biodiversity and sustainable development essay

Why Biodiversity is Essential for Sustainable Development

By Chandler Green on May 21, 2018

A recent UN-supported study compiled by over 550 researchers re-emphasized a dire finding about the state of life on Earth: Species of plants and animals across the globe are disappearing at alarming rates. If not halted, this loss could amount to a sixth mass global extinction in our lifetime. As envisioned by Sustainable Development Goal 15: Life on Land , we must preserve biodiversity and use ecosystems sustainably to ensure the survival of our own species.

We talked to UN Foundation Senior Fellow,  Dr. Thomas Lovejoy , who is credited with being the first to use the term “biological diversity” to learn more about why it matters – and is essential to sustainable development. Lovejoy is a tropical and conservation biologist, who has conducted research in the Brazilian Amazon since 1965.

Photo Credit: George Mason University

What is biodiversity?

Thomas Lovejoy: Biodiversity is the collective term for the full variety of life on earth. Many think of it as the total number of species, but it is actually more complex than that. It’s about the genetic diversity within species, the diversity of habitats, and the large biological units known as biomes, such as the coniferous forest biome.

How does biodiversity impact sustainable development?

TL: Without biological diversity, there is no other life on Earth, including our own. Even though we are often oblivious to it, this diversity of life is what provides clean water, oxygen, and all other things that end up being part of our diet, as well as clothing and shelter. It provides a lot of psychological benefits too, which are not much appreciated.

What are the biggest threats to biodiversity?

TL: The biggest threats are habitat destruction and fragmentation, direct harvest, various forms of pollution, and climate change. Biological diversity encompasses all environmental factors, so there are things that are direct threats, like habitat fragmentation. There are also indirect things like the distortion of the nitrogen cycle and the proliferation of dead zones in estuaries and coastal waters around the world. Basically, you can’t solve the biodiversity problem if you don’t solve all those problems as well.

How fast are we seeing species disappear? Which regions are suffering the most loss?

TL: The current rate that is often used, which is 1,000 times the normal rate  of extinction, I think actually understates it. We are in the early stages of an exponential curve of loss. By increasing human population and imperfections in the development process, we could lose a substantial amount of life on Earth.

Everyone thinks first and foremost like I do about the Amazon, but that’s not the only tropical forest. There’s no question about it: Tropical forests everywhere are being seriously hammered, particularly in Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America. Another region that may seem surprising is grasslands around the world because they are attractive to people for raising domestic animals. The great irony, of course, is the huge amount of degraded land in the world – that’s why there is a UN desertification convention . We can’t end up with a happy outcome unless we spend a lot of time restoring that degraded land to productivity – and when you do that, you increase biological diversity.  

How can we protect biodiversity?

TL: First, I think there needs to be a major shift in perception from thinking of nature as something with a fence around it in the middle of an expansive, human-dominated landscape as opposed to thinking about embedding our aspirations in nature. It means restoring vegetation along watercourses and putting natural connections back into the landscape, so when species begin to move and respond to climate change, there is actually a way for them to do it.

How can protecting biodiversity also help mitigate climate change?

TL: Ecosystem restoration is so important in terms of reducing the carbon load in the atmosphere, which causes global climate change. We now know that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from destroyed and degraded ecosystems (over the last ~8,000 years) is bigger than we ever knew before. It’s about 450 – 500 gigatons of carbon, which is more than the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel combustion so far.

But research shows that restored ecosystems could provide up to one-third of the climate mitigation needed  by sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. So really, the important shift here is to stop thinking of the planet as a physical system but as a linked biological and  physical system.

SDG 15 (Life on Land) will be reviewed at this year’s High-Level Political Forum (HLPF)   in 2018. Here, participating countries will present Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) of progress on this goal and others.

What are some examples of effective policies for SDG 15 you know of?

TL: I am certain that Costa Rica and Botswana serve as outstanding examples. Costa Rica prides itself on being the “Green Republic.” 28% of the country’s territory is protected by national parks. There has also been a lot of reforestation in Costa Rica, in part because of an explicit decision to have an ecosystem services law to tax gasoline and use the revenue to benefit reforestation. As a result, Costa Rica is the first tropical country to have stopped and reversed deforestation: over half of its land is covered by forest, compared to 26% in 1983.

Botswana has recognized that its wilderness and wild animals are an incredible source of economic benefit, so it outlawed the hunting of lions and other trophy hunting. The country has a thriving ecotourism industry. When you think about ecotourism, it’s not just about the people who drive the Volkswagen bus; it is everything that feeds into supporting the tourism industry. And when it’s done right, the revenue reinforces the economic well-being of the people in the region.

What has the international community done to protect biodiversity on a global scale? What are the challenges moving forward?

TL: The  Convention on Biological Diversity , which was signed by 150 governments at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, sets targets to halt the loss of biodiversity. Over the last 25 years, we’ve seen the amount of increased protected area in the world grow impressively.

The current set of targets, the Aichi targets , are pretty ambitious. Looking ahead, the big challenge is the 2020 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity in China, which will set the next set of targets for the next decade. There may be a reluctance to have ambitious targets because it’s not entirely clear how well we will do on the current ones, but you never know.

When I started working in the Amazon, which is as big as the 48 contiguous United States, there was just one national park in Venezuela. Today, more than half of the Amazon is under some form of protection.

Photo Credit: Global Environment Facility

Loading metrics

Open Access

Essays articulate a specific perspective on a topic of broad interest to scientists.

See all article types »

Scaling up area-based conservation to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework’s 30x30 target: The role of Nature’s Strongholds

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation 34 Kibo Lane, Karen, Kenya

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Equilibrium Research, Bristol, United Kingdom

Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Andes-Amazon Initiative, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Palo Alto, California, United States of America

Roles Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Wildlife Conservation Society Brasil, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Center for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, Bush Heritage Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Roles Writing – review & editing

Affiliation World Wide Fund for Nature International, Gland, Switzerland

Roles Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

Affiliations Wildlife Conservation Society Congo, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation

Affiliation Global Environmental Facility, Washington, DC, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft

Affiliations Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, United States of America, World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology

•  [ ... ],

Affiliation School of The Environment, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

• [ view all ]
• [ view less ]
• John G. Robinson, 
• Danielle LaBruna, 
• Tim O’Brien, 
• Peter J. Clyne, 
• Nigel Dudley, 
• Sandy J. Andelman, 
• Elizabeth L. Bennett, 
• Avecita Chicchon, 
• Carlos Durigan, 

Published: May 21, 2024

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613
• Reader Comments

The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), signed in 2022 by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, recognized the importance of area-based conservation, and its goals and targets specify the characteristics of protected and conserved areas (PCAs) that disproportionately contribute to biodiversity conservation. To achieve the GBF’s target of conserving a global area of 30% by 2030, this Essay argues for recognizing these characteristics and scaling them up through the conservation of areas that are: extensive (typically larger than 5,000 km 2 ); have interconnected PCAs (either physically or as part of a jurisdictional network, and frequently embedded in larger conservation landscapes); have high ecological integrity; and are effectively managed and equitably governed. These areas are presented as “Nature’s Strongholds,” illustrated by examples from the Congo and Amazon basins. Conserving Nature’s Strongholds offers an approach to scale up initiatives to address global threats to biodiversity.

Citation: Robinson JG, LaBruna D, O’Brien T, Clyne PJ, Dudley N, Andelman SJ, et al. (2024) Scaling up area-based conservation to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework’s 30x30 target: The role of Nature’s Strongholds. PLoS Biol 22(5): e3002613. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613

Copyright: © 2024 Robinson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: Wildlife Conservation Society received support for this work from the Acacia Conservation Fund and the Arcadia Fund (Grant number #AE4195), private philanthropic organizations. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity; CII, Contextual Intactness Index; EU, European Union; GBF, Global Biodiversity Framework; GBMF, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation; ITT, indigenous and traditional territory; IUCN, International Union for the Conservation of Nature; JCU, jaguar conservation unit; KLC, Key Landscapes for Conservation; METT, Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool; NGO, non-governmental organization; OECM, other effective area-based conservation measure; PCA, protected and conserved area; WCS, Wildlife Conservation Society

Introduction

The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted at the 15th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Montreal [ 1 ], recognized the importance of area-based conservation to deliver on the overarching biodiversity goal of the GBF (Goal A): “The integrity, connectivity, and resilience of all ecosystems are maintained, enhanced, or restored, substantially increasing the area of natural ecosystems by 2050.” Area-based conservation refers collectively to the use of both “protected areas,” as recognized by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and CBD, and “other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs) [ 2 ].

The goal of protecting at least 30% of global land and ocean by 2030 (the 30x30 target) emerged from scientific studies that argue that greater area-based ambition is a necessary component of conservation policies if the loss of biodiversity is to be halted [ 3 – 6 ], and has been promoted by advocacy campaigns [ 7 , 8 ]. GBF Target 3 ( Box 1 ) ambitiously builds upon and extends Aichi Target 11 [ 2 ], which specified a goal of protecting “at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas,” made up of “protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.” Under the Aichi targets, there was significant growth in the area under protection but more limited gains in biodiversity protection [ 9 ].

Box 1. Characteristics of protected and conserved areas identified in the Global Biodiversity Framework as important for biodiversity conservation

To deliver on its biodiversity goal, the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) has explicit targets.

• GBF Target 1 addresses the need for effective planning and management and equitable governance. It seeks to “ensure that all areas are under participatory, integrated and biodiversity inclusive spatial planning and/or effective management processes addressing land- and sea-use change, to bring the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance, including ecosystems of high ecological integrity, close to zero by 2030, while respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.” It also prioritizes the ecological integrity of conservation areas.
• GBF Target 2 seeks to “ensure that by 2030 at least 30% of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and coastal marine ecosystems are under effective restoration, in order to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity.” This target, among other considerations, notes that connectivity and ecological integrity are integral to area-based conservation.
• GBF Target 3 formally links a strategy for area-based conservation to the biodiversity outcomes of the numerical target of conserving 30% of the globe by 2030. Protected and conserved areas need to be effectively managed and equitably governed, interconnected, and embedded in larger conservation landscapes. Protected and conserved areas explicitly include both traditional protected areas and “other effective area-based conservation measures.” The target is to “ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures… and integrated into wider landscapes and seascapes…”.

A consensus around conserving 30% by 2030 gained political momentum leading up to the UN CBD Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in November 2022. On assuming office in 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order that committed the United States to the goal of conserving 30% of its lands and waters by 2030 [ 10 ]. In June 2021, the G7 members committed in their Nature Compact “to conserve or protect at least 30% of global land and at least 30% of the global ocean by 2030.” In the build up to COP15, over 100 countries joined the High Ambition Coalition to champion the 30x30 target [ 11 ], and over 70 countries joined the Global Ocean Alliance [ 12 ]. This enthusiasm has also translated into increased funding: In addition to commitments made at COP15, the “Protecting our Planet Challenge” was launched at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow and represents a $5 billion commitment to support the protection of at least 30% of the planet in the most important areas for biodiversity by 2030 [ 13 ]; and in June 2023, the Council of the Global Environmental Facility approved plans to establish the Global Biodiversity Fund to support implementation of the GBF. The efficacy for biodiversity conservation of the 30x30 target depends on where protected areas are located, and how they are configured and managed [ 14 ].

The GBF has specified the characteristics of protected and conserved areas (PCAs) that are important for biodiversity conservation ( Box 1 ). In this Essay, we consider these characteristics and identify 4 criteria that we argue should be prioritized and scaled up in order to strengthen biodiversity outcomes: PCAs should be extensive; interconnected (either physically or as part of a jurisdictional network, and frequently embedded in larger landscapes); have high ecological integrity; and be effectively managed and equitably governed. We suggest that specific areas that incorporate all 4 criteria, areas that we call “Nature’s Strongholds,” are disproportionately important for the conservation of biodiversity and need to be prioritized for safeguarding if the mission of the GBF is to be achieved. Using these criteria, we look at how to identify such strongholds, providing examples in the river basins of Central Africa and the Amazon. These regions are both high-biodiversity tropical forest regions with a tradition of area-based conservation, but they exhibit variation in the size of single or mosaics of PCAs, the extent of the conservation landscape in which strongholds are embedded, the pattern of ecological integrity across the area, and PCA management and governance regimes.

Characteristics contributing to area-based conservation of biodiversity

Size of pcas.

The species-area curve, a fundamental ecological relationship, describes that as the size of an area increases, the extent of natural habitat and the number of species present also increase. Conversely, biodiversity can be lost simply as the area of natural habitat is diminished [ 15 ], or through the differential loss of ecosystems and their associated species and biological communities [ 5 , 16 ]. More generally, the loss of large, contiguous natural areas drives biodiversity loss [ 17 – 20 ].

Conservation areas retain natural habitat, but creating large PCAs does not by itself produce biodiversity outcomes: they need to be located in the right places [ 21 ]. Conservation areas should be located in geographic areas that contain abundant biodiversity and connected to similar areas. Nevertheless, increasing the size and compactness of single PCAs or mosaics of PCAs decreases the proportion of natural habitat located close to areas that are unprotected or have other land uses, making them less vulnerable to many anthropogenic stressors, including climate change [ 22 ]. Large PCAs can also contain many natural habitats and the ecological and evolutionary processes that sustain them.

Connectivity of areas

The terms “connectivity” and “well-connected systems,” as referenced in the GBF, we interpret as referring to both the physical or ecological connectivity of natural areas (such as PCAs that are physically contiguous or linked through corridors) and to management connectivity (such as multiple PCAs that might not be physically contiguous but are linked jurisdictionally and embedded in a larger natural landscape matrix, providing for ecological connectivity and management across jurisdictional boundaries). Connectivity, as a result of either condition, allows the movement of species across the landscape and seascape, increasing effective population sizes, and allows animals, especially those with behavioral flexibility, to have access to suitable environmental conditions in the context of climate change and sufficient resources even in times of ecological stress [ 23 – 25 ]. Conversely, the fragmentation of natural habitats and the loss of connectivity across a landscape is strongly associated with the loss of biodiversity [ 26 , 27 ]. Fragmentation changes ecological processes, and smaller habitat fragments have less biodiversity than would be expected from the loss of habitat alone [ 28 ].

Aggregations or mosaics of PCAs under multiple jurisdictions would allow the alignment of conservation goals across larger areas. Defining what categories of PCAs should be included in these mosaics so as to meet the GBF 30x30 target [ 29 ] remains a work in progress. There is a good consensus that all 6 IUCN categories of protected areas (Ia, strict nature reserve; Ib, wilderness area; II, national park; III, natural monument; IV, habitat or species management area; V, protected landscape or seascape; VI, protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources) should be included, although they are not simply interchangeable. Furthermore, they should demonstrably deliver on biodiversity outcomes [ 30 ]. Because effectiveness of protected areas is typically measured by their attaining management objectives rather than achieving biodiversity conservation [ 31 ], this is not always the case [ 32 – 35 ].

OECMs might also be included and contribute to the 30x30 target [ 14 , 36 ]. OECMs, in contrast to traditional protected areas, are governed by many different authorities, from national governments to private entities and civil society, to indigenous peoples and local communities, and might include indigenous and traditional territories (ITTs). Ongoing work by the IUCN, and specifically its World Commission on Protected Areas, seeks to establish a recognized method to define types of OECMs [ 37 ] and assess their possible contribution to reaching the 30x30 target.

