A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets

Dinerstein, Eric; Vynne, Carly; Sala, Enric; Joshi, Anup; Fernando, S. Antony; Lovejoy, Thomas Ε.; Mayorga, Juan; Olson, David M.; Asner, Gregory P.; Baillie, Jonathan; Burgess, Neil D.; Burkart, Katrin; Noss, Reed F.; Zhang, Y. P.; Baccini, Alessandro; Birch, Tanya; Hahn, Nathan; Joppa, Lucas; Wikramanayake, Eric

doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869

Cited by 584 publications

(496 citation statements)

References 99 publications

(115 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

461

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Various permutations of regional scales are frequently discussed and operationalized in outreach and planning‐related efforts of NGOs and government agencies focused on large‐scale conservation (Ardoin , Wyborn and Bixler , Dinerstein et al. ). The Nature Conservancy, WWF, and collaborating conservation organizations, for example, have pursued (eco)regional‐scale portfolios for nearly two decades (TNC , TNC and WWF ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sense of place describes the complex, multidimensional connections that people have with places (Ardoin 2006(Ardoin , 2014. Scholars conceptualize sense of place as encompassing two primary constructs: place meanings and place attachments wherein meanings are cognitive, derived from symbolic associations with places (Tuan 1977, Stedman 2002, while attachments are affective, reflecting a person/place bond (Kudryavtsev et al 2012a, b, Masterson et al 2017, 2019. Many researchers imagine the overarching sense-of-place concept as incorporating, at the broadest level, sociocultural as well as biophysical elements of place: The fields of anthropology and sociology emphasize the former (Low andAltman 1992, Trentelman 2009), while tourism, natural resources, and planning tend to emphasize the latter, often in non-urban areas and recreational contexts (Kil et al 2012, Ramkissoon et al 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scale and sense of place among urban dwellers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Place connections are core to being human: Every person lives in, and thus has direct experience of, at least one place and likely of numerous places throughout a lifetime. Sense of place—or the meanings, knowledge, and bonds that arise from the biophysical, social, and political–economic aspects of places—in turn influences people's interactions with those places. Of particular interest to researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, such interactions can impact place‐protective, stewardship, or conservation behaviors. However, how sense of place develops and what it represents is shifting in today's rapidly urbanizing, globalizing world. Especially when considering the integrated social–ecological context, questions related to how sense of place forms and is enacted in urban settings and at a range of geographic scales are challenging to study. Our study addresses this dynamic space: We examined how people's place connections intersect with their notions of geographic scale and levels of urbanity. Specifically, we conducted a 1201‐person randomized telephone survey in the San Francisco Bay Area ecoregion of California, USA, to explore how sense of place varies by (1) the scale of what people consider to be their place, and (2) the urbanity of where people live. In comparison with respondents who perceived their place as the larger‐scale ecoregion, we found that respondents who perceived their place as primarily focused on the urban area rated their connection to the biophysical aspects of place (the plants, animals, and landscape‐related elements) lower. Similarly, overall, respondents who lived in urban areas rated their connections to the biophysical aspects of place lower than did respondents who lived in non‐urban areas. Our findings suggest the importance of encouraging conceptualizations of place at broader geographic scales and, particularly, of supporting notions of urban spaces that stretch beyond urban boundaries. We also call for supporting increased engagement with urban nature, especially among residents of urban areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scale and sense of place among urban dwellers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Dinerstein et al . ). The global Intact Forest Landscape (IFL) estate consists of approximately 23% of global forests but declined in extent by nearly one‐tenth between 2000 and 2016 (Potapov et al .…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…I t is unlikely that global climate and biodiversity targets will be met without the conservation of forest systems that remain free from extensive industrial and intensive agricultural operations (Potapov et al 2017;Watson et al 2018;Dinerstein et al 2019). The global Intact Forest Landscape (IFL) estate consists of approximately 23% of global forests but declined in extent by nearly one-tenth between 2000 and 2016 (Potapov et al 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes

Watson

Leiper

et al. 2020

Frontiers in Ecol & Environ

226

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs) are critical strongholds for the environmental services that they provide, not least for their role in climate protection. On the basis of information about the distributions of IFLs and Indigenous Peoples’ lands, we examined the importance of these areas for conserving the world's remaining intact forests. We determined that at least 36% of IFLs are within Indigenous Peoples’ lands, making these areas crucial to the mitigation action needed to avoid catastrophic climate change. We also provide evidence that IFL loss rates have been considerably lower on Indigenous Peoples’ lands than on other lands, although these forests are still vulnerable to clearing and other threats. World governments must recognize Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including land tenure rights, to ensure that Indigenous Peoples play active roles in decision‐making processes that affect IFLs on their lands. Such recognition is critical given the urgent need to reduce deforestation rates in the face of escalating climate change and global biodiversity loss.

show abstract

“…Though scientists advocate for protection of 30% (or more) of the ocean by 2030 (e.g. Baillie & Zhang, 2018;Dinerstein et al, 2019;Roberts, 2019), implementing previous marine conservation goals has been a major challenge (Butchart et al, 2015). Failure to protect 10% of the marine area as of 2012, as formerly agreed under the CBD (Mittermeier et al, 2010), is an example of the implementation crisis in conservation efforts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the synergies among global biodiversity targets to reconcile conservation and socio‐economic demands

Vilar

Magris

Loyola

et al. 2020

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most of the world's nations adopted the 20 Aichi global biodiversity targets to be met by 2020, including the protection of at least 10% of their coastal and marine areas (Target 11) and the avoidance of extinction of threatened species (Target 12). However, reconciling these biodiversity targets with socio‐economic demands remains a great dilemma for implementing conservation policies. In this paper, Aichi Targets 11 and 12 were simultaneously addressed using Brazil's exclusive economic zone as an example. Priority areas for expanding the current system of marine protected areas within the country's eight marine ecoregions were identified with data on threatened vertebrates under different scenarios. Additionally, the potential effects of major socio‐economic activities (small‑ and large‐scale fishing, seabed mining, and oil and gas exploration) on the representation of conservation features in proposed marine protected areas were explored. Areas selected for expanding marine protected areas solely based on biodiversity data were different (spatial overlap from 62% to 93%) from areas prioritized when socio‐economic features were incorporated into the analysis. The addition of socio‐economic data in the prioritization process substantially decreased opportunity costs and potential conservation conflicts, at the cost of reducing significantly (up to 31%) the coverage of conservation features. Large‑ and small‐scale fisheries act in most of the exclusive economic zone and are the major constraints for protecting high‐priority areas. Nevertheless, there is some spatial mismatch between areas of special relevance for conservation and socio‐economic activities, suggesting an opportunity for reconciling the achievement of biodiversity targets and development goals within the intricate Brazilian seascape by 2020 and beyond.

show abstract

A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets

Cited by 584 publications

References 99 publications

Scale and sense of place among urban dwellers

Scale and sense of place among urban dwellers

Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes

Strengthening the synergies among global biodiversity targets to reconcile conservation and socio‐economic demands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About