light of the changed global context for conservation. Most notably, scientists now widely acknowledge that we live in a world
dominated by humans, and therefore, the scientific underpinnings of conservation must include a consideration of the role of humans. Today’s
BioScience 62: 962–969. ISSN 0006-3568, electronic ISSN 1525-3244. © 2012 by American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. Request
permission to photocopy or reproduce article content at the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions Web site at www.ucpressjournals.com/
reprintinfo.asp. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5
students of conservation. Evidence can sometimes yield biodiversity is not the only entity affected by conservation
surprising answers, and relying on evidence rather than on actions and policies: People’s lives and livelihoods also hang
anecdotes or conventional wisdom will make conservation in the balance. As a direct result of conservation, economic
more successful and more cost effective. well-being has, in some instances, been harmed, and there
Another important development is that conservation- are well-documented instances of human communities
ists increasingly use data-based decision science to identify having been unjustly displaced and disrupted for the cre-
which actions in which places will yield the greatest impacts ation of protected areas (Dowie 2009). Clearly, conservation
under the constraint of limited resources (Wilson et al. can also benefit people, but the fact that it may disadvantage
2007). The application of systematic conservation plan- them highlights the need for paying more attention to the
ning and formal priority setting is now foundational to nexus of conservation and human society.
conservation (Margules and Pressey 2000) and has evolved Conservation science that is focused primarily on biology
from a focus almost exclusively on biodiversity to one on is likely to misdiagnose problems and arrive at ill-conceived
nature affecting lifetime support for conservation (Zaradic to maintain the feeling of wilderness or other conservation
et al. 2009), the lack of nature experiences for our youth does values desired by people (Botkin 1990).
not bode well. Second, the fate of nature and that of people are deeply
intertwined. Human health and well-being depend on clean
New postulates for conservation science air, clean water, and an adequate supply of natural resources
As Soulé (1985) did in his essay, we offer a set of funda- for food and shelter. Many of the activities that harm biodi-
mental axioms about nature. These axioms help define the versity also harm human well-being. Chemical pollution of
context within which conservation science must work. air and water is an obvious example in which both human
and nonhuman life are harmed. Less obvious, however, is
Functional postulates. First, “pristine nature,” untouched by that the destruction of mangrove forests can exacerbate the
human influences, does not exist. Scientific assessments of loss of human life caused by tsunamis or hurricanes (Das
the planet have shown that the effects of human activities are and Vincent 2009). Similarly, deforestation in mountain-
should have caused forest birds to dwindle to only one or poaching of African rhinos and elephants to meet demands
two species. However, the bird fauna remained almost com- in China (Milner-Gulland 1993, Naylor 2005). Therefore,
pletely intact, because many species found refuge in coffee conservationists need to worry as much about deliberations
plantations and because the forests regrew before the bird of the World Trade Organization as they do about designing
species declined to extinction (Lugo 1988). Marine ecosys- networks of protected areas.
tems are proving equally resilient. Even in the once highly
overfished Baltic Sea, cod is making a surprisingly fast come- Normative postulates for conservation science. Soulé’s norma-
back (Cardinale and Svedäng 2011), and the Bikini Atoll, tive postulates were statements of values and tenets of a
which was vaporized by a hydrogen bomb in 1954, today potential ecological philosophy meant to guide conservation
harbors a greater diversity of coral species than it did before actions. We deviate from this approach and, instead, offer
the explosion (Richards et al. 2008). practical statements of what conservation should do in order
The ability of nature to recover from many types of to succeed.
behaviors can be changed (Mascia et al. 2003, Ehrlich and Fourth, only by seeking to jointly maximize conservation
Kennedy 2005), conservationists should pay greater atten- and economic objectives is conservation likely to succeed.
tion to human psychology and the impact of their messages Win–win outcomes for people and nature are possible,
on people. One strategy to increase support for conserva- and discovering their preconditions should be a focus of
tion would be focused on children and reconnecting them research (Kareiva et al. 2008). In other cases, there may be
with nature. Another strategy is to broaden the concerns of trade-offs between conservation and economic develop-
conservation beyond biodiversity and also to pay attention ment, but actively seeking to optimize both conservation
to economic development, jobs, poverty, and environmen- and economic goals can minimize those trade-offs (Kareiva
tal justice. However, conservationists often reject activities 2012). Modern advances in trade-off analyses and multi
aimed at poverty reduction and economic development as objective planning approaches have integrated social science,
mission drift (Salafsky 2011). We do not agree with accusa- business practices, and economics with planning approaches
tions of mission drift; we see poverty alleviation as a central that were formerly focused only on biodiversity (Planning
are also relatively certain that these species will never be as Das S, Vincent JR. 2009. Mangroves protected villages and reduced death
abundant and widespread as they once were. Some realism toll during Indian super cyclone. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 106: 7357–7360.
is in order. Given the magnitude of human impacts and
Dowie M. 2009. Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict
change, conservation cannot look only to the past. Instead, between Global Conservation and Native Peoples. MIT Press.
it must be about choosing a future for people and nature. Ehrlich PR, Kennedy D. 2005. Millennium assessment of human behavior.
Forward-looking conservation protects natural habitats Science 309: 562–563.
where people live and extract resources and works with Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. 1992. Evidence-based medicine:
A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. Journal of the
corporations to find mixes of economic and conserva-
American Medical Association 268: 2420–2425.
tion activities that blend development with a concern for Folke C, et al. 2011. Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio 40: 719–738.
nature. It also seeks value in novel ecosystems and remains Franzen A, Meyer R. 2010. Environmental attitudes in cross-national per-
open to some of nature’s modern experiments, such as the spective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European
recent evolution of large coyotes in North America that Sociological Review 26: 219–234.