Including the category of OECMs in the 30x30 target would enable countries to more easily attain biodiversity conservation goals. OECMs, by definition (CBD Decision COP XIV/8, 2018) explicitly contribute to biodiversity conservation [ 38 ]: An OECM is “a geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socioeconomic, and other locally relevant values.” In their delivery of biodiversity outcomes, OECMs can be favorably compared to formally protected areas. A series of detailed studies in Amazonia have compared deforestation and degradation rates among different categories of conserved and managed areas. ITTs compared favorably with areas under national jurisdiction and those supporting extractive activities [ 39 – 42 ]. A similar pattern is evident globally [ 43 , 44 ]. In addition, these areas have an extensive geographic distribution. ITTs, in particular, cover a large proportion of the planet and overlap with 40% of protected areas [ 45 ]. They overlap extensive areas of intact forest landscapes [ 46 ] and the ranges of many species, including those that are endangered [ 47 ].

While many existing areas under the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples and local communities have the potential to be recognized as OECMs, including such OECMs in the 30x30 tally will require that local customs are followed and/or will need to be approved by the relevant Indigenous peoples and local community actors through processes that respect human rights obligations [ 48 ], including free prior and informed consent and equitable benefit sharing and governance.

Degree of ecological integrity

The concept of ecological integrity became a part of ecology’s lexicon with Aldo Leopold’s comment: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” [ 49 ]. While there are different approaches to defining ecological integrity, there is general agreement that it can be characterized by the structure, composition, and function of natural ecosystems [ 50 , 51 ]. Efforts to quantitatively describe and measure ecological integrity have depended on measuring some characteristic of ecosystems that can be used as a proxy for integrity, be it structural (such as forest extent, the degree of fragmentation, or the size and frequency distribution of live trees), compositional (such as species occurrence and community composition), or functional (such as net primary productivity or energy and nutrient cycling) [ 52 ]. An alternative approach is quantifying measures of human pressure or modification of natural systems that are considered to systematically influence integrity (e.g., population density, land-use change, roads, extractive industries, light pollution) [ 53 , 54 ]. The first approach has been most useful at local and regional scales, where such direct measurement is more feasible. The second has had utility at more global scales, where proxies for pressure are available [ 17 , 20 ].

In response to the needs of the GBF for measures of integrity to study, manage, and report on biodiversity change, a hybrid approach to generate integrity indicators has gained traction. It combines measures of human pressure or modification with modeled measures of ecosystem properties, often based on remote sensing and/or direct observations [ 55 ]. For example, the Forest Landscape Integrity Index was developed on the basis of observed human pressure at a landscape level and then used to model loss of forest connectivity [ 56 ]. Similarly, the Contextual Intactness Index (CII) used the Human Footprint to infer a biodiversity value based on geographically explicit species occurrence from museum collections [ 33 ]. Methods have also been developed that combine measures of human pressure with empirical measurements of biodiversity across multiple scales [ 57 ]. For the GBF, the most useful indicators of ecological integrity should have a global application and a temporal resolution that enables periodic monitoring [ 58 ].

Within a given ecosystem, ecological integrity is a good predictor of high biodiversity [ 59 ] and is clearly important for climate adaptation [ 60 , 61 ]. Conversely, loss of habitat and connectivity results in loss of ecological integrity, which erodes biodiversity [ 62 ]. The major driver of these patterns is that the loss of ecological integrity increases the probabilities of local extinction [ 19 ]. For example, high-integrity tropical rainforests, as measured by structural intactness, are associated with lower risks of species extinction for tropical mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians across all biogeographic realms [ 27 ], and ecological integrity of Southeast Asian tropical forests can be used to predict actual extirpations of megafauna during the Holocene and/or Anthropocene [ 63 ].

PCA management and governance

While the GBF does not define when an area is “effectively managed,” traditionally the term has been interpreted as reflecting the extent to which the goals and objectives for the area are achieved [ 64 ]. Many studies have examined the constraints of effective management for conservation areas (e.g., the need for adequate funding [ 65 ], capacity shortfalls [ 66 ], and adequate personnel [ 67 ]). A widely used self-reporting tool to monitor protected areas is the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) [ 68 ].

While many studies have demonstrated that protected areas are important for biodiversity conservation [ 69 ], few studies have directly measured the importance of management effectiveness per se. One such study reported that species populations in protected areas were positively associated with the area’s METT score [ 70 ]. The authors then went on to argue that “documenting the delivery of biodiversity outcomes must be an explicit part of any future assessment of effectiveness” [ 71 ].

The GBF also urges that areas be “equitably governed.” While scientific assessments of the extent to which and how protected areas meet this requirement are still largely lacking, CBD Decision COP XIV/8, Annex II (2018) provides guidance on how this might be measured: appropriate procedures should be in place to ensure that the diversity of “rights holders” and stakeholders are recognized, that rule making and decision-making are inclusive, and the costs and benefits are equitably shared. Effective governance requires that “duty bearers” provide timely and competent assistance to rights holders. Dudley and colleagues argue that conserved and managed areas should only be recognized as contributing to the 30x30 target when authorities or duty bearers recognize and respect rights holders and stakeholders, and provide the ecosystem services to meet human needs [ 30 ]. Tools are becoming available for measuring the effectiveness of governance and social outcomes in PCAs [ 72 – 75 ]. The expectation is that when this is the case, the “conserved and managed” areas of GBF Target 3 will have greater permanence through political and legal support, greater stakeholder buy-in, and access to more financial and other resources. There is some supporting data for this expectation [ 76 ].

Identifying Nature’s Strongholds

How these characteristics affect biodiversity conservation will vary geographically and ecologically. The identification of Nature’s Strongholds will be affected, in a specific region, by the size and distribution of PCAs, the continuity or fragmentation of the natural matrix, the spatial pattern of ecological integrity, and the existing governance and management regimes. In considering their application to the Central African and Amazonian river basins, our 2 case studies, we interpreted the characteristics as follows, and defined explicit criteria that were appropriate for these 2 regions.

• Large protected and conserved areas. Our assumption was that PCAs needed to be large enough to maintain biodiversity. There is no consensus around the desired size of PCAs, but a range of sizes have been proposed. To protect functioning ecosystems, the IUCN established a global Standard for Key Biodiversity Areas [ 77 ] and suggested a possible size threshold of 10,000 km 2 . More of a focus on tropical regions has defined the work of some other organizations: the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has structured its area-based work around areas with a minimum size of 5,000 km 2 [ 78 ]; the German Government’s “Legacy Landscapes” program [ 79 ] suggests a minimum of 2,000 km 2 ; and African Parks, a non-governmental organization (NGO) focused on park management, identified “core anchor areas” in Africa of disproportionate importance for biodiversity conservation, with a minimum size of 500 km 2 . For the case studies, we gave preference to larger areas, and arbitrarily identified PCAs (single or as aggregations) that were approximately 5,000 km 2 or larger.
• Interconnected areas. In addition to identifying strongholds where a PCA was sufficiently large, we looked for groups of PCAs that were physically or ecologically contiguous, thus creating a larger conservation area, and groups of PCAs that, although not physically contiguous, were embedded in the same conservation landscape, often with jurisdictional commonalities and management coordination across the landscape. In both Central Africa and Amazonia, the definition and identification of strongholds was aided by their being embedded within larger “Key Landscapes for Conservation” (KLCs), which had previously been identified in studies supported by the European Union (EU) [ 80 , 81 ]. In addition, to inform their philanthropy, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF) has identified a suite of conservation landscapes in Amazonia [ 82 ] that generally align with the EU analysis. The resulting landscapes that contained identified strongholds were large. In Central Africa, the average size was 62,257 km 2 ( n = 16) and in Amazonia, the average size was 217,488 km 2 ( n = 14).
• Effectively managed and equitably governed PCAs. Systems of governance and management vary in different parts of the world, and the criteria associated with PCAs will always be politically and culturally specific. In Central Africa, national government agencies typically retain authority over most PCAs (including national parks, nature reserves, faunal reserves, and wildlife reserves), although devolved authority characterizes community reserves, forest management units, and local community forest concessions. In addition, collaborative management partnerships through an agreement between government and international or national NGOs are increasingly common. In Amazonia, in addition to PCAs managed by national governments (e.g., national parks, wildlife reserves), PCAs managed by states and municipalities are common. Devolved authority to a local level characterizes extractive reserves, ITTs, and sustainable development reserves. Further management and governance criteria used to identify strongholds are described below separately for Central Africa and Amazonia.
• High ecological integrity. We used Mokany and colleagues’ [ 33 ] CII to measure ecological integrity. The index infers a biodiversity value and uses the Human Footprint [ 53 ] to assess human impact. We did not use ecological integrity in the initial identification of strongholds, as we had no a priori rationale for defining a minimum level of integrity for strongholds. Nevertheless, we expected that ecological integrity would covary with the other characteristics. Therefore, once strongholds were identified using the first 3 criteria, we compared their integrity to that of the conservation landscapes in which they were embedded and compared the integrity of the landscapes to the river basin as whole. A possible stronghold where its ecological integrity was lower than the landscape in which it was embedded was not included.

Case study 1: Nature’s Strongholds in Central Africa

Identification of Nature’s Strongholds in Central Africa initially depended on 3 of the criteria: large single or mosaics of PCAs of approximately 5,000 km 2 or larger, embedded within previously defined conservation landscapes, with demonstrably effective management and a commitment to equitable governance. The process was also informed by previous analyses of priority areas and management effectiveness [ 80 , 83 , 84 ], any international recognition (such as by a World Heritage Site designation), and expert opinion from managers of PCAs.

To delineate strongholds, we were helped by reference to the EU conservation strategy for Africa “Larger than Elephants” [ 80 ], which identified KLCs, including 20 in Central Africa. KLCs bounded individual strongholds, which could be single or multiple jurisdictional distinct PCAs within a single KLC (some large KLCs that crossed national boundaries were subdivided; see S1 Text ). Table 1 lists the KLCs which contained identified strongholds (see S1 Text ). Identified strongholds frequently included multiple PCAs.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.t001

Within a KLC, PCAs were grouped into strongholds if their physical or jurisdictional configuration, management, funding, or institutional context were aligned. In some cases (e.g., Odzala Kakoua, CAF 03c in Fig 1 ), individual PCAs were sufficiently large to define a stronghold, in others (e.g., Gamba complex, CAF 04 in Fig 1 ), individual PCAs were contiguous forming a mosaic, and in still others (e.g., PCAs in CAF 03d in Fig 1 ), where PCAs were not contiguous, they occurred in a single conservation landscape with jurisdictional links and management across the landscape. One alignment, and an indication of more effective management, is if there is a significant management partnership between national governments and international NGOs (see Table 1 ), with the concomitant international donor funding that comes with these relationships. Africa has been in the forefront of defining collaborative management models [ 83 ]. Conservation management partnerships offer a range of governance mechanisms between governments, local communities, private entities, and NGOs, sometimes involving joint ventures and delegated management authority [ 85 , 86 ].

KLCs and Nature’s Strongholds in Central Africa (EU identified KLCs numbered, embedded protected and conserved areas constitute the identified strongholds) mapped onto ecological integrity of the region, as measured by the CII. Data layers used are listed in S1 Text . AOI, area of interest; CII, Contextual Intactness Index; EU, European Union; KLC, Key Landscapes for Conservation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.g001

Comparisons of CII values of strongholds and their surrounding KLCs were used to confirm the identification of individual strongholds. In all cases, with 1 exception, the ecological integrity of identified strongholds was greater than the KLCs in which they were embedded. In the exception, the mean CII of Bouba Ndjida-Benoue KLC (CAF 17) was 0.73, while the mean CII values for the 2 PCAs in the stronghold, Bouba Ndjida in northern Cameroon and Sena Oura in Chad, were lower (0.68 and 0.42, respectively); this potential stronghold was therefore not included. In 2 other cases (Mt. Cameroon in CAF 01 and Mayumba in CAF 04), CII values of individual PCAs were lower than for the KLC, but the stronghold as a whole was higher, so the strongholds were retained.

In total, we identified 18 strongholds in Central Africa (average size = 15,003 km 2 ). Each was located within a KLC and included one or more PCAs, often not physically contiguous. Possible strongholds were excluded if: PCAs, either singly or as aggregations, were much smaller than 5,000 km 2 ; they fell outside of KLCs; there was little evidence of effective management or good governance; and the stronghold had a lower ecological integrity than the surrounding KLC. Identified strongholds and their surrounding KLCs were mapped onto the geographic distribution of ecological integrity across the basin, using the CII [ 33 , 87 ] ( Fig 1 ). Identifying strongholds is a work in progress, and currently excluded areas could meet the criteria in the future through ecological restoration, provision of adequate funding and staffing, and strengthening management and good governance.

To make the overall case that strongholds (or their constituent PCAs) are more ecologically intact than the KLCs in which they are embedded (excluding the area of the stronghold itself), we used principal component analysis to compare, for all 1 km grid cells, the CII, the standard deviation of CII, and the land area with values scaled to have a mean of 0 and a variance of 1 (see Fig 2 , S1 Text , and S1 Table ). The first component is most heavily weighted toward the CII itself (0.893), followed by decreasing standard deviation of CII (−0.654), and the size of KLCs and strongholds (0.406). This means that higher values of ecological integrity are associated with larger areas and lower variance of ecological integrity. The second component is primarily weighted by size of the area (0.846), followed by increasing standard deviation of CII (0.650), and least by the CII itself (0.091). This means that larger areas have a higher variance in ecological integrity, but are no more intact than smaller areas. Each axis accounts for similar levels of variance in the data: 46.3% for principal component 1 and 38.2% for principal component 2, for a total of 84.5% of the total variance. Ecological integrity is higher in larger KLCs than smaller, and less variable in larger KLCs ( Fig 2 ). By contrast, larger strongholds are not more ecologically intact than smaller ones. These observations were confirmed using paired t tests, which indicates that strongholds have both a higher average ecological integrity and a lower variance in ecological integrity than the KLCs in which they were embedded (see S1 Text ).

Principal component analysis for Strongholds (filled squares, dashed oval) and Central African KLCs (filled circles, solid oval). Principal component 1 (PC1), which is most heavily weighted towards the CII, is plotted against principal component 2 (PC2), which is most heavily weighted towards land area. The ovals highlight the distribution of points in the stronghold class and the KLC class. They serve to easily show the degree of separation and are not a statistical representation. CII, Contextual Intactness Index; KLC, Key Landscapes for Conservation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.g002

We also looked at whether KLCs that contained identified strongholds were more ecologically intact than the Congo Basin as a whole (see S1 Text and S2 Table ), and concluded that strongholds were of higher ecological integrity than the KLCs in which they are embedded, and combined KLCs (including embedded strongholds) are of higher ecological integrity than the Congo Basin as a whole.

To demonstrate that the distribution of large-bodied mammals (another proxy for biodiversity) maps onto Nature’s Strongholds, we examined the geographic distribution of forest elephants and great apes in Central Africa ( S3 Table ). The forest elephant ( Loxodonta cyclotis ) population was last estimated [ 88 ] at 24,119 ± 2,865, with an additional 87,190 to 103,355 in areas not systematically surveyed. Nine of the 32 identified strongholds contained populations numbering in the thousands, and 8 more had populations numbering in the hundreds. Similarly, Great Ape populations are found in strongholds [ 89 ]. Over 95% of the world’s remaining Cross River gorillas are found in Cross River and Takamanda parks, which also contain a population of the Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes elliotii ). The Western Lowland gorilla ( Gorilla gorilla gorilla ) and the Central chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes troglodytes ) are found in strongholds and KLCs in Gabon, Cameroon, and the Republic of Congo; the Grauer’s gorilla ( Gorilla beringei graueri ) and the Eastern chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii ) are found especially in strongholds in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo; and the bonobo ( Pan paniscus) is largely restricted to the Democratic Republic of Congo protected areas of Lomami and Salonga.

