Reconceptualizing conservation

Abstract

Early definitions of conservation focused largely on the end goals of protection or restoration of nature, and the various disciplinary domains that contribute to these ends. Conservation science and practice has evolved beyond being focused on just issues of scarcity and biodiversity decline. To better recognize the inherent links between human behaviour and conservation, “success” in conservation is now being defined in terms that include human rights and needs. We also know that who engages in conservation, and how, dictates the likelihood that conservation science will be embraced and applied to yield conservation gains. Here we present ideas for reconceptualizing conservation. We emphasize the HOW in an attempt to reorient and repurpose the term in ways that better reflect what contemporary conservation is or might aspire to be. To do so, we developed an acrostic using the letters in the term “CONSERVATION” with each serving as an adjective where C = co-produced, O = open, N = nimble, S = solutions-oriented, E = empowering, R = relational, V = values-based, A = actionable, T = transdisciplinary, I = inclusive, O = optimistic, and N = nurturing. For each adjective, we briefly describe our reasoning for its selection and describe how it contributes to our vision of conservation. By reconceptualizing conservation we have the potential to center how we do conservation in ways that are more likely to result in outcomes that benefit biodiversity while also being just, equitable, inclusive, and respectful of diverse rights holders, knowledge holders, and other actors. We hope that this acrostic will be widely adopted in training to help the next generation of conservation researchers and practitioners keep in mind what it will take to make their contributions effective and salient.

A Nuanced Examination of Primate Capture and Consumption and Human Socio-Economic Well-Being in Kirindy Mitea National Park, Madagascar

“…Based on conversations with local leaders, we recommend alternative protein support in the form of small livestock (e.g., goats, pigs, poultry, sheep) rather than cattle. Such an intervention has the potential to alleviate malnutrition, and the overexploitation of wildlife locally, but must be co-produced, workshopped, and subsequently assessed in partnership with the community [ 79 ]. Because the value of livestock is high, and households are able to supplement their diet with wild animals, it is conceivable that livestock will not be consumed or sold [ 80 ].…”

Responsibility, equity, justice, and inclusion in dynamic human–wildlife interactions

“…Although HWI approaches that apply positive, negative, and neutral outcomes represent progress, it is imperative to acknowledge the dynamism and fragility of these interactions across scales, and the possibility that coexistence and conflict can co-occur. Such a framing enhances our capacity to anticipate outcomes and buffer effects that also influence outcomes, which may include building resiliency into ecosystems and incorporating social justice principles (Cooke et al 2022).…”

“…Such a framing enhances our capacity to anticipate outcomes and buffer effects that also influence outcomes, which may include building resiliency into ecosystems and incorporating social justice principles (Cooke et al . 2022).…”

Understanding Author Choices in the Current Conservation Publishing Landscape

“…While there has been momentum towards greater inclusivity in conservation research (Raymond et al 2022), e.g. broadening how journals credit author contributions (Cooke et al 2022), publishers may still be acting as a bottleneck to the dissemination of conservation knowledge. Few conservation journals have made systemic changes to meet Fair Open Access Alliance standards and authors often face further financial barriers if they wish or are required to make their research publicly available (Veríssimo et al 2020).…”