Confronting and resolving competing values behind conservation objectives.
Diverse motivations for preserving nature both inspire and hinder its conservation. Optimal conservation strategies may differ radically depending on the objective. For example, creating nature reserves may prevent extinctions through protecting severely threatened species, whereas incentivizing farmland hedgerows may benefit people through bolstering pest-eating or pollinating species. Win-win interventions that satisfy multiple objectives are alluring, but can also be elusive. To achieve better outcomes, we developed and implemented a practical typology of nature conservation framed around seven common conservation objectives. Using an intensively studied bird assemblage in southern Costa Rica as a case study, we applied the typology in the context of biodiversity's most pervasive threat: habitat conversion. We found that rural habitats in a varied tropical landscape, comprising small farms, villages, forest fragments, and forest reserves, provided biodiversity-driven processes that benefit people, such as pollination, seed dispersal, and pest consumption. However, species valued for their rarity, endemism, and evolutionary distinctness declined in farmland. Conserving tropical forest on farmland increased species that international tourists value, but not species discussed in Costa Rican newspapers. Despite these observed trade-offs, our analyses also revealed promising synergies. For example, we found that maintaining forest cover surrounding farms in our study region would likely enhance most conservation objectives at minimal expense to others. Overall, our typology provides a framework for resolving the competing objectives of modern conservation.
Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA 98105; Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; danielsolkarp@gmail.com.
Daniel S
DS
Karp
Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
Chase D
CD
Mendenhall
Department of English, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106;
Elizabeth
E
Callaway
Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
Luke O
LO
Frishkoff
The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA 98105;
Peter M
PM
Kareiva
Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
Paul R
PR
Ehrlich
Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm SE-104 05, Sweden; Stockholm Resilience Centre, University of Stockholm, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden.
Gretchen C
GC
Daily
D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources
agriculture; bird; conservation; ecosystem services; multifunctionality