Case study 2: Nature’s Strongholds in Amazonia

Nature’s Strongholds in Amazonia were identified using similar criteria to those for Central Africa. To delineate strongholds, we referred to the EU “Larger than Jaguars” conservation strategy for Latin America [ 81 ], which defined KLCs for Amazonia, and to the GBMF-identified conservation landscapes in the Amazon basin [ 82 ].

Within these larger landscapes, strongholds were identified if PCAs were large or could be grouped into larger aggregations, were interconnected, and were effectively managed and governed. In Amazonia, in contrast to Central Africa, in all cases, aggregations of individual PCAs were always physically contiguous. PCAs included protected areas, ITTs, sustainable development reserves, extractive reserves, and other conservation areas. Table 2 lists the KLCs and GBMF mosaics, which contain identified strongholds.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.t002

As a proxy for management effectiveness and good governance, strongholds were identified particularly if countries had dedicated funding for management support of PCAs in a stronghold. In Brazil, that funding was provided by the Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA), which is coordinated by the Ministry of Environment and is the recipient of funds from multilateral and bilateral donors, international NGOs, and private foundations. In Colombia, a similar arrangement pertains to Herencia Colombia (HECO), which is managed by Parques Nacionales Naturales. In Peru, it is Patrimonio Natural del Peru (PdP), which receives institutional support through the National Protected Areas Service and financial support from external donors.

In Brazil, PCAs are already often grouped into larger management units, or “mosaicos,” so we considered these as strongholds. The intent of mosaicos is to operate at a larger scale and coordinate the management of government protected areas, neighboring indigenous territories and protected area buffer zones. Within the Brazilian Amazon, 4 large mosaicos were included in the list of strongholds: 1 (Eastern Amazonia) included mosaico da Amazônia Oriental; 3 (Apui–Southern Amazon) included two mosaicos, Apui and the mosaico da Amazônia Meridional; and 6 (Mamiráua–Amanã–Jaú–Unini) included mosaico Baixo Rio Negro.

Fig 3 illustrates the 14 identified strongholds (average size = 69,808 km 2 ) mapped onto the geographic distribution of ecological integrity across the basin. However, unlike in Central Africa, we did not use the boundaries of the KLCs [ 81 ] to define the conservation landscape. As in Central Africa, our intent was to compare the ecological integrity of strongholds to the matrix in which they were embedded, but the KLCs defined in Amazonia were very large and together covered much of the Amazon basin. Accordingly, Fig 3 plots the boundaries of each conservation landscape as an arbitrarily defined 60 km buffer around that stronghold (see S2 Text ). In all cases, CII values of strongholds were greater than that of the surrounding landscape.

Nature’s Strongholds embedded within conservation landscapes in Amazonia, mapped onto ecological integrity of the region. Data layers used listed in S2 Text . AOI, area of interest.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.g003

To make the case that strongholds are more ecologically intact than the surrounding landscapes, we used principal component analysis to compare, for all 1 km grid cells, the CII, the standard deviation of the CII, and the land areas with values scaled to have a mean of 0 and a variance of 1 (see S2 Text and S4 Table ). As in the Central Africa case study, principal component 1 is a function of high intactness (CII = 0.956, SD (CII) = −0.953, land area = 0.08), and principal component 2 is almost completely dominated by the size of the land area (land area = 0.996, SD (CII) = 0.087, CII = 0.003). The ovals in Fig 4 highlight the distribution of points in the stronghold class and the surrounding landscape class. They illustrate the degree of separation (not a statistical representation), the tendency for strongholds to be more ecologically intact than the surrounding landscape, and for larger strongholds to be more ecologically intact than smaller strongholds. These observations were confirmed using paired t tests, which indicated that strongholds have both a higher average ecological integrity and a lower variance in ecological integrity than the surrounding matrix (see S2 Text ). We also confirmed that conservation landscapes that contained identified strongholds are more ecologically intact than the Amazon basin as a whole. The idea that Nature’s Strongholds and conservation landscapes are important for biodiversity conservation in the Amazon basin is suggested by strongholds having a higher ecological integrity, which infers a higher biodiversity value than the matrices in which they are embedded, and conservation landscapes (strongholds and surrounding matrices) have a higher ecological integrity than the Amazon basin as a whole (see S2 Text and S5 Table ).

Principal component analysis for Strongholds (filled squares, dashed oval) and surrounding conservation landscapes (filled circles, solid oval). Principal component 1 (PC1), which is most heavily weighted towards the CII, is plotted against principal component 2 (PC2), which is most heavily weighted towards land area. CII, Contextual Intactness Index.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.g004

Another proxy for biodiversity and its distribution relative to strongholds and conservation landscapes is provided by Wallace and colleagues [ 82 ]. Although these authors did not focus on strongholds per se, they examined the geographic distribution of amphibian, mammal, and bird diversity in the GBMF conservation landscapes (termed “mosaics,” as distinct from Brazilian mosaicos). Documenting species occurrence in the Amazon remains incomplete, but the authors, based on the geo-referenced occurrences of species across the region, concluded that mosaics were disproportionately important for conserving biodiversity: “the 12 conservation mosaics cover 53.84% of the Amazon basin [but] are expected to hold 3,836 species, representing 66.64% of Amazon species.”

Planning at the scale of Nature’s Strongholds

NGOs are increasingly organizing their area-based conservation efforts at the scale and complexity of strongholds. For example, the WCS and the World Wide Fund for Nature have structured their terrestrial area-based work around the conservation of large landscapes, which typically extend beyond parks and protected areas, encompassing a diverse range of land use categories [ 78 ]. This approach emphasizes the ecological integrity of these areas, that their conservation has consequences for nature and people, and that these large areas serve to protect and maintain a number of values, including biodiversity, watersheds, carbon stocks and sinks, traditional cultures, and human livelihoods.

Another example of planning at the scale and complexity of strongholds is provided by the German “Legacy Landscapes Fund” [ 79 ]. Legacy Landscapes are terrestrial areas across the globe that are larger than 2,000 km 2 , are ecologically intact, and are home to globally important biodiversity. Selected Legacy Landscapes receive significant long-term financing (1 million dollars a year for a minimum of 15 to 30 years). The Legacy Landscapes program explicitly recognizes the need to provide this financing at large, spatial scales. Each Legacy Landscape comprises a core protected area that covers at least 1,000 km 2 (or at least 50% of the entire landscape), is IUCN Category I/II or equivalent, along with contiguous land categories such as community managed conservation areas, and/or other contiguous protected areas with a different IUCN status.

Range-wide priority setting for species-specific conservation efforts typically plan at this scale. A global conservation plan for jaguars identified 51 “jaguar conservation units” (JCUs), large, spatially defined areas with viable populations, often in and around protected areas. JCUs averaged over 25,000 km 2 in size [ 90 ]. In a different socioeconomic and ecological context, Walston and colleagues [ 91 ] identified 42 “source sites” across the present range of tigers. Source sites were largely protected areas and defined as having the potential to maintain >25 breeding females, with the area having a conservation infrastructure and the legal mandate for protection. Their average size was 2,100 km 2 . Source sites offered the potential for tigers to expand across the wider landscape.

Managing Nature’s Strongholds

Conservation management of potentially multiple categories of PCAs across large areas will require the integration of conservation planning systems and the administrative and participatory mechanisms to coordinate management. Some of the challenges to doing this are at least partly technical, such as ensuring that key indicators of management effectiveness are defined appropriately and measured at the appropriate scale [ 69 ]. Other challenges include the need to involve a wide range of stakeholders and secure approval for conservation action. To do so will require the engagement of carefully nested stakeholder groups, operating within individual jurisdictions and across the Nature’s Stronghold as a whole. Preventing takeover by a few powerful interest groups will require constant oversight and ensuring efficient and equitable engagement over a wide area will be challenging. Similarly, planning will need to take place at a wider level than hitherto, including with respect to current and future climate change. None of this is revolutionary, the tools and methods exist, but they have seldom been applied at this scale [ 92 ].

These are the challenges faced by the “Mosaicos de unidades de conservação” within the Brazilian national system of protected areas, which provide a pertinent example of how to approach the scaled-up management of multiple PCAs, often comprising different land categories. Mosaicos are spatially organized collections of different land use categories under different jurisdictions (see Case Study 2). When the Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação was established, Article 26 of the 2000 Law 9.985 stated: “when there is a set of conservation units of different categories or not, close, juxtaposed or overlapping, and other public or private protected areas, constituting a mosaico, the management of the group should be carried out in an integrated and participatory manner, considering its different conservation objectives, in order to make the presence of biodiversity, the enhancement of socio-diversity and sustainable development in the regional context compatible.” The intent was to enable management integration across much larger areas and create economies of scale. For example, one of the oldest and most consolidated mosaicos in the Brazilian Amazon is the Lower Rio Negro mosaico, which includes 11 PCAs (national parks, sustainable development reserves, environmental protection areas, state parks, and extractive reserves) in 6 Amazonas municipalities covering an area of 74,128 km 2 [ 93 ]. To date, conservation management has depended on strengthening systems within each PCA, but to improve management effectiveness across the whole mosaico, the governmental Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade has recently established councils and management units (Núcleos de Gestão Integrada) for each.

Extending the Nature’s Strongholds approach to other regions

Conserving at the scale of Nature’s Strongholds will support the efforts of governments and the conservation community to align and coordinate protection over the larger areas that are needed to address the global threats to biodiversity stemming from the loss and degradation of Nature. We have provided examples in Central Africa and Amazonia. Characteristics of strongholds will vary with the ecosystem, the size and spatial distribution of PCAs, the fragmentation or degree of continuity of natural habitats in the landscape, the spatial pattern of ecological integrity, and the existing governance and management regimes. The example of mosaicos in Brazil illustrates how the size of strongholds might vary. While the 4 mosaicos in the Brazilian Amazon are large (averaging 56,303 km 2 , with a median size of 50,876 km 2 ), the 22 terrestrial mosaicos from other regions and ecosystems in Brazil average 8,960 km 2 , with a median size of 3,785 km 2 .

Identifying Nature’s Strongholds remains a work in progress, and also depends on advances in land-use planning, restoration of degraded sites, and the establishment of equitable and effective conservation management. The approach is clearly most suited to areas that contain large, connected areas of natural habitat with existing areas under conservation management, and is least applicable in scattered, fragmented ecosystems with a variety of different land uses. There are, for example, areas of Europe and Central Asia where large semi-natural areas still exist, such as the Carpathian and Caucasus mountains, and large, sparsely populated areas of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan [ 94 , 95 ]. A combination of strategic land purchase and negotiated agreements with governments and other landowners could create conservation areas at scale. The expansion of deer, wolf, jackal, and lynx throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia shows the potential for large-scale wildlife conservation in these areas [ 96 ].

Conclusions

In this Essay, we argue that to meet the GBF’s 30x30 target, conservation areas need to be large enough to encompass functioning ecosystems and their associated biodiversity, and located in areas of high ecological integrity. Often, this will require well-connected aggregations of effectively managed and equitably governed PCAs, embedded in a larger conservation landscape. We have provided a framework to identify these areas, which we call Nature’s Strongholds, which have the characteristics of large size, interconnected PCAs, high ecological integrity, and effective management and good governance.

We interpret these characteristics in the context of Central Africa and Amazonia and identify strongholds within these 2 regions. Other strongholds might be included in the future if PCAs meet criteria of ecological integrity, adequate funding, management effectiveness, and good governance. When applying the approach to other regions, the specific characteristics used to identify strongholds will vary with the size and spatial distribution of PCAs, the matrix in which they are embedded (including patterns of ecological integrity), and management and governance regimes.

Governmental, non-governmental, and civil society organizations engaged with area-based conservation are increasingly planning and coordinating across large areas, multiple jurisdictions, and a diversity of management authorities. Management at this scale and degree of complexity, while challenging, will allow authorities to effectively contribute to biodiversity conservation and promote adaptation to climate change.

Supporting information

S1 table. size, mean, and standard deviation of contextual intactness index (cii) for key landscapes for conservation (klcs) (excluding pcas in identified strongholds) and pcas in central africa..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.s001

S2 Table. Size, mean, and standard deviation of Contextual Intactness Index (CII) for Key Landscapes for Conservation (KLCs) (including all PCAs in identified strongholds) in Central Africa.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.s002

S3 Table. Present distribution and abundances of forest elephants and great apes across Nature’s Strongholds in Central Africa.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.s003

S4 Table. Size, mean, and standard deviation of Contextual Intactness Index (CII) for Amazonian strongholds and the surrounding landscapes (considered separately).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.s004

S5 Table. Size, mean, and standard deviation of Contextual Intactness Index (CII) for Amazonian strongholds and the surrounding landscapes (considered together).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.s005

S1 Text. Identifying Key Conservation Landscapes and Nature’s Strongholds in Central Africa.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.s006

S2 Text. Identifying Conservation Landscapes and Nature’s Strongholds in Amazonia.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613.s007

Acknowledgments

The authors thank a large number of field-based colleagues in Central Africa and Amazonia who helped classify conservation areas and thus define strongholds, David Wilkie for insights on how good governance is defined, Conrad Aveling for providing perspective on the criteria that the European Union used to define Key Landscapes for Conservation, and he and Mélanie Weynants for providing updated polygons for these landscapes.

• 1. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Final text of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, 2020. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/gbf/ .
• 2. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Summary of the Tenth Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010. Available from: https://enb.iisd.org/vol09/enb09544e.html .
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 7. Nature Needs Half. 2017 [cited 2023 Sep 12] Available from: https://natureneedshalf.org .
• 8. EO Wilson Biodiversity Foundation. Half-Earth Project, 2017 [cited 2022 Mar 3]. Available from: www.eowilsonfoundation.org/half-earth-project .
• 10. Executive order on tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad. 2021. [cited 2023 Sep 12]. Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/ .
• 11. High Ambition Coalition. 2022. [cited 2023 Sep 12]. Available from: https://www.hacfornatureandpeople.org/home .
• 12. Global Ocean Alliance: 30by30 initiative. 2021. [cited 2023 Sep 12]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/global-ocean-alliance-30by30-initiative .
• 13. The largest ever private funding commitment to biodiversity conservation. Protecting our Planet Challenge. 2021. [cited 2023 Sep 12]. Available from: https://www.protectingourplanetchallenge.org/ .
• 15. MacArthur RL, Wilson EO. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1967.
• 25. Hilty J, Worboys GL, Keeley A, Woodley S, Lausche B, Locke H, et al. Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series, No. 30; 2020.
• 29. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN): World Commission on Protected Areas, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), National Geographic Society (NGS), UN Environmental Programme (UNEP): World Conservation Monitoring Center, BirdLife International, 2021. Conserving at least 30% of the planet by 2030 –What should count? Available from: https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/what_counts_en_web_07sep2021.pdf .
• 37. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Recognizing and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures. Available from: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48773 .
• 48. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: resolution, 2007. UN General Assembly A/RES/61/295. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf .
• 49. Leopold A. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1949.
• 64. Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F, Dudley N, Courrau J. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas. 2nd ed. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK; 2006.
• 68. Stolton S, Dudley N, Hockings M. METT Handbook: A guide to using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT). Gland, Switzerland: WWF; 2021.
• 72. Franks P, Small R. Social Assessment for Protected Areas (SAPA). Methodology Manual for SAPA Facilitators. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED); 2016.
• 73. Brooker F, Franks P. Governance Assessment for Protected and Conserved Areas (GAPA). Methodology manual for GAPA facilitators. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED); 2019.
• 74. Detoeuf D, Wieland M, Cowles P, Wilkie D. Natural Resource Governance Tool, Version 2. Bronx, NY: Wildlife Conservation Society and Washington, D.C.: USAID; 2020.
• 77. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas, Ver 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2016.
• 78. Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Nature’s Strongholds. [cited 2023 Sep 12]. Available from: https://www.wcs.org/our-work/strongholds .
• 79. Legacy Landscapes Fund. [cited 2023 Sep 12]. Available from: https://legacylandscapes.org .
• 80. Union European. Larger than Elephants: Inputs for an EU strategic approach to wildlife conservation in Africa, 2015 Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development. ISBN 978-92-79-49564-9. https://doi.org/10.2841/909032
• 81. Union European. Larger than Jaguars: Inputs for a strategic approach to biodiversity conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN 978-92-76-17345-8. https://doi.org/10.2841/760354
• 82. Wallace R, Torrico O, Porcel Z, Domic E. Terrestrial vertebrate biological diversity in twelve Andes-Amazon conservation mosaics. La Paz, Bolivia: Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Wildlife Conservation Society; 2020.
• 86. World Bank. Collaborative Management Partnership: Toolkit. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group; 2021. Available from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/global-wildlife-program/publication/collaborative-management-partnership-toolkit .
• 88. Thouless CR, Dublin HT, Blanc JJ, Skinner DP, Daniel TE, Maisels F, et al. African Elephant Status Report 2016: an update from the African Elephant database. Gland, Switzerland: Occasional Paper Series of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, No. 60 IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group; 2016.
• 89. Rainer H, White A, Lanjouw A, editors. State of the Apes: Killing, capture, trade and conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2021.
• 93. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Protected Areas. In: OECD Environmental performance reviews: Brazil; 2015. p. 231–261. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264240094-12-en

Biodiversity and ecosystems

Related sdgs, protect, restore and promote sustainable use ....

