Digital technology is changing nature conservation in increasingly profound ways. We describe this impact and its significance through the concept of ‘digital conservation’, which we found to comprise five pivotal dimensions: data on nature, data on people, data integration and analysis, communication and experience, and participatory governance. Examining digital innovation in nature conservation and addressing how its development, implementation and diffusion may be steered, we warn against hypes, techno-fix thinking, good news narratives and unverified assumptions. We identify a need for rigorous evaluation, more comprehensive consideration of social exclusion, frameworks for regulation and increased multi-sector as well as multi-discipline awareness and cooperation. Along the way, digital technology may best be reconceptualised by conservationists from something that is either good or bad, to a dual-faced force in need of guidance.

No abstract

Animal reintroduction and rewilding are two widely appealing and frequently connected forms of ecological restoration. However, the critical assumption that animal reintroduction automatically helps to restore formerly wild places is under‐theorized. To fill this void, we identified three common rewilding elements from the literature—ecological functioning, wilderness experience, and natural autonomy—and screened these against a hypothetical wolf reintroduction to Scotland. Each of the rewilding elements was likely to be positively impacted by a wolf reintroduction. Yet, there is a key conceptual difficulty in that the different rewilding elements do not necessarily enforce each other, and at times may even collide. Thus, a reintroduced species like the wolf may obfuscate the clear‐cut, purified nature category to which rewilding often aspires. As a way forward, we suggest that there is merit in actively engaging with the tensions created by rewilding and reintroductions. A reconceptualisation of the nature–culture spectrum as consisting of multiple layers (e.g. ecological functioning, wilderness experience, and natural autonomy) may help to interpret ecological restoration as a tentative, deliberative, and gradual enterprise. This bears some resemblance to the notion of approaching a landscape like a ‘palimpsest’ (i.e. a text built up of different layers written on top of each other), which may support the reconciliation of conflicting views without necessarily making those disappear. When viewed as feeding into a multilayered nature–culture spectrum, animal reintroduction and rewilding can be promoted as inspiring and essentially non‐controlling forms of ecological restoration and human interaction with nature.

The application of digital technology in conservation holds much potential for advancing the understanding of, and facilitating interaction with, the natural world. In other sectors, digital technology has long been used to engage communities and share information. Human development—which holds parallels with the nature conservation sector—has seen a proliferation of innovation in technological development. Throughout this Perspective, we consider what nature conservation can learn from the introduction of digital technology in human development. From this, we derive a charter to be used before and throughout project development, in order to help reduce replication and failure of digital innovation in nature conservation projects. We argue that the proposed charter will promote collaboration with the development of digital tools and ensure that nature conservation projects progress appropriately with the development of new digital technologies.

No abstract

No abstract

The concept of biocultural diversity is confronted with contemporary changes that impact on local communities, such as globalization and digital transformations. Engaging the conceptual flexibility of 'biocultural diversity', we studied nature-based tourism at the intersection of indigenous communities and the digital realm. We employed a political ecology perspective to examine online and offline representations of biocultural diversity in the Brazilian Pantanal, one of the biggest wetlands in the world, and home to groups of peoples known as the Pantaneiros. Data from interviews with 48 stakeholders in the tourist sector were structured along three 'myths'-the Uncivilised, Unrestrained, and Unchanged-for which we have also constructed counter narratives. Each myth denoted the primacy of biodiversity, and ignored broader dimensions of the Pantanal as a bioculturally diverse landscape. The relationships of the Pantaneiros with their environment were found to be intricate and had clear repercussions for tourism, but ironically, reference to the Pantaneiro culture in nature-based tourism was superficial. Moreover, thriving on the myths, this form of tourism perpetuates skewed power structures and social inequalities. Lower-class Pantaneiros likely suffer most from this. We recommend stakeholder engagement with a biocultural design that facilitates the integration of other-than-biodiversity values, and that thereby promotes sustainability of the entire social-ecological system. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3643 2 of 20 and parcel of mainstream environmental discourses and initiatives [1]. Yet, despite this, the concept has received criticism too. Focusing on landscapes, species, and genetic diversity, biodiversity overlooks human and cultural components of landscapes [2,3]. As such biodiversity conservation has conceptual roots in one of the earliest institutionalised expressions of nature conservation: the National Park movement that commenced with Yellowstone in 1872. In their most stringent form, both National Parks and biodiversity protection may lead to so-called fortress conservation in which rigid boundaries between human and nature are drawn. Both in historical and recent times, indigenous communities and other local peoples have been suffering from the consequences of fortress conservation, which have included displacement, restricted land access and rights, and unfair relations of production [4].Understandings of biocultural diversity-the interrelated and co-evolved diversity of life in its biological and cultural manifestations [5]-takes a more holistic approach to natural areas and its inhabitants than biodiversity conservation does. 'Biocultural diversity' explicitly embraces the notion of social-ecological systems, in which the interrelatedness between rural populations and the natural environment are emphasised, either in a traditional setting or with regard to newer human-nature interactions [2,6]. Moreover, biocultural diversity aims to pay heed to the various cultural manifestations-such as worldviews,...

No abstract