Many conservation plans remain unimplemented, in part because of insufficient consideration of the social processes that influence conservation decisions. Complementing social considerations with an integrated understanding of the ecology of a region can result in a more complete conservation approach. We suggest that linking conservation planning to a social–ecological systems (SES) framework can lead to a more thorough understanding of human–environment interactions and more effective integration of social considerations. By characterizing SES as a set of subsystems, and their interactions with each other and with external factors, the SES framework can improve our understanding of the linkages between social and ecological influences on the environment. Using this framework can help to identify socially and ecologically focused conservation actions that will benefit ecosystems and human communities, and assist in the development of more consistent evidence for evaluating conservation actions by comparing conservation case studies.

No abstract

Increasingly, fisheries researchers and managers seek or are compelled to “bridge” Indigenous knowledge systems with Western scientific approaches to understanding and governing fisheries. Here, we move beyond the all‐too‐common narrative about integrating or incorporating (too often used as euphemisms for assimilating) other knowledge systems into Western science, instead of building an ethic of knowledge coexistence and complementarity in knowledge generation using Two‐Eyed Seeing as a guiding framework. Two‐Eyed Seeing (Etuaptmumk in Mi’kmaw) embraces “learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing, and to use both these eyes together, for the benefit of all,” as envisaged by Elder Dr. Albert Marshall. In this paper, we examine the notion of knowledge dichotomies and imperatives for knowledge coexistence and draw parallels between Two‐Eyed Seeing and other analogous Indigenous frameworks from around the world. It is set apart from other Indigenous frameworks in its explicit action imperative—central to Two‐Eyed Seeing is the notion that knowledge transforms the holder and that the holder bears a responsibility to act on that knowledge. We explore its operationalization through three Canadian aquatic and fisheries case‐studies that co‐develop questions, document and mobilize knowledge, and co‐produce insights and decisions. We argue that Two‐Eyed Seeing provides a pathway to a plural coexistence, where time‐tested Indigenous knowledge systems can be paired with, not subsumed by, Western scientific insights for an equitable and sustainable future.

Spatial management, including setting aside conservation areas, is central to curbing the global decline of biodiversity, but many threats originate from beyond the boundaries of conservation areas. This is a particular problem in marine systems, which are influenced by many activities on land. In addition, connections between land and sea support many species and ecological processes valued for conservation. Integrated land and sea conservation planning is therefore of utmost importance. We review the literature describing connections between land and sea and how they have been incorporated into conservation planning. Land-sea connections include land-sea processes, the natural flows occurring between realms; cross-system threats, which originate in one realm and affect another; and socioeconomic interactions associated with management decisions to maintain or restore land-sea processes and to prevent or mitigate cross-system threats. We highlight the need to explicitly incorporate land-sea connections in conservation planning and suggest ways of doing this through the use of a novel operational framework for integrated land-sea planning. On the basis of expert surveys and a literature review, we also identify those aspects of conservation planning for which improved integration between land and sea is most needed.

No abstract

A common objective in identifying conservation areas is to minimize conservation costs while achieving a set of conservation targets. Recent literature highlights the importance of incorporating socioeconomic costs into conservation planning. Here, we review how costs have been used in systematic marine conservation planning. Four approaches emerged from the literature: (1) uniform cost or area as a proxy for human use, (2) opportunity costs, (3) multiple socioeconomic costs, and (4) measures of naturalness or ecological impact of human activities. Most marine systematic conservation planning projects that used a spatially explicit socioeconomic cost focused on fisheries as the opportunity cost. No study has incorporated transaction or management costs into the design of marine protected areas using systematic conservation planning software. Combining multiple costs into one cost is one of the primary challenges of incorporating socioeconomic costs into conservation planning decision support tools. Combining many costs is feasible when each cost is measured in the same unit (e.g., dollars), but this information is rarely available in marine planning. Where the objective of the planning exercise is to minimize impacts on multiple stakeholder groups, the use of separate scenarios or multi-zone software may be a viable option.

Consistency in conservation Marine protected areas (MPAs) are now well established globally as tools for conservation, for enhancing marine biodiversity, and for promoting sustainable fisheries. That said, which regions are labeled as MPAs varies substantially, from those that full protect marine species and prohibit human extraction to those that permit everything from intensive fishing to mining. This inconsistency can in some cases inhibit both conservation and quantifying the proportion of the marine environment that is truly protected. Grorud-Colvert et al . review the consistency of MPAs and propose a framework by which levels of protection can be evaluated and improved. —SNV

No abstract