Description

Publications.

The Sustainable Development Goal 15 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is devoted to “protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss” .

At the Rio+20 Conference, Member States reaffirmed, through paragraphs 197- 204 of the outcome document, the Future We Want, that “intrinsic value of biological diversity, as well as the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its critical role in maintaining ecosystems that provide essential services, which are critical foundations for sustainable development and human well-being” . Member States also recognized “the severity of global biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems” and stress the negative impact that this situation has on food security, nutrition, access to water, health of the rural poor and people worldwide” .

Furthermore, the Future We Want reiterated the importance of implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, and achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets adopted at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention.

Biodiversity was discussed by the Commission on Sustainable Development on several occasions, and was one of the themes of the 2012/2013 two-year cycle.

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg 2002, biological diversity was addressed in Chapter IV, paragraph 44, of the outcome of the Summit, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. The Summit also endorsed the target to achieve, by 2010, a significant reduction of the rate of biodiversity loss at global, regional and national levels as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth, which had some months earlier been adopted by the sixth meeting of the CBD Conference of Parties (COP).

Conservation of biological diversity is the subject of Chapter 15 of Agenda 21 which was adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in 1992, in Rio de Janeiro. On the same occasion, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), was opened for signature and remained open for signature until 4 June 1993. By that time, it had received 168 signatures. The Convention entered into force on 29 December 1993, 90 days after the 30th ratification. The first session of the Conference of the Parties was scheduled for 28 November – 9 December 1994 in the Bahamas.

For more information and documents on this topic, please visit this link .

Publication - Making Peace with Nature A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies

Part I of the report addresses how the current expansive mode of development degrades and exceeds the Earth’s finite capacity to sustain human well-being. The world is failing to meet most of its commitments to limit environmental damage and this increasingly threatens the achievement of the Sustain...

The Future is Now: Science for Achieving Sustainable Development (GSDR 2019)

The Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR ) originated in the Rio + 20 outcome, when Member States were laying the groundwork for the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The negotiators knew that the Agenda would be complex, and unprecedented in ambition, and that the tra...

Publication - Pathway for Increasing Nature-Based Solutions in NDCs

Climate change and biodiversity loss result in profound societal and economical risks. At the COP21 in Paris in December 2015, Parties to the UNFCCC decided to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change through the adoption of the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement aims to acce...

Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom, We recognize that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for su...

Synthetic Biology

Synthetic biology falls within the scope of biotechnology, as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity i.e. “... any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use.” Synthetic biology...

How Sectors can Contribute to Sustainable Use and Conservation of Biodiversity

Biodiversity is an important element of our natural capital.Ongoing loss of biodiversity as a result of a short-term focus has to be halted in view of long-term responsibilities and benefits. A focus on the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in primary sectors will help to realize ...

Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health

Biodiversity, ecosystems and the essential services that they deliver are central pillars for all life on the planet, including human life. They are sources of food and essential nutrients, medicines and medicinal compounds, fuel, energy, livelihoods and cultural and spiritual enrichment. They also ...

SIDS Partnerships Briefs - Oceans, Seas & Biodiversity

THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES (SIDS Conference) will be held from 1 to 4 September 2014 in Apia, Samoa, with the overarching theme as "The sustainable development of small island developing States through genuine and durable partnerships". The SIDS Conference ...

China Sustainable Development Report 2013 - the road to ecological civilization: the next decade

Thailand: supporting sustainable development in thailand: a geographic clusters approach.

Market forces and government policies, including the Tenth National Development Plan (2007-2012), are moving Thailand toward a more geographically specialized economy. There is a growing consensus that Thailand’s comparative and competitive advantages lie in amenity services that have high reliance...

Mexico: Low-carbon Development for Mexico

The Low carbon Development for Mexico report by ESMAP, provides an analysis of how Mexico is able to substantially reduce its carbon emissions whilst at the same time growing the economy. The document begins by asserting that low]carbon development is indeed possible in Mexico however there are man...

Ukraine: OECD Investment Policy Reviews: Ukraine 2011

The 2011 OECD Investment Policy Review of Ukraine assesses the country’s ability to comply with the principles of liberalisation, transparency and nondiscrimination and to bring its investment policy closer to recognised international standards such as the OECD Declaration on International Investmen...

1st Plenary

In accordance with General Assembly resolution A/CONF.223/2024/INF/1, the first plenary meeting, the Conference will elect the President of the Conference and hear statements in the following order: the President of the Conference, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the President of the Ge

2022 SDGs Learning, Training and Practice

Please, watch the recordings of all sessions here.   Introduction The United Nations high-level political forum on sustainable development (HLPF) in 2022 will be held from Tuesday 5 July to Thursday 7 July, and from Monday 11 July to Friday 15 July 2022, under the auspices of the Econ

LAUNCH OF E-LEARNING COURSE ON HARNESSING CLIMATE AND SDGs SYNERGIES

The world community faces major crises at the same time: The global COVID-19 public health crisis is worsening in many countries, causing loss of life, human suffering, and economic and social stress at levels not seen in decades. There is continued poverty in many countries across the world, with i

United Nations Summit on Biodiversity

Biodiversity: the ocean’s role.

Marine life, the world’s climate, our economy and social well-being depend on the existence of a healthy ocean. Although some improvements have been observed, recent assessments show that the Ocean continues to be exploited in an unsustainable manner. Climate change and competition for natural resou

UNEP Environment Assembly

United nations forum on forests, fourteenth meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity (cop14), expert group meeting on sustainable development goal 15: progress and prospects.

In preparation for the 2018 HLPF, the Division for Sustainable Development Goals of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DSDG-DESA) organized an Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on SDG 15 and its role in advancing sustainable development through implementation of the 2030 Agenda, in partnership

• January 2015 SDG 15- Biodiversity Among the multiple challenges to sustainable development enumerated in paragraph 14 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a particular attention is devoted to natural resources depletion and the adverse impacts of environmental degradation, including loss of biodiversity. Through paragraph 33, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development focuses on the linkage between sustainable management of the planet’s natural resources and social and economic development and reaffirms the determination of Member States to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife. In the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals, SDG 15 aims to “protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”. In particular, SDG target 15.5 reads “take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species”.
• January 2012 Future We Want (Para 197-204) Biodiversity is the subject of Paragraphs 197- 204 of Future We Want. In that context, Member States reaffirm the “intrinsic value of biological diversity, as well as the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its critical role in maintaining ecosystems that provide essential services, which are critical foundations for sustainable development and human well-being”. Member States also recognize “the severity of global biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems” and stress the negative impact that this situation has on food security, nutrition, access to water, health of the rural poor and people worldwide”. Future We Want also reiterates the commitment of Member States in the achievement of the three objectives enunciated in the Convention on Biological Diversity and reaffirms, through paragraph 198, the importance of implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, and achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets adopted at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention.
• January 2011 UN Decade on Biodiversity With the adoption of Resolution 65/161, the UN General Assembly declared the period 2011-2020 to be “the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity, with a view to contributing to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity for the period 2011-2020”. The Decade has been established in order to support the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and promote its overall vision of living in harmony with nature. It has aimed at mainstreaming biodiversity at different levels. Throughout the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity, governments have been encouraged to develop, implement and communicate the results of national strategies for implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity.
• January 2011 CSD-19 (Chap.2) Biodiversity was discussed by the Commission on Sustainable Development on several occasions and was one of the themes of the 2012/2013 two-year cycle. CSD-19 was held in May 2011 to negotiate policy options related to the thematic cluster for the CSD 18-19 cycle: transport, chemicals, waste management, mining and the Ten-Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP) on Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) Patterns.
• January 2010 International Year of Biodiversity The United Nations declared 2010 as International Year of Biodiversity to highlight the crucial role that biodiversity has in the lives of each individual, raise awareness of the actions taken by people worldwide to fight against biodiversity loss and increase understanding of the vital role that biodiversity plays in sustaining life on Earth.
• January 2002 JPOI (Chap. 4) In 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, in Johannesburg, addresses biological diversity in Chapter 4, paragraph 44, of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. The Johannesburg Summit also endorses the target to achieve, by 2010, a significant reduction of the rate of biodiversity loss at global, regional and national levels as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth, which had some months earlier been adopted by the sixth meeting of the CBD Conference of Parties (COP).
• January 2001 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was launched in 2000 with the aim of appraising the impact that ecosystem change have on human well-being and of identifying the scientific basis for action to ensure a better conservation and sustainable use of these systems.
• January 1992 Agenda 21 (Chap.15) Chapter 15 is devoted to conservation of biological diversity and is intended "to improve the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of biological resources, as well as to support the Convention on Biological Diversity".
• January 1992 UN CBD The Convention on Biological Diversity was inspired by the rising commitment of the International Community towards sustainable development. It represents a historical step forward in the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, as well as the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

GLOWING GLOWING GONE - Message from Ambassador Peter Thomson, UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Ocean

My hometown in the South Pacific is surrounded on three sides by a coral barrier reef. That reef is our true interface with the Ocean and the protection it provides, along with its wide navigable passage, is the very reason our town exists in the first place. I find it incredibly difficult to imagin

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Proc Biol Sci
• v.283(1844); 2016 Dec 14

Biodiversity and human well-being: an essential link for sustainable development

Shahid naeem.

1 Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA

Robin Chazdon

2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA

J. Emmett Duffy

3 Tennenbaum Marine Observatories Network, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013, USA

Case Prager

4 Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 4R2

As society strives to transition towards more sustainable development pathways, it is important to properly conceptualize the link between biodiversity (i.e. genes, traits, species and other dimensions) and human well-being (HWB; i.e. health, wealth, security and other dimensions). Here, we explore how published conceptual frameworks consider the extent to which the biodiversity–HWB links are being integrated into public discourse and scientific research and the implications of our findings for sustainable development. We find that our understanding has gradually evolved from seeing the value of biodiversity as an external commodity that may influence HWB to biodiversity as fundamental to HWB. Analysis of the literature trends indicates increasing engagement with the terms biodiversity , HWB and sustainable development in the public, science and policy spheres, but largely as independent rather than linked terms. We suggest that a consensus framework for sustainable development should include biodiversity explicitly as a suite of internal variables that both influence and are influenced by HWB. Doing so will enhance clarity and help shape coherent research and policy priorities. We further suggest that the absence of this link in development can inadvertently lead to a ratcheting down of biodiversity by otherwise well-meaning policies. Such biotic impoverishment could lock HWB at minimum levels or lead to its decline and halt or reverse progress in achieving sustainable development.

1. Introduction

For several decades, world governments and policy bodies have been on a course of attempting to improve human well-being (HWB) through the stated intention of sustainable development, which includes improved education, health and environmental quality [ 1 – 9 ], although often to the exclusion of family planning and the demographic dividend (i.e. economic benefits associated with changes in age structure that occur when birth and death rates decline) in policy development [ 10 , 11 ]. Although biodiversity has long been considered integral to this sustainable development agenda [ 4 , 12 – 15 ], its relationship to HWB has not been systematically explored. As Seddon et al . [ 9 ] note, effective conservation, restoration and sustainable practice rest heavily on how clearly the science and policy spheres understand biodiversity's many values. Our motivation here is, through a systematic exploration of the current literature, examining its trends, its findings and its frameworks, to provide such clarity. Our focus, however, is specifically on biodiversity's values as they relate to improving HWB, the stipulated goal of sustainable development. Understanding the link between biodiversity and HWB is important as both parameters are undergoing considerable change.

Biodiversity , ecosystem functioning , ecosystem services and human well-being are widely used terms, though how they are defined, unfortunately, varies among sectors, sometimes generating confusion. Biodiversity is most commonly defined as the variability among living organisms from all sources including taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity and the ecological complexes of which they are part [ 16 ]. Though complex in definition, global syntheses focusing on species or other components have documented widespread loss of biodiversity [ 17 – 21 ]. Every ecosystem features key functions such as primary production and nutrient cycling, which give rise to ecosystem services that improve HWB, such as the provisioning of clean water, fertile soils, timber and capture fisheries [ 9 , 22 – 27 ].

HWB , like biodiversity [ 28 ], is a multidimensional construct that includes both subjective (e.g. how happy are you on a scale of 1–4) as well as objective measures (e.g. access to medical care) [ 29 , 30 ]. HWB has eluded any universal definition because of this multidimensionality [ 30 ]; it encompasses concepts of knowledge, friendship, self-expression, affiliation, bodily integrity, economic security, freedom, affection, wealth and leisure [ 31 ]. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), for example, considered HWB to consist of five dimensions or elements: (i) basic material for a good life, (ii) security, (iii) health, (iv) good social relations, and (v) freedom of choice and action [ 2 ]. There are, however, many other subjective and objective variables that can be included [ 32 , 33 ]. In a review of HWB indices, for example, Smith et al . [ 32 ] identified 799 indicator variables, many of which relate to the MA's five HWB pillars.

Ecosystem functions and services are shaped by their biodiversity; it is intuitive that HWB and biodiversity should be linked. To date, two alternative (though not mutually exclusive) perspectives on the relationship between biodiversity and HWB have shaped public discourse and scientific research. One perspective emphasizes that human or economic development, in which natural, human, social and other capital stocks are marketed to produce flows of desired economic outputs, comes at the price of biodiversity loss. Such human development is often motivated by aspirations to improve HWB, but over recent history, this development has come at the expense of natural capital which has declined while other forms of capital, such as financial, social and built, have increased [ 34 – 36 ]. Indeed, processes directly and indirectly associated with declines in biological diversity have largely driven human colonization and development of civilizations on all continents since the Early- to Mid-Holocene about 5000–7000 yr ago [ 37 – 39 ]. These processes include conversion of natural habitats to agriculture [ 40 – 42 ], unsustainable exploitation of living resources [ 43 ], alteration of biogeochemical cycles [ 44 ], substitution of native and wild by exotic and domesticated species [ 45 ], freshwater appropriation and impoundment [ 46 ], human appropriation of primary production [ 47 – 49 ] and other human activities that generally lead to biodiversity loss [ 18 , 27 , 50 – 52 ]. More specifically, much of this biodiversity loss is linked directly to the explosive growth over recent decades in global trade in basic commodities, such as coffee, tea, sugar, textiles and fish [ 43 , 53 ]. This causal chain that links human development, biodiversity and HWB can be illustrated as follows:

where parenthetical signs indicate increases (+) or decreases (−). This perspective has been concerned with biodiversity primarily as an external variable of unspecified, intrinsic value that is essentially affected as collateral damage during human development processes.

