Bolder Thinking for Conservation

Noss, Reed F.; Dobson, Andrew; Baldwin, Robert F.; Beier, Paul; Davis, Cory R.; DellaSala, Dominick A.; Francis, John M.; Locke, Harvey; Nowak, Katarzyna; Lopez, Roel R.; Reining, Conrad; Trombulak, Stephen C.; Tabor, Gary M.

doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01738.x

Cited by 239 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Under the slogan 'nature needs half' (http://natureneedshalf.org/) and spearheaded by leading conservation scientists such as Edward O. Wilson (2016), Reed Noss (Noss et al, 2012), George Wuerthner and John Terborgh (Wuerthner et al, 2015), a vision has been formulated to turn half of the earth into a series of interconnected protected areas. This radical plan for conservation seeks to expand and strengthen the world's current network of protected areas to create a patchwork grid of reserves encompassing at least half the world's surface and hence "about 85 percent" of remaining biodiversity (Wilson, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications

Büscher

Fletcher

Brockington

et al. 2016

Oryx

229

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We question whether the increasingly popular, radical idea of turning half the earth into a network of protected areas is either feasible or just. We argue that this 'half earth' plan would have widespread negative consequences for human populations and would not meet its conservation objectives. It offers no agenda for managing biodiversity within a 'human half' of Earth. We call instead for alternative radical action that is both more effective and more equitable, focused directly on the main drivers of biodiversity loss by shifting the global economy from its current foundation in growth while simultaneously redressing inequality. Main TextThere is a new call to extend conservation frontiers as an ultimate attempt to save global biodiversity. Under the slogan 'nature needs half' (http://natureneedshalf.org/) and spearheaded by leading conservation scientists such as Edward O. Wilson (2016), Reed Noss (Noss et al, 2012), George Wuerthner and John Terborgh (Wuerthner et al, 2015), a vision has been formulated to turn half of the earth into a series of interconnected protected areas. This radical plan for conservation seeks to expand and strengthen the world's current network of protected areas to create a patchwork grid of reserves encompassing at least half the world's surface and hence "about 85 percent" of remaining biodiversity (Wilson, 2016). We wish to open up debate about this idea. While it might be interpreted as simply a rhetorical challenge to provoke greater conservation effort, it is proposed by senior scientific figures and is being widely discussed and supported. Critical reflection about this proposal is thus important.The plan proposed is staggering in scale: protected areas, according to the IUCN, currently incorporate around 15.4% of the earth's terrestrial areas and 3.4% of its oceans. They would thus need to more than triple in extent on land and by more than ten-fold in the oceans. Not only would this include the earth's currently still relatively intact ecosystems and natural habitats, it would also necessarily entail an active programme of restoration and 'rewilding' to 2 return larger areas to a more pristine 'pre-human' baseline (Wilson, 2016;Noss et al, 2012;Donlan et al, 2005). E. O. Wilson is arguably most explicit in his recent book Half-Earth, stating that "only by setting aside half the planet in reserve, or more, can we save the living part of the environment and achieve the stabilization required for our own survival" (Wilson, 2016: 3).Other conservationists agree that such a goal is the 'only defensible target' from a 'strictly scientific point of view' to allow for a sustainable future (Wuerthner et al, 2015: 18).These proposals seem to be driven by the credo 'desperate times call for desperate measures'. We agree with Wilson and other conservationists that because biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate as a result of human activity therefore urgent need for action to address this. Desperate times, however, demand careful decisions. We argue that the 'hal...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications

Büscher

Fletcher

Brockington

et al. 2016

Oryx

229

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Technologically, the approach proposed here is likely best implemented using diverse technologies to correspond with the diversity of places where these technologies are used and to vary the types of impacts (Ebenhack and Martinez 2014;Hussain, Arif, and Aslam 2017), suggestive of a new, ecological form of responsible innovation (Owen, Bessant, and Heintz 2013;Chilvers and Kearnes 2015). Noss et al 2012Pevzner 2015Lokman 2017Sørensen 2017 Relations -6.1 -June 2018 http://www.ledonline.it/Relations/ Technological permanence and the degree to which impacts during construction or operation are reversible should be considered, to establish improved conditions following the end of the project (Pasqualetti and Stremke 2017). This process would allow nonhuman nature to redirect or resist human intention over space and time (Fatimah and Arora 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While only a small fraction of total available planetary surface area (Jacobson and Delucchi 2011), in relative terms these new energy infrastructures may require areas 1 to 3 orders of magnitude larger than existing systems worldwide (Smil 2015), exceeding available land area for many highly industrialized regions (Capellán-Pérez, de Castro, and Arto 2017). This new pressure comes at a time when conservation sciences indicate that many regions require 25 to 75 percent of the area to be managed with conservation as a primary objective (Noss et al 2012;Dinerstein et al 2017). The potential for energy sprawl further compels an account of qualitative changes to diverse ecosystems and the living beings inhabiting them (Labussière and Nadaï 2017).…”

Section: Renewable Energy and The Natural World: Relevance Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach requires the integration of planning and development processes from the beginning, accounting for unique technological and ecological qualities, and emphasizing interconnection across large spatial scales, to advance rather than conflict with the scientifically-grounded pursuit of large-scale conservation and restoration of ecosystems and connectivity (Noss et al 2012). Additional benefits include the use of diverse energy sources and technologies to minimize variability of electricity generation and the potential for increasing collaboration across neighboring regions (UCS 2017).…”

Section: Integrated Technologies and Plansmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Section 3 presents the results of a review of academic literature, grey literature and reports, and websites, demonstrating that technologies and practices are presently available to support this approach. This review extends the work of Gasparatos et al (2017), , and others by drawing together multiple fields of study including geographies of energy (Bridge et al 2013;Huber 2015;Calvert 2016), conservation sciences (Noss et al 2012;Martin, Maris, and Simberloff 2016), ecological restoration, planning, and design (McHarg 1969;Anker 2010;Higgs 2012), sustainable and multifunctional energy landscapes (Stremke and Koh 2011;Howard et al 2013;de Waal and Stremke 2014;Lokman 2017;Pasqualetti and Stremke 2017), natural infrastructure (Bennett, Cassin, and Carroll 2016), and techno-ecological synergies (Bakshi, Ziv, and Lepech 2015;Hanes, Gopalakrishnan, and Bakshi 2017). Technologies were selected from those that convert energy sources continuously replenished by the sun or other natural cycles into modern forms of energy, including solar and wind power, hydroelectricity, bioenergy and ocean energy (Ellabban, Abu-Rub, and Blaabjerg 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations