Conservation needs to integrate knowledge across scales

Abstract

To the Editor -Wyborn and Evans 1 argue that global priority maps for conservation have questionable utility and may crowd out local and more contextual research. While we agree with the authors' central argument that effective and equitable conservation must be rooted at local scales, the assertion that "conservation needs to break free from global priority mapping" presents a false dichotomy. We should not think in terms of a binary choice of methods (local or global), but rather recognize that information across scales will have the most relevance and power in the future. Wyborn and Evans challenge the creators of global maps to identify their theory of change. Here, we outline six major areas of contribution relevant for priority setting and other conservation-related decisions.(1) Broader context for local decisions.Making effective local policy relies on anticipating economic, political or environmental change operating at larger scales and understanding how it affects local social or biophysical conditions. Global maps reveal the importance of distant connections (also known as telecoupling) in driving change in nature and its contributions to people 2 . Similarly, species extinction risk is governed by how rare a species is, and a purely local focus cannot fully reveal the regional, continental and global landscape of extinction risks 3 . Analyses of linkages across scales from local to regional to global are essential for a full understanding of the impacts of policies or actions. Ignoring linkages across scales results in missed opportunities and unintended consequences. correspondence approach against another, we must seek better ways of integrating a wide diversity of perspectives across scales to address the challenges ahead.

The global distribution of known and undiscovered ant biodiversity

“…Large-scale biodiversity maps are not a panacea for conservation ( 39 ), but rather one component of a multiscale approach that integrates ecological, socioeconomic, geopolitical, and cultural factors ( 40 ). Our maps and highlighted areas considering biodiversity alone should not be considered global conservation priorities per se, but they do provide foundational knowledge that should help guide biodiversity conservation to better incorporate insects.…”

Ranking threats to biodiversity and why it doesn’t matter

“…It is also driven by practical considerations. Rankings are in fact commonly applied to establish priorities for conservation interventions, especially by policy makers 12 . For instance, comparative studies have successfully prioritized the conservation of some populations, species, or sites at local scales 12 .…”

“…Rankings are in fact commonly applied to establish priorities for conservation interventions, especially by policy makers 12 . For instance, comparative studies have successfully prioritized the conservation of some populations, species, or sites at local scales 12 . Global analyses and rankings can also guide governments and other actors, and offer leverage to implement measures with limited funding.…”

Gains in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services from the expansion of the planet’s protected areas

“…In addition, when choosing which areas to protect, there are likely to be trade-offs between maximizing biodiversity conservation and maximizing other ecosystem services. Such competing socioeconomic and environmental interests and the use of top-down initiatives to create protected areas have spurred much debate (17)(18)(19). Understanding these trade-offs and, consistent with societal objectives, minimizing them will be key to the overall success of 30 × 30.…”