The second, newer perspective, emphasizes biodiversity as the foundation of a system that produces HWB via its positive effects on ecosystem function [ 9 , 54 – 61 ]. This can be illustrated as follows:

As we will show below, these two different perspectives lead to different frameworks which can generate confusion across sectors.

2. Biodiversity and human well-being linkages in existing conceptual frameworks

Because biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, ecosystem services and HWB are complex constructs, there are many linkages among them that makes the simultaneous consideration of all four constructs challenging. Figure 1 , for example, considers just eight dimensions of biodiversity, four dimensions of ecosystem functioning, three dimensions of ecosystem services and four dimensions of HWB for two development pathways, which, in theory, consists of 768 (8 × 4 × 3 × 2) possible outcomes for a single change in biodiversity for a minimal set of dimensions for the four constructs. The frameworks we review seek ways to simplify these linkages.

Linking economic development (sustainable or unsustainable), biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, ecosystem services and HWB. Biodiversity is illustrated centrally as a multidimensional construct (top, central green box) in which a biota varies in its diversity of genes, traits, species, and other dimensions. This biodiversity undergoes collective change (decline to the left, increase to the right), each dimension changing as described to the left (declining) or right (increasing) depending on management (unsustainable to the left, sustainable to the right) or other human interventions. The characteristics of these changes for each dimension are described in the boxes left and right of the biodiversity box. Change results in biodiversity-poor ecosystems (left, top) or biodiversity-rich ecosystems (right, top). Research has demonstrated, though results vary and knowledge gaps remain, that change in each dimension has different impacts on the magnitudes and stability of ecosystem functions which alter properties of ecosystems, as described in the top, left and top, right boxes. Development that leads to biodiversity-poor ecosystems results in a net loss and destabilization of ecosystem processes (left, white box) attributable to increases or decreases in ecosystem functions, only four of which are shown with up or down arrows to indicate increases or decreases. The converse occurs where development leads to biodiversity-rich ecosystems (right, white box). These contrasting changes in ecosystem functions lead to differences in ecosystem service delivery (boxes adjacent to bottom central box). Biodiversity-poor systems (e.g. monoculture production landscapes or collapsed open ocean fisheries) provide short-term, unstable increases in provisioning services with concomitant in regulating and cultural services (left). The converse occurs in systems managed to sustain biodiversity (right). HWB experiences change in its many components, here categorized as security, materials for a good life, all dimensions of mental and physical health, and good social relations in a stable and productive society. (Online version in colour.)

Theoretical and empirical support are the strongest for the relationships among taxonomic, functional and to a limited extent, phylogenetic diversity and ecosystem function [ 9 , 28 , 56 , 57 , 61 , 62 ]. There are, however, considerable knowledge gaps on the links between biodiversity and ecosystem services [ 58 , 61 , 63 ]. Trade-offs and synergies among linkages are also poorly studied [ 55 , 64 , 65 ] (see, also, the literature survey, below). To the best of our knowledge, complete, quantitative studies that link biodiversity and HWB via ecosystem functions and services, have yet to be done, let alone tests of 768 possible outcomes of the minimal set of dimensions illustrated in figure 1 .

In spite of the limited research on the linkages and outcomes illustrated in figure 1 , several conceptual frameworks have nevertheless been developed ( figure 2 ). In many frameworks, biodiversity is conceptualized as an external commodity influencing HWB, similar to clean air and water, or as a source of materials (e.g. pharmaceuticals, genetic resources for plant and animal breeding), recreation or other values [ 9 ]. Thus, HWB is not seen as something that emerges from biodiversity but as an amalgam of many factors of which biodiversity is just one that may provide positive physical and mental benefits [ 74 ] and be a source of resilience for ecosystem services important to HWB [ 75 – 78 ]. As such, HWB is an integrative construct similar to the total economic value or the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity [ 9 ].

Conceptual frameworks. Shown are published frameworks that include biodiversity and HWB, explicitly or implicitly. ( a ) Reproduction of a fifteenth century Western understanding of the relationship between humans and nature (adapted from [ 66 ]). ( b ) The DPSIR framework (adapted from [ 67 – 69 ]). ( c ) The MA framework (adapted from [ 2 ]). ( d ) The IPBES framework (adapted from [ 70 – 72 ]). ( e ) Adapted from Mace et al . [ 63 ]. ( f ) Adapted from Rogers et al . [ 33 ] framework based on the construct of healthy ecosystems . ( g ) The safe planetary boundaries framework (adapted from [ 73 ]) currently uses the term ‘biotic integrity’ which implicitly refers to biodiversity, thus we have placed the term parenthetically in the framework. Likewise, we have placed HWB parenthetically in the framework taking the zones to implicitly reflect elements of HWB. Note that, to improve readability and reduce clutter, we have extracted only the core elements of each framework, focusing specifically on biodiversity (green boxes), human or economic development that is usually associated with drivers of change (red boxes), ecosystem services (yellow boxes) and HWB (brown boxes), leaving out complex features such as scale and tabulations of specific elements of biodiversity and HWB or examples of ecosystem services and ecosystem functions. Our purpose here is to show the multiplicity of ways in which biodiversity and HWB are related to one another by different frameworks, but these frameworks serve to illustrate many other relationships among a larger number of factors than we address here. See text for further explanation. (Online version in colour.)

On the other hand, more complex linkages between humanity and nature have long been recognized, such as seen in Robert Fludd's sixteenth century illustration ( figure 2 a ). In his figure, humanity is seen as small and primitive but sitting atop a world structured by air, minerals and Earth's biota. Though his world was ruled by nature, seen as a nurturing force, nature in turn was ruled by God. Thus, HWB was largely seen as a matter of fate, the outcome of processes outside human influence, but our connections to nature were clear [ 66 , 79 ].

More contemporary scientific frameworks vary in their inclusion of biodiversity and HWB. Tapio & Willamo [ 67 ], for example, examined several environmental protection frameworks which emphasize human drivers or pressures that lead to environmental problems and adverse impacts on health, air, water and biodiversity. These impacts in turn elicit human responses designed to correct environmental problems. The driving forces–pressures–state–impacts–responses (DPSIR) framework [ 67 – 69 ] shown in figure 2 b sees human development as the source of pressures that affect the environment that in turn affect HWB.

The MA [ 2 ], built on a decade of research into the functional importance of biodiversity [ 80 ] to provide a radically new perspective in positioning biodiversity as the foundation for ecosystem functioning and the services it provides ( figure 2 c ). Here, biodiversity is illustrated as an all-encompassing factor that mediates ecosystem functions which influence HWB through the services biodiversity generates.

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) [ 70 – 72 ] adopted a framework that incorporated elements of both the MA and the driver-impact-response framework. Biodiversity is combined with ecosystems and subsumed under the banner of ‘Nature’, whose sole output is ‘Nature's Benefits to People’ ( figure 2 d ).

Mace et al . [ 63 ] addressed the confusion created by assessment frameworks, such as the MA, that saw biodiversity as both a driver of ecosystem functioning and an ecosystem service itself. Their solution was to embed biodiversity across a four-part framework ( figure 2 e ), making it at once a regulator of ecosystem functions (processes), an ecosystem service and an ecosystem good.

Rogers et al . [ 33 ] embed biodiversity into the construct of healthy ecosystems ( figure 2 f ). In this framework, biodiversity becomes a biotic factor, which coupled with abiotic factors collectively determines the flow of goods and services that influences HWB. HWB itself is treated in a separate framework and seen as an eight-dimensional construct, comprising both subjective and objective variables, one of which, stable ecosystems , includes biodiversity.

Finally, in a break from the box-and-arrow approach of most frameworks, the safe planetary boundaries framework [ 4 , 73 , 81 ] focuses on a limited set of key threats to the integrity of planetary processes and implicitly HWB ( figure 2 g ). The original framework labelled one boundary ‘biodiversity loss’, but it is now labelled ‘biosphere integrity’, which is divided into functional and genetic diversity and offers the Biodiversity Intactness Index [ 82 ] and extinction rates (extinctions/million-species-years) as possible metrics for each, respectively.

This multiplicity of views illustrates widespread consensus on the links between biodiversity and HWB, but it also generates confusion.

3. Public and scientific uptake of the biodiversity–human well-being linkages

The link between biodiversity and HWB became a focus of public discourse and scientific research in the early 1990s following the Brundtland Report [ 1 ], and the United Nations (UN). Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The latter event also marked the launch of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the UN Conventions on Biological Diversity and to Combat Desertification, all seen as landmarks in the rise of sustainable development as a societal paradigm. As described in the previous section, environmental frameworks always couple biodiversity and HWB, but not in consistent ways. Frameworks have also been developed separately by the research and policy sectors, and sometimes by both, which influences their accessibility and uptake by different sectors. Biodiversity is variously considered an externality, a driver or a diffuse variable, embedded in one or more parts of a framework. These deliberations beg the following question: given its ubiquity and variability in conceptual frameworks, how has the biodiversity–HWB link been taken up in public discourse and scientific research?

To address this question, we used text product databases as proxy measures of public discourse and scientific research. Using the LexisNexis Academic database, we quantified public discourse by tallying the number of text products, consisting of general news pieces (e.g. web-based publications, newspaper articles, law review articles, magazine articles) that referenced the following search terms: biodiversity , human well-being or human wellbeing , sustainable development , biodiversity and human well-being or human wellbeing , biodiversity and sustainable development , human well-being or human wellbeing and sustainable development , and biodiversity and human well-being or human wellbeing and sustainable development . As the number of text products returned for the single terms biodiversity and sustainable development from 1991 to 2014 exceeded the LexisNexis Academic limit on products retrieved (1000), we recorded the number of publications on the first day of each month and then summed and averaged those tallies, multiplying the end result by 365 to create an estimate of the number of products in a given year (we assumed there were no calendar biases such as spikes on the first day of the month or at the end of the year). For scientific research, we tallied peer-reviewed scientific publications in the ISI Web of Science database using the same term list, though LexisNexis required sampling to determine product output while ISI provided direct counts. We anchored our analyses to the base year 1985, a few years prior to the surge of interest generated by the Brundtland Report [ 1 ] and the 1992 Earth Summit. We note that focus on text products ignores other media that can be fairly important, such as film, video and other non-literary art forms.

There are several striking features from the results of these text product analyses. First, public discourse shows an unprecedented, exponential rise in public engagement with the terms sustainable development and biodiversity that exceeded three orders of magnitude ( figure 3 , top), with the rise levelling by the mid-1990s around 10 5 text products per year. This rise is possibly even more striking given that we do not include non-text-based products. Currently, an average of 350 text products published each day uses the single term sustainable development and around 200 products everyday uses biodiversity . By contrast, HWB as a single term rises more slowly with current daily output of roughly fewer than 3 per day.

The literature survey. Shown are the log-transformed results of the literature searches for articles from 1985 to present mentioning the terms sustainable development, biodiversity and HWB, as well as their combinations. Two databases were used ( a ) LexisNexis, serving as a proxy for public discourse and ( b ) ISI Web of Science serving as a proxy for scientific research. See text for search protocol.

Products that use any combination of terms have shown substantially lower engagement with most multi-term text products currently showing outputs of about 100 per year, the notable exception being products that use biodiversity + sustainable development . The lowest outputs are products using all three terms. Joint use of biodiversity and HWB has the rarest occurrence of two terms combined.

Scientific research shows a similar pattern to that of public discourse ( figure 3 , bottom). Not surprisingly, biodiversity occurs in scientific products more than any other term or set of terms as opposed to sustainable development in the public discourse products. That the magnitudes for the scientific literature outputs are substantially lower than text product outputs in public discourse is not surprising as it reflects the larger volume of text outputs in public discourse. Similar to public discourse, however, the number of papers that use combinations of the three terms are an order of magnitude lower than those that use the terms singly, whereas those using all three terms are rare. Joint use of biodiversity and HWB is roughly indistinguishable from the joint use of any other pair.

4. Discussion and synthesis

The fact that biodiversity and HWB are linked is well established. However, it appears from our brief surveys of frameworks and the literature that our present understanding of this link is variously posited as:

• — biodiversity is a foundation of ecosystem processes/functions—its decline impairs the magnitude and stability of ecosystem functions that, in turn, adversely affects HWB. Indeed, Seddon et al . (this special feature [ 9 ]), propose biodiversity services as an alternative to ecosystem processes to emphasize biodiversity's foundational role;
• — biodiversity is a product of ecosystem functioning—healthy ecosystems support more biodiversity;
• — biodiversity is an environmental commodity, like clean air and water;
• — biodiversity is intrinsically an ecosystem service—it is an ecosystem property we value in its own right; and
• — biodiversity can be an element of HWB, like social cohesion, happiness and connections to nature, for some people and some cultures.

While these views are not mutually exclusive, they can differently influence public discourse (perceptions, actions and policy) as well as scientific research. Based on the literature trends, summing over the period between 1985 and 2014, the majority of our public discourse (99.2%) and research papers (99.3%) considers biodiversity, HWB and sustainable development as isolated constructs. The literature sources considering two of these terms were often an order of magnitude less common than those using terms singly, and those that considered all three terms together were rare ( figure 3 ). There may be more overlap among these constructs than our methods detect depending on authors' selections of key words and terms, but given the high percentage (more than 90%), our findings are likely to be qualitatively accurate. It is also, perhaps, not surprising that individual terms may be used in isolation initially and collectively at a later time when integration occurs, which would explain the slower rise in multiple usages.

5. Synthesis

Our brief review reveals a range of perspectives on the linkage between biodiversity and HWB, and calls for a more coherent and unified framework. In figure 4 , we present a unified framework that includes both the effects of human development on biodiversity and well-being and feedbacks from biodiversity to HWB. From this unified framework, it becomes clear that development will be sustainable when it strives to minimize harmful feedbacks, and ideally turns them into beneficial feedbacks by restoring biodiversity where it has been degraded. Rather than allowing natural capital (e.g. fossil fuels, soil, non-renewable minerals, old-growth forest, bushmeat and fish stocks) to be spent down by unsustainable development practices, we can insure long-term environmental sustainability by developing strategies for sustainable agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fisheries. These strategies, along with monitoring and tracking, should be adaptive and integrated. The SDGs, for example, could better meet their 2030 targets by greater integration of biodiversity into the 17 goals rather than separating them into 15 goals concerning HWB and only two concerning biodiversity (see also Seddon et al . [ 9 ]).

Simplified framework for sustainable development. This conceptual framework combines causalities from models 1 to 3 (see Introduction) and ideas captured in conceptual frameworks presented in figure 2 by establishing feedbacks from biodiversity to HWB. These feedbacks can be direct, where people appreciate biodiversity for its tangible (e.g. birding or snorkelling) or less tangible (e.g. inspirational or aesthetic) cultural values, or indirect, via the stable provisioning of ecosystem goods and services at magnitudes that support HWB. Sustainable development strives to optimize increases in HWB with the maintenance and restoration of biodiversity, establishing a positive feedback. Note that unsustainable development leads to a reduction in biodiversity, benefits derived from cultural values of biodiversity and HWB illustrated as smaller boxes than the bottom illustration for sustainable development. Note also that the safe space, illustrated as the yellow and green regions in the circular areas under the magnitude and stability of ecosystem functions, goods and services, also shrinks under unsustainable development. (Online version in colour.)

In seeking to maximize gains in HWB, distinguishing between achieving a robust versus fragile state of HWB is important (e.g. ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ well-being as described by [ 83 ]). A fragile state of HWB is one focused primarily on securing the immediate survival needs of people affected by poor nutrition, clean water shortage and poverty (akin to the physiological needs in Maslow's hierarchy of human needs [ 84 ]), while a robust state of HWB is one that achieves minimums, is resistant to shocks, and has the potential to rise above minimums. Whether one subscribes to an optimistic or pessimistic view for likely future trends in HWB, current levels of poverty, hunger and water scarcity call for urgent actions to improve and reduce inequality in HWB as quickly as possible. Focusing on securing minimum levels of HWB, however, may mean securing just enough biodiversity to insure minimum levels in the psychological, physiological, social, aesthetic, heath, material benefits and ecological resiliency biodiversity provides (i.e. the MA's 4 pillars of HWB [ 85 ]). In the interim, however, if biodiversity loss is prevalent and irreversible, then moving to a more robust state and higher levels of HWB could be untenable.

This scenario in which urgency necessitates immediate pursuit of minimal HWB that allows for further losses in biodiversity that, in turn, leads to further declines in HWB, yields a dynamic in which biodiversity is steadily ratcheted downward. The possibly that a threshold exists and is crossed in which ecosystem functions and services change dramatically becomes increasingly likely in the face of this biodiversity–HWB ratchet. Given the relationship between biodiversity and poverty alleviation (Roe et al . this special feature [ 86 ]), this ratcheting down of biodiversity could co-ratchet poverty upward.

An alternative approach is to focus on achieving a robust state of HWB, one that leads to the preservation or retention of biodiversity. This alternative approach follows the strategies of prudent businesses that employ the precautionary principle; invest some part of their profits in protecting their capital through insurance, security, and research and development. In the same way that a prudent business is pre-adapted to future change in markets, an ecosystem rich in diversity is one that is pre-adapted to future environmental change. To maintain the ecosystem services on which HWB depends, we need to develop policy that requires investment (and/or conservation) to protect and value the forms of natural capital that generate those services.

The biodiversity–HWB ratchet is avoidable through better understanding and communicating the biodiversity–HWB link. The two frameworks we present in figure 4 , for example, include safe planetary boundaries that draw attention to pursuing strategies for sustainable development that emphasize maintaining levels of biodiversity that are not minimally sufficient to get the job done, but sufficient to ensure robust Earth-system function. Building public discourse and research on the biodiversity–HWB link, promoting robust HWB and addressing the feedbacks, benefits and trade-offs associated with biodiversity-based HWB (e.g. [ 87 ]) are all important steps towards sustainable development.

6. Conclusion

Although both HWB and biodiversity are multidimensional constructs that can be difficult to define and quantify, their linkage must be a central feature of any conceptual framework that informs sustainable development. Biodiversity, however, is often seen as a diffuse agent, and often its importance is implied rather than explicitly incorporated. In this review, we find that biodiversity, HWB and sustainable development are typically treated in isolation and their linkages are neglected. A more robust framework would include both the effects of development on HWB and biodiversity, as well as feedbacks ( figure 4 ). While there may appear to be some circularity in advocating biodiversity conservation to improve HWB and improving HWB to conserve biodiversity, the story is more complex. First, the biodiversity–HWB ratchet described above points to the threat of diversity levels becoming low enough to cross threshold levels and trigger potentially irreversible and detrimental changes in ecosystem processes, services and HWB. Second, there are ethical arguments against human transformations at scales that jeopardize earth-system functioning. Finally, human appropriation of natural resources needs to be controlled in order to secure biodiversity levels sufficient to insure robust levels of HWB that are well above minimums. Improved conceptual frameworks, and the discourse and research they instigate can help shape a sustainable development agenda that goes beyond securing immediate survival needs to create a society that values the restoration of biodiversity as both a base condition and a product of improved HWB.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Nathalie Seddon, S. F. Tjossem, the Naeem-Palmer lab group at Columbia University and three anonymous reviewers for their invaluable input.

Authors' contributions

S.N. compiled the initial outline; C.P. conducted the literature review, and all authors contributed equally to the development of the paper.

Competing interests

We have no competing interests.

No funding has been received for this article.

Why is biodiversity important?

Biodiversity is essential for the processes that support all life on Earth, including humans. Without a wide range of animals, plants and microorganisms, we cannot have the healthy ecosystems that we rely on to provide us with the air we breathe and the food we eat. And people also value nature of itself.

Some aspects of biodiversity are instinctively widely valued by people but the more we study biodiversity the more we see that all of it is important – even bugs and bacteria that we can’t see or may not like the look of. There are lots of ways that humans depend upon biodiversity and it is vital for us to conserve it. Pollinators such as birds, bees and other insects are estimated to be responsible for a third of the world’s crop production. Without pollinators we would not have apples, cherries, blueberries, almonds and many other foods we eat. Agriculture is also reliant upon invertebrates – they help to maintain the health of the soil crops grow in.  Soil is teeming with microbes that are vital for liberating nutrients that plants need to grow, which are then also passed to us when we eat them. Life from the oceans provides the main source of animal protein for many people.

Trees, bushes and wetlands and wild grasslands naturally slow down water and help soil to absorb rainfall. When they are removed it can increase flooding. Trees and other plants clean the air we breathe and help us tackle the global challenge of climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide. Coral reefs and mangrove forests act as natural defences protecting coastlines from waves and storms. 

Many of our medicines, along with other complex chemicals that we use in our daily lives such as latex and rubber, also originate from plants. Spending time in nature is increasingly understood to lead to improvements in people’s physical and mental health. Simply having green spaces and trees in cities has been shown to decrease hospital admissions, reduce stress and lower blood pressure.

Further reading

Plural valuation of nature matters for environmental sustainability and justice by Berta Martin-Lopez, Social-Ecological Systems Institute, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany

Climate change and biodiversity

Human activities are changing the climate. Science can help us understand what we are doing to habitats and the climate, but also find solutions.

Email updates

We promote excellence in science so that, together, we can benefit humanity and tackle the biggest challenges of our time.

Subscribe to our newsletters to be updated with the latest news on innovation, events, articles and reports.

What subscription are you interested in receiving? (Choose at least one subject)

• Show search

Perspectives

The Science of Sustainability

Can a unified path for development and conservation lead to a better future?

October 13, 2018

• A False Choice
• Two Paths to 2050
• What's Possible
• The Way Forward
• Engage With Us

The Cerrado may not have the same name recognition as the Amazon , but this vast tropical savannah in Brazil has much in common with that perhaps better-known destination. The Cerrado is also a global biodiversity hotspot, home to thousands of species only found there, and it is also a critical area in the fight against climate change, acting as a large carbon pool.

But Brazil is one of the two largest soy producers in the world—the crop is one of the country’s most important commodities and a staple in global food supplies—and that success is placing the Cerrado in precarious decline. To date, around 46% of the Cerrado has been deforested or converted for agriculture.

Producing more soy doesn’t have to mean converting more native habitat, however. A new spatial data tool is helping identify the best places to expand soy without further encroachment on the native landscapes of the Cerrado. And with traders and bankers working together to offer preferable financing to farmers who expand onto already-converted land, Brazil can continue to produce this important crop, while protecting native habitat and providing more financial stability for farmers.

The Cerrado is just one region of a vast planet, of course, but these recent efforts to protect it are representative of a new way of thinking about the relationship between conservation and our growing human demands. It is part of an emerging model for cross-sector collaboration that aims to create a world prepared for the sustainability challenges ahead.

Is this world possible? Here, we present a new science-based view that says “Yes”—but it will require new forms of collaboration across traditionally disconnected sectors, and on a near unprecedented scale.

Download a PDF version of this feature. Click to see translated versions of this page.

I.  A False Choice

Many assume that economic interests and environmental interests are in conflict. But new research makes the case that this perception of development vs. conservation is not just unnecessary but actively counterproductive to both ends. Achieving a sustainable future will be dependent on our ability to secure both thriving human communities and abundant and healthy natural ecosystems.

The Nature Conservancy partnered with the University of Minnesota and 11 other organizations to ask whether it is possible to achieve a future where the needs of both people and nature are advanced. Can we actually meet people’s needs for food, water and energy while doing more to protect nature? 

The perception of development vs. conservation is not just unnecessary, but actively counterproductive to both ends.

To answer this question, we compared what the world will look like in 2050 if economic and human development progress in a “business-as-usual” fashion and what it would look like if instead we join forces to implement a “sustainable” path with a series of fair-minded and technologically viable solutions to the challenges that lie ahead.

In both options, we used leading projections of population growth and gross domestic product to estimate how demand for food, energy and water will evolve between 2010 and 2050. Under business-as-usual, we played out existing expectations and trends in how those changes will impact land use, water use, air quality, climate, protected habitat areas and ocean fisheries. In the more sustainable scenario, we proposed changes to how and where food and energy are produced, asking if these adjustments could result in better outcomes for the same elements of human well-being and nature. Our full findings are described in a peer-reviewed paper— “An Attainable Global Vision for Conservation and Human Well-Being” —published in  Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment .

These scenarios let us ask, can we do better? Can we design a future that meets people’s needs without further degrading nature in the process?

Our answer is “yes,” but it comes with several big “ifs.” There is a path to get there, but matters are urgent—if we want to accomplish these goals by mid-century, we’ll have to dramatically ramp up our efforts now. The next decade is critical.

Furthermore, changing course in the next ten years will require global collaboration on a scale not seen perhaps since World War II. The widely held impression that economic and environmental goals are mutually exclusive has contributed to a lack of connection among key societal constituencies best equipped to solve interconnected problems—namely, the public health, development, financial and conservation communities. This has to change.

The good news is that protecting nature and providing water, food and energy to a growing world do not have to be either-or propositions. Our view, instead, calls for smart energy, water, air, health and ecosystem initiatives that balance the needs of economic growth and resource conservation equally. Rather than a zero-sum game, these elements are balanced sides of an equation, revealing the path to a future where people and nature thrive together.

II. Two Paths to 2050

This vision is not a wholesale departure from what others have offered. A number of prominent scientists and organizations have put forward important and thoughtful views for a sustainable future; but often such plans consider the needs of people and nature in isolation from one another, use analyses confined to limited sectors or geographies, or assume that some hard tradeoffs must be made, such as slowing global population growth, taking a reduction in GDP growth or shifting diets off of meat. Our new research considers global economic development and conservation needs together, more holistically, in order to find a sustainable path forward.

What could a different future look like? We’ve used as our standard the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 measures for “a world where all people are fed, healthy, employed, educated, empowered and thriving, but not at the expense of other life on Earth.” Our analysis directly aligns with ten of those goals. Using the SDGs as our guideposts, we imagine a world in 2050 that looks very different than the one today—and drastically different from the one we will face if we continue in business-as-usual fashion.

A sustainable future is possible.

To create our assessment of business-as-usual versus a more sustainable path, we looked at 14 measurements including temperature change, carbon dioxide levels, air pollution, water consumption, food and energy footprints, and protected areas.

Over the next 30 years, we know we’ll face rapid population growth and greater pressures on our natural resources. The statistics are sobering—with 9.7 billion people on the planet by 2050, we can expect a 54 percent increase in global food demand and 56 percent increase in energy demand. While meetings these growing demands and achieving sustainability is possible, it is helpful to scrutinize where the status quo will get us.

The World Health Organization, World Economic Forum and other leading global development organizations now say that air pollution and water scarcity—environmental challenges—are among the biggest dangers to human health and prosperity. And our business-as-usual analysis makes clear what many already fear: that human development based on the same practices we use today will not prepare us for a world with nearly 10 billion people.

To put it simply, if we stay on today’s current path, we risk being trapped in an intensifying cycle of scarcity—our growth opportunities severely capped and our natural landscapes severely degraded. Under this business-as-usual scenario, we can expect global temperature to increase 3.2°C; worsened air pollution affecting 4.9 billion more people; overfishing of 84 percent of fish stocks; and greater water stress affecting 2.75 billion people. Habitat loss continues, leaving less than 50 percent of native grasslands and several types of forests intact.

However, if we make changes in where and how we meet food, water and energy demands for the same growing global population and wealth, the picture can look markedly different by mid-century. This “sustainability” path includes global temperature increase limited to 1.6°C—meeting Paris Climate Accord goals—zero overfishing with greater fisheries yields, a 90 percent drop in exposure to dangerous air pollution, and fewer water-stressed people, rivers and agricultural fields. These goals can be met while natural habitats extend both inside and outside protected areas. All signatory countries to the Aichi Targets meet habitat protection goals, and more than 50 percent of all ecoregions’ extents remain unconverted, except temperate grasslands (of which over 50 percent are already converted today).

Behind the Science

Discover how TNC and its partners developed the models for 2050.

III. What's Possible

Achieving this sustainable future for people and nature is possible with existing and expected technology and consumption, but only with major shifts in production patterns. Making these shifts will require overcoming substantial economic, social and political challenges. In short, it is not likely that the biophysical limits of the planet will determine our future, but rather our willingness to think and act differently by putting economic development and the environment on equal footing as central parts of the same equation.

Climate, Energy and Air Quality

Perhaps the most pressing need for change is in energy use. In order to both meet increased energy demand and keep the climate within safe boundaries, we’ll need to alter the way we produce energy, curtailing emissions of carbon and other harmful chemicals.

Under a business-as-usual scenario, fossil fuels will still claim a 76 percent share of total energy in 2050. A more sustainable approach would reduce that share to 13 percent by 2050. While this is a sharp change, it is necessary to stanch the flow of harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The reduction in carbon-based energy could be offset by increasing the share of energy from renewable sources to 54 percent and increasing nuclear energy to one third of total energy output—delivering a total of almost 85 percent of the world’s energy demand from non-fossil-fuel sources.

Additionally, we will only achieve the full extent of reduced climate impacts if we draw down existing carbon from the atmosphere. This can be done through greater investment in carbon capture and storage efforts, including natural climate solutions—land management strategies such as avoiding forest loss, reforestation, investments in soil health and coastal ecosystem restoration.

The net benefit of these energy redistribution efforts is twofold. First, they lower the rate at which greenhouse gases are flowing into the air—taking atmospheric carbon projections down to 442 parts per million, compared to business-as-usual estimates that put the level closer to 520 ppm.

Second, these energy source shifts would create a marked decline in particulate air pollution. Our models show that the higher fossil fuel use in the business-as-usual scenario is likely to expose half the people on the planet to poorer air quality by 2050. Under the sustainable scenario, that figure drops to just 7 percent of the world’s inhabitants, thanks to lower particulate emissions from renewable and nuclear energy sources.

Case Studies: 

• Forests That Fight Climate Change: Brazil’s Serra da Mantiqueira region demonstrates how reforestation can tackle climate change, improve water supplies, and increase incomes in rural communities.  Learn More
• Can Trees Be a Prescription for Urban Health?:  Conservationists, community organizations and public health researchers joined forces to plant trees in Louisville, Kentucky and monitor their impact on air quality and residents’ health.  Learn More

Food, Habitat and City Growth

Meeting the sustainable targets we propose requires a second front on land to shift how we use available real estate and where we choose to conduct necessary activities. Overall, the changes we include in our more sustainable view allow the world to meet global food, water and energy demands with no additional conversion of natural habitat for those needs—an outcome that is not possible under business as usual.

While transitioning away from fossil fuels is essential to meet climate goals, new renewable energy infrastructure siting will present land-use challenges. Renewable energy production takes up space, and if not sited well it can cause its own negative impacts on nature and its services to people. In our more sustainable path, we address this challenge by preferencing the use of already converted land for renewables development, lessening the impact of new wind and solar on natural habitat. We also exclude expansion of biofuels, as they are known to require extensive land area to produce, causing conflicts with natural habitat and food security.

Perhaps most encouraging, we show that it is possible to meet future food demands on less agricultural land than is used today. Notably, our scenario keeps the mix of crops in each growing region the same, so as not to disrupt farmers’ cultures, technologies, capacity or existing crop knowledge. Instead, we propose moving which crops are grown where within growing regions, putting more “thirsty” crops in areas with more water, and matching the nutrient needs of various crops to the soils available.

Unlike some projections used by others, for this scenario we left diet expectations alone, matching meat consumption with business-as-usual expectations. If we were able to reduce meat consumption, especially by middle- and high-income countries where nutritional needs are met, reducing future agricultural land, water and pollution footprints would be even easier.

Meanwhile, on the land protection front, our analysis is guided by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the leading global platform most countries have signed. Each signatory country has agreed to protect up to 17 percent of each habitat type within its borders. While many countries will fall short of this goal under business as usual, it can be achieved in our more sustainable option.

By making changes in food, water and energy use, we can better protect nearly all habitat types.

We acknowledge 17 percent is an imperfect number, and many believe more natural habitat is needed to allow the world’s biodiversity to thrive. Looking beyond protected areas, we see additional differences in the possible futures we face. Our more sustainable option retains 577 million hectares more natural habitat than business as usual, much of it outside of protected areas. Conservation has long focused on representation—it is not only important to conserve large areas, but to represent different kinds of habitat. Under business as usual, we will lose more than half of several major habitat types by mid-century, including temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, Mediterranean forest, and temperate grassland. Flooded and tropical grasslands approach this level of loss as well.

But with the proposed shifts in food, water and energy use, we can do better for nearly all habitats in our more sustainable scenario. The one exception is temperate grasslands, a biome that has already lost more than 50 percent of its global extent today. In all, the more sustainable scenario shows a future that would be largely compatible with emerging views that suggest protecting half of the world’s land system.

 Case Study:

• Managing Sprawling Soy:  A partnership between businesses and nonprofit groups in Brazil will help farmers plant soy in the areas where it is has the smallest impact on natural habitats.  Learn More

Drinking Water, River Basins and Fisheries

Water presents a complex set of challenges. Like land, it is both a resource and a habitat. Fresh water resources are dwindling while ocean ecosystems are overburdened by unregulated fishing and pollution. Business-as-usual projections estimate that 2.75 billion people will experience water scarcity by 2050 and 770 water basins will experience water stress. Africa and Central Asia in particular would see fewer water stressed basins in the sustainable scenario.

Changes in energy sources and food production (see above sections) would lead to significant water savings by reducing use of water as a coolant in energy production and by moving crops to areas where they need less irrigation. Thanks to these changes, our more sustainable option for the future would relieve 104 million people and biodiversity in 25 major river basins from likely water stress.

Meanwhile, in the seas, we find an inspiring possibility for fisheries. Continuing business-as-usual fisheries management adds further stress to the oceans and the global food system as more stocks decline, further diminishing the food we rely on from the seas. But more sustainable fisheries management is possible, and our projections using a leading fisheries model shows that adopting sustainable management in all fisheries by mid-century would actually increase yield by over a quarter more than we saw in 2010.

And, while we know that aquaculture is a certain element of the future of fish and food, many questions remain about precisely how this industry will grow, and how it can be shaped to be a low-impact part of the global food system. Given these unknowns, we kept aquaculture growth the same in both our views of the future.

 Case Studies:

• Cities and Farmers Find Common Ground on Water: Smarter agricultural practices in the Kenya’s Upper Tana River Watershed are resulting in better yields for farmers and more reliable water supplies for the city of Nairobi.  Learn More
• Technology Offers a Lifeline for Fish:  A new mobile application being piloted in Indonesia is helping fill a crucial gap in fisheries management—providing accurate data about what species are being caught where.  Learn More

IV.  The Way Forward

This analysis does not represent a panacea for the growing need for economic development across the planet or for the environmental challenges that are ahead. But it does provide an optimistic viewpoint and an integrated picture that can serve as a starting point for discussion.

Our goal is to apply new questions—and ultimately new solutions—to our known problems. We present one of many possible paths to a different future, and we welcome like-minded partners and productive critics to share their perspectives with us. We encourage people from across society to join the conversation, to fill gaps where they exist, and to bring other important considerations to our attention. Most of all, we call on the development (e.g. energy, agriculture, infrastructure), health, and financial communities—among others—to work with us to find new ways of taking action together.

Ultimately, by illustrating a viable pathway to sustainability that serves both the needs of economic and environmental interests—goals that many have long assumed were mutually exclusive—we hope to inspire the global community to engage in the difficult but necessary social, economic and political dialogue that can make a sustainable future a reality.

Protecting nature and providing water, food and energy to the world can no longer be either-or propositions. Nature and human development are both central factors in the same equation. We have at our disposal the cross-sector expertise necessary to make informed decisions for the good of life on our planet, so let’s use it wisely. Our science affirms there is a way.

Join us as we chart a new path to 2050 by helping people and nature thrive—together.

Testimonials

Opportunities to Engage

Designing strategies to address global challenges for people and nature requires integration of diverse bodies of evidence that are now largely segregated. As actors across the health, development and environment sectors pivot to act collectively, they face challenges in finding and interpreting evidence on sector interrelationships, and thus in developing effective evidence-based responses.

Learn more about these emerging coalitions that offer opportunities to engage and connect with shared resources.

Bridge Collaborative

The Bridge Collaborative unites people and organizations in health, development and the environment with the evidence and tools to tackle the world’s most pressing challenges. Learn More

Science for Nature and People Partnership

SNAPP envisions a world where protecting and promoting nature works in concert with sustainable development and improving human well-being. Learn More

Wicked Econ Fest

Wicked Econ Fests are workshops between leading economics, finance, conservation and policy experts to tackle specific, decision-driven challenges. Learn More

Global Insights

Check out our latest thinking and real-world solutions to some of the most complex challenges facing people and the planet today. Explore our Insights

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 13 May 2021

Biodiversity conservation as a promising frontier for behavioural science

• Kristian Steensen Nielsen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8395-4007 1 ,
• Theresa M. Marteau   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3025-1129 2 ,
• Jan M. Bauer 3 ,
• Richard B. Bradbury   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1245-2763 1 , 4 ,
• Steven Broad   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1826-6400 5 ,
• Gayle Burgess 5 ,
• Mark Burgman 6 ,
• Hilary Byerly   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7445-2099 7 ,
• Susan Clayton 8 ,
• Dulce Espelosin 9 ,
• Paul J. Ferraro   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4777-5108 10 ,
• Brendan Fisher 11 , 12 ,
• Emma E. Garnett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1664-9029 1 , 13 ,
• Julia P. G. Jones 14 ,
• Mark Otieno 15 , 16 ,
• Stephen Polasky   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4934-2434 17 , 18 ,
• Taylor H. Ricketts 11 , 12 ,
• Rosie Trevelyan 19 ,
• Sander van der Linden   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0269-1744 20 ,
• Diogo Veríssimo 21 &
• Andrew Balmford 1  

Nature Human Behaviour volume  5 ,  pages 550–556 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

23k Accesses

51 Citations

123 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental studies
• Human behaviour
• Psychology and behaviour
• Sustainability

Human activities are degrading ecosystems worldwide, posing existential threats for biodiversity and humankind. Slowing and reversing this degradation will require profound and widespread changes to human behaviour. Behavioural scientists are therefore well placed to contribute intellectual leadership in this area. This Perspective aims to stimulate a marked increase in the amount and breadth of behavioural research addressing this challenge. First, we describe the importance of the biodiversity crisis for human and non-human prosperity and the central role of human behaviour in reversing this decline. Next, we discuss key gaps in our understanding of how to achieve behaviour change for biodiversity conservation and suggest how to identify key behaviour changes and actors capable of improving biodiversity outcomes. Finally, we outline the core components for building a robust evidence base and suggest priority research questions for behavioural scientists to explore in opening a new frontier of behavioural science for the benefit of nature and human wellbeing.

Similar content being viewed by others

Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism

The evolution and future of research on Nature-based Solutions to address societal challenges

Contributions of human cultures to biodiversity and ecosystem conservation

A recent global synthesis estimates that 75% of Earth’s land surface has been fundamentally altered by human activities, 66% of the ocean has been negatively affected, and 85% of wetland areas have been lost 1 . The combined effects of land-use change and habitat fragmentation, overharvesting, invasive species, pollution and climate change have resulted in an average decline in monitored populations of vertebrates of nearly 70% since 1970 and extinction rates that are orders of magnitude higher than the average seen in the geological record 2 , 3 , 4 . The threats to species are so severe that there is growing scientific consensus that we are entering the sixth mass extinction—the fifth being the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago that eliminated all non-avian dinosaurs 5 .

The rapid degradation of ecosystems and associated loss of species is of profound importance for at least three reasons. First, there are powerful moral arguments that people should not cause the avoidable extinction of perhaps one million or more species 6 . It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe such arguments, but philosophers have discussed the ethics of biodiversity conservation 7 , 8 , 9 and social scientists have identified public support for assigning moral value to nature 10 , 11 , 12 . Second, human prosperity depends on wild habitats and species for a host of essential benefits, from climate regulation, biogeochemical and flood regulation to food production and the maintenance of mental wellbeing 13 , 14 . Their deterioration thus presents an existential challenge 1 . Third, evidence suggests that pandemics resulting from greater disease transmission between humans and wild animals 15 , 16 will become more regular features of the future unless our interactions with wild species changes fundamentally 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 . The COVID-19 pandemic—with devastating effects on societies and economies worldwide—most probably emerged from interactions between people and wild animals in China and illustrates the unforeseen consequences that can arise from human encroachment into wild habitats and from poorly regulated exploitation of biodiversity 17 , 21 .

Humanity’s impacts on biodiversity are the result of our actions, from unsustainable wildlife harvesting to the rising demand for environmentally damaging foods 1 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 . Importantly, these actions are undertaken by actors in myriad roles—including consumers, producers and policymakers—who directly or indirectly impact ecosystems and wild species 26 . For example, the rapid clearance of the Amazon is driven by the actions of consumers across the globe who eat beef, regional policymakers who undervalue forest retention, and ultimately local ranchers who are incentivised to convert forest to pasture 27 , 28 . Similarly, the illegal trade in wildlife (for example, rhino horn, pangolin scales, tiger bones and elephant ivory) involves suppliers who hunt the animals, intermediaries (and perhaps corrupt enforcement agents) who facilitate trade and transport the products to market, and domestic and international consumers 24 , 29 , 30 , 31 . The impacts of people’s behaviour on biodiversity are of course not only manifest in less developed countries. For example, the continued illegal persecution of birds of prey in UK uplands is the result of choices by some gamekeepers to shoot and poison raptors to limit their predation of red grouse, by some hunters to pay exceptionally high prices for large daily ‘bags’ of grouse, and by policymakers to resist attempts at tighter regulation of the shooting industry 32 .

Because human activities are responsible for driving ecosystem decline, reversing current trends will require profound and persistent changes to human behaviour across actors and scales 33 . Despite its critical importance, the science of behaviour change has not been a principal focus of research in conservation science and is rarely applied in practical efforts to address major threats to biodiversity (for example, habitat loss and degradation, overharvesting of resources and species, and invasive species) 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 (A.B. et al., manuscript in preparation). Conservation scientists (defined broadly to include researchers across the natural and social sciences seeking to understand and mitigate these threats) have generally been slow to incorporate evidence from behavioural science into their theories and interventions 33 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 . Conversely, biodiversity conservation has also not been a strong focus of study for behavioural scientists (defined broadly to include those engaged in the scientific study of behaviour across diverse disciplines, including psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology and political science). One exception is research on common-pool resource management and commons dilemmas, which has a long history tracing back to the 1970s 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 . This research tradition has tackled issues closely linked to biodiversity conservation and foreshadows many contemporary and interdisciplinary analyses. More recently, social-marketing techniques have been used to tackle a variety of biodiversity problems and their potential is increasingly recognised 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 . For example, a recent study in the Philippines, Indonesia and Brazil used locally tailored social-marketing campaigns to shift social norms and increase sustainable fishing among communities of small-scale fisheries 50 . But while the number of successful applications of behavioural science to biodiversity conservation is increasing, they remain rare and often suffer from methodological limitations 51 . The conservation evidence base is consequently patchy and generally poorly informed by behavioural science 36 , 52 .

Meanwhile, in other contexts, behavioural science has made substantial gains in understanding how to encourage prosocial behaviour, including actions that ultimately affect biodiversity outcomes. A growing body of research related to climate change suggests the importance of social norms, risk communication, emotion and choice architecture in changing behaviour 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 . Behavioural science has been incorporated into some public efforts to encourage sustainable land management in the United States and the European Union 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 . Nevertheless, there are still few applications of behavioural science to explicitly address the most important proximate causes of biodiversity loss. Behavioural insights from research related to climate change, land management, consumer behaviour, voting, collective action and programme enrolment can inform the multi-scale approach needed to deliver effective biodiversity conservation, but this research has not been systematically linked to address biodiversity conservation problems. Moreover, the literature is heavily focused on households and is not well-developed for other important actors 57 , 63 . We therefore see unrealised potential for behavioural science to address the escalating biodiversity crisis.

Increasing scientific engagement

Behavioural scientists might be motivated to become engaged in biodiversity conservation research for at least three reasons. First, biodiversity conservation is essential for the long-term prosperity of people and nature. Its particular characteristics (see below) mean that it would be unhelpful simply to adopt behaviour-change interventions found effective in other domains: indeed, these do not necessarily generalize to biodiversity conservation 52 , 64 . Instead, the field offers a new arena for exploring important research questions and for testing novel interventions. Behavioural science research that focuses specifically on biodiversity conservation can contribute to the mitigation of a global and existential threat.

Second, engaging in biodiversity conservation research offers behavioural scientists a chance to investigate theories and interventions in new contexts and populations 65 , 66 , 67 . A key requirement for increasing the generalizability of behavioural science is to ramp up research activities outside North America, Australia and Europe 68 , 69 . Due to the importance of the tropics for biodiversity, the focus of many conservation interventions is in Africa, Latin America and Asia, providing opportunities to test theory and interventions in contexts which are less ‘WEIRD’ (western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic). A related challenge is the need to shift behaviours of many different kinds of actors. Behaviour-change interventions in other sectors have been criticised for being too narrowly focused on end-users 70 , 71 : Conservation problems provide opportunities for targeting the behaviours of a far broader array of stakeholders. Moreover, conserving biodiversity often requires coordinated action across local, national and global actors, heterogeneous cultures and divergent financial interests, with the benefits of conservation commonly accruing to geographically and psychologically distant communities and indeed non-human species.

Finally, conservation scientists and practitioners are keen to collaborate more with behavioural scientists 72 , 73 . An increasing number of conservation scientists and practitioners recognise the need for stronger integration with behavioural science in order to design interventions that are grounded in greater understanding of the social, motivational and contextual drivers of people’s actions 33 , 39 , 74 , 75 . Naturally, as with all interdisciplinary collaborations, these collaborations will have their challenges 75 . However, recent examples show that effective collaborations can produce novel and mutually beneficial research that suggests practical routes to achieving behaviour change for biodiversity conservation 50 , 64 , 76 , 77 , 78 .

The remainder of this Perspective seeks to encourage greater engagement of behavioural scientists in conservation-targeted research and practice. We first highlight the diversity of actors involved in threats to biodiversity and the scope of behaviour changes required. In doing so, we propose routes to identifying key behaviour changes and prioritising among them on the basis of their potential for improving biodiversity outcomes. We suggest research questions for better understanding how to influence different actors’ behaviours and for improving conservation interventions, and close by making recommendations for how to expand the conservation evidence base systematically.

Identifying key actors and behaviour changes

Threats to biodiversity are rarely caused by a single action of a single actor. Rather, they typically result from multiple behaviours by multiple actors over large spatial and temporal scales 36 , 79 . It can thus be very challenging to identify those behaviour changes with the greatest promise of being achieved and of positively impacting biodiversity. Doing so requires specifying conservation targets (e.g., particular populations or ecosystems), and then systematically considering the proximate causes and underlying drivers of threats to them, the actors involved (for example, producers and consumers), and the harmful behaviours performed by those actors 26 , 39 , 45 , 80 .

The proximate threats to wild species and the places they live can be categorised into four main groups: habitat loss and degradation, overharvesting, invasive species, and climate change and pollution 81 , 82 , 83 . These threats also interact, with species or ecosystems commonly impacted by multiple threats, sometimes with amplifying effects. For example, the spread of some invasive plants is thought to be exacerbated by elevated nitrogen deposition and atmospheric CO 2 concentrations 84 , 85 . Proximate threats are driven by broader societal processes, including rising demand for food and consumer goods, weak local, national and international institutions that struggle to ensure the protection of public goods (including against corrupt actors), population growth and the growing disconnect of people from nature due to increasing urbanization and indoor recreation 86 . Many of the interventions conservationists deploy to tackle proximate threats, such as removing invasive species, restoring wetlands or propagating threatened species in captivity, are not primarily about changing people’s behaviour (although even in these examples those carrying out the management actions must be trained and incentivised, and behaviours must change if these threats are not to recur). However, given the pervasive importance of human activities in conservation problems, many interventions do involve attempts to alter behaviour. If behavioural science is to improve the effectiveness of these efforts, an important first step is to identify the main actors responsible for a given threat and the changes in their behaviour that might be required to alleviate it.

One tool for mapping the actors and behaviours impacting a conservation target is to build a threat chain (A.B. et al., manuscript in preparation). This is a simplified summary of knowledge of the reasons for the unfavourable status of a species or ecosystem, from changes in ecological dynamics to the socioeconomic mechanisms thought to be responsible, and their underlying drivers. Once this putative causal chain has been constructed, the main actors in the chain can be identified, along with changes in their behaviour that might potentially reduce the particular threat. Where conservation targets are impacted by multiple threats this process can be repeated, with the likely impact of different behaviour changes compared across threats in order to identify the most promising interventions for delivering those changes.

Using Amazon deforestation (as an example of habitat loss) for illustration 27 , 28 (Fig. 1 , red boxes), the extirpation of forest-dependent species and ecosystem processes resulting from conversion to pasture has been caused (inter alia) by a combination of rising global demand for beef, poor pasture and livestock management, the absence of incentives for forest retention and the practice of establishing de facto land tenure via forest clearance. Underlying drivers include weak governance at multiple levels and rising per capita demand for beef among a growing population in Brazil and beyond. Potential behaviour changes that might be targeted to reduce deforestation (blue boxes) include increased enforcement of forest protection legislation by government agencies, improved pasture and stock management by ranchers, a reduction in per capita demand for beef among domestic and international consumers, and an accelerated decline in human population growth in high-consumption countries.

This example characterizes (in red boxes) the threat to the Amazon forest from conversion to cattle pasture. Potentially beneficial changes in the behaviours are in blue boxes. This threat chain addresses only one of several interacting threats impacting the conservation target. The threat chain model is adapted from Balmford et al. 26 .

As a heuristic, we conducted this threat-mapping exercise for 12 examples chosen to represent different threat processes and the diversity of ecological and socioeconomic contexts in which they arise (A.B. et al., manuscript in preparation). We identified nine main clusters of actors (rows in Fig. 2 ), classified by how their behaviour impacts conservation targets. Producers and extractors of natural resources, conservation managers and consumers are commonly identified as targets for behaviour-change interventions in conservation and other sectors. However, we also identified other actor groupings, including manufacturers and sellers, investors, policymakers, voters, communicators and lobbyists, all of whom may have considerable—usually indirect—influences on conservation outcomes, yet are commonly overlooked when it comes to behaviour-change interventions. Because our clusters of actors are operationally defined, they align well with the diversity of behaviour changes we identified (Fig. 2 , right column), including reducing consumers’ purchases of high-footprint items and directing investors’ investments towards less damaging production technologies. Our clusters can also be mapped onto more conventional organisational groups (such as citizens or businesses; Fig. 2 , ‘Actor—defined by group’ columns), but because such organizational groups impact conservation targets in heterogeneous ways, their correspondence with behaviour changes is much weaker than for our typology.

Actors classified according to their behavioural impacts on conservation targets (rows) and by their organizational affiliation. NGO, non-governmental organization.

Prioritising behaviour changes

After examining all major threats to a given conservation target and identifying promising behaviour changes involving specified actors, the next step is to prioritise behaviour changes and, in turn, the interventions potentially capable of achieving them. We suggest this should focus on two main characteristics that together determine the impact of behaviour-change interventions 57 , 87 . The first is the target behaviour’s potential, if changed, to improve the state of the conservation objective (by analogy with the climate change literature, its technical potential). In the Amazon example (Fig. 1 ), both enforcing forest protection laws and providing herd management support that is conditional on ranchers stopping clearance might be considered to have greater technical potential than slowing population growth in beef-consuming countries (which may have only limited effect if per capita demand continues to rise). Prioritising behaviours for research and intervention on the basis of their technical potential—considered an omission in behavioural science contributions to climate change mitigation 57 , 88 , 89 , 90 —ensures that resources and efforts are allocated toward the behaviours with the greatest potential to effectively mitigate biodiversity threats.

The second aspect to consider in prioritization is the behaviour’s plasticity, which refers to the degree to which a target behaviour can be changed by a specified intervention 57 . For example, to what extent can behaviour-change interventions increase the share of plant-based food in overseas or Brazilian diets, or improve the cattle and pasture management of Amazonian farmers? Due to the current paucity of conservation-focused behaviour-change interventions, good estimates of behavioural plasticity will often be lacking. Instead, it will often be necessary to use evidence from interventions targeting comparable behaviours relating to other actors, contexts or domains until more direct data become available 87 . Although considerations of technical potential and behavioural plasticity should guide the selection of behaviours to study and intervene against, we note that additional considerations may become pertinent when selecting interventions for implementation (for example, feasibility, stakeholder support and costs) 91 , 92 , 93 .

Given the range of actors involved in causing ecosystem change and the complexity of their behaviour, standalone behaviour-change interventions are unlikely to effectively mitigate a biodiversity threat (as illustrated in Fig. 1 ). Individual-level interventions—for example, targeting specific farmers, manufacturers, or investors—may well form an important part of the solution, but they will usually be insufficient on their own. For example, successfully incentivising ranchers in one Amazonian municipality to retain their remaining forests will be of little benefit to biodiversity if prevailing market failure or weak institutions continue to incentivise forest clearance elsewhere. Tackling more systemic drivers, such as environmentally damaging subsidy regimes, corporate interests, poor governance and persistent norms, also necessitates population-level interventions that can alter economic systems, institutional systems and physical infrastructure. Importantly, the intent here is not to undermine the legitimacy of individual-level interventions—quite the contrary. Systemic changes also cannot be achieved without individual-level behaviour changes and support 57 , 94 , 95 . Different levels of intervention must work in concert, which requires a holistic understanding of the determinants of human behaviour.

Building a robust evidence base

Generating evidence on behaviour-change interventions for biodiversity conservation demands a mix of methods, including experimental and observational studies using quantitative and qualitative techniques 96 , 97 , 98 . Critically, to build an evidence base, these studies must be based on mapping and synthesizing the existing literature 99 . They also need to be embedded in relevant conceptual or theoretical frameworks, coupled with a theory of change, and designed with the statistical power to answer the study questions. This might include, for example, taking a systems perspective 98 , as well as using a taxonomy or typology of interventions 100 , 101 .

Behavioural responses and the effectiveness of interventions are likely to vary between social and cultural contexts. Assessing the effect size of interventions in different settings will be key to building a robust evidence base that has global application. Improving the cross-cultural profile of behavioural science evidence is thus imperative, and particularly so for biodiversity conservation, where many problems are centred outside Europe and North America. Achieving this will, however, be challenging given that the research capacity in behavioural science remains low in high-income countries and even lower elsewhere. International partnerships will therefore be an important strand of building capacity across regions.

Emergent research questions

Given that behavioural science research into conservation-related problems is still in its infancy, many important questions remain unanswered. In this final section, we outline four higher-order questions that we believe could impact the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing people’s negative impacts on biodiversity, natural habitats and the services provided by ecosystems. While these questions can apply to prosocial behaviour more broadly, we believe that there is considerable merit in tackling them within the context of biodiversity conservation, in part through devising and testing novel interventions in the field. This will necessitate close collaboration between behavioural scientists and conservation scientists and practitioners.

The first research question deals with prioritization. As with climate change interventions, there is a clear need for a more systematic understanding of the technical potential of different behaviour changes: which ones, if delivered, would be most likely to reduce a threat and thereby enhance the status of the conservation target, taking into account other threats it faces 80 , 91 ? Given the focus of many recent environmental interventions on appealing, tractable but relatively low-impact behaviour changes (for example, eating more locally grown food or avoiding plastic drinking straws), such prioritization is badly needed 88 , 90 . One challenge in identifying priorities may be the complexity of conservation outcomes: estimating probable impacts of behaviour changes on highly interconnected ecosystems may be more difficult than impacts on greenhouse gas levels 80 , but we suggest that this is a surmountable problem. A further consideration here is how far a behaviour change addressing one conservation issue might reduce (or indeed increase) threats to other conservation targets 102 .

The remaining research questions are all aimed at improving our understanding of the plasticity of priority behaviours (that is, those with high technical potential to improve biodiversity outcomes 91 ). Our second suggested question is which interventions work best to alter priority behaviours, and how does this vary across contexts? One key aspect is exploring how the suitability of behaviour-change interventions varies with the level of deliberation and perceived importance of the decision being made. Consider contrasting interventions aimed at increasing how often consumers buy sustainably (rather than unsustainably) sourced fish. For someone making a weekly shopping trip such a choice may be performed with limited deliberation, which means that interventions targeting automatic decision-making processes may be effective 103 . However, for other actors, such as supply-chain managers making bulk purchases for supermarkets, different interventions—perhaps motivated by limiting reputational risk—will probably be required. At the level of decision makers designing national or international fisheries policy, other sorts of interventions 104 —potentially linked to cessation or realignment of taxpayer subsidies—might need to be considered.

This example also illustrates our third suggested research question: how does the effectiveness of behaviour-change interventions vary with the financial and psychological costs of the change for the target actor? Differences in motivation will be important here. In some instances, actors may benefit directly from pro-conservation behaviour (for example, because eating more sustainably sourced fish aligns with health values, or keeping their pet cat indoors reduces its risk of injury). But sometimes those choices may carry costs (for example, sustainable seafood may be more expensive or difficult to source). In the case of the supermarket chains, there may be financial and administrative costs to switching suppliers, at least over the short term. Policymakers will also face strong lobbying pressure to continue to support the policy status quo. Clearly, different interventions will be needed across such diverse contexts. Varied interventions may also be needed within actor groups. For example, supermarket chains may differ in their motivations, knowledge, demographics and other interests in ways that warrant different types of behaviour-change interventions.

Lastly, how can practitioners design interventions to ensure that behaviour changes persist over the long term? Although many intervention studies do not evaluate persistence over time, those that do commonly observe that effectiveness wanes 105 , 106 , 107 . In some contexts, it might be possible to design one-off interventions with long-lasting effects, but in others, delivering lasting change may necessitate recurring rounds of intervention or the repeated introduction of novel interventions. Better understanding the persistence of intervention effects will be key to sustaining beneficial behaviour change.

Many more questions will emerge as this field develops. Addressing them will require fresh partnerships and continued commitment to work across disciplines and in unfamiliar circumstances. Such partnerships may follow recommendations for interdisciplinary collaborations around biodiversity conservation 108 , 109 or be inspired by existing programmes and networks (some of which collaborate closely with practitioners), such as the Cambridge Conservation Initiative, Center for Behavioral and Experimental Agri-environmental Research, and Science for Nature and People Partnership. We submit that there are few other opportunities where behavioural scientists have such potential to tackle one of the great challenges of our age. We hope this Perspective can help inspire this critical work.

Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services http://rid.unrn.edu.ar/handle/20.500.12049/4223 (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).

Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. M. Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536 , 143–145 (2016).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Living Planet Report 2020—Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss (WWF, 2020).

Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1 , e1400253 (2015).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R. & Dirzo, R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , E6089–E6096 (2017).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tilman, D. et al. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546 , 73–81 (2017).

Partridge, E. Nature as a moral resource. Environ. Ethics 6 , 101–130 (1984).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ehrenfeld, D. in Biodiversity (ed. Wilson, E. O.) 212–216 (National Academy Press, 1988).

Taylor, P. W. The ethics of respect for nature. Environ. Ethics 3 , 197–218 (1981).

Clayton, S. in The Virtues of Sustainability (ed. Kawall, J.) Ch. 1 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021).

Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 56–62 (2013).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kellert, S. R. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society (Island Press, 1997).

Bratman, G. N. et al. Nature and mental health: an ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 5 , eaax0903 (2019).

Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359 , 270–272 (2018).

Gibb, R. et al. Zoonotic host diversity increases in human-dominated ecosystems. Nature 584 , 398–402 (2020).

Balmford, A., Fisher, B., Mace, G. M., Wilcove, D. S. & Balmford, B. COVID-19: Analogues and lessons for tackling the extinction and climate crises. Curr. Biol. 30 , R969–R971 (2020).

Dobson, A. P. et al. Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention. Science 369 , 379–381 (2020).

Allen, T. et al. Global hotspots and correlates of emerging zoonotic diseases. Nat. Commun. 8 , 1124 (2017).

Morens, D. M., Daszak, P., Markel, H. & Taubenberger, J. K. Pandemic COVID-19 joins history’s pandemic legion. mBio 11 , e00812-20 (2020).

Wilkinson, D. A., Marshall, J. C., French, N. P., Hayman, D. T. S. & Wilkinson, D. A. Habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss and the risk of novel infectious disease emergence. J. R. Soc. Interface 15 , 20180403 (2018).

Mallapaty, S. Where did COVID come from? WHO investigation begins but faces challenges. Nature 587 , 341–342 (2020).

Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515 , 518–522 (2014).

Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 992 , 987–992 (2018).

‘t Sas-Rolfes, M., Challender, D. W. S., Hinsley, A., Veríssimo, D. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Illegal wildlife trade: scale, processes, and governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44 , 201–230 (2019).

Dietz, T. Drivers of human stress on the environment in the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42 , 189–213 (2017).

Balmford, A. et al. Capturing the many dimensions of threat: comment on Salafsky et al. Conserv. Biol. 23 , 482–487 (2009).

Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M. & Almeida, O. T. Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: opportunities for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 20 , 1595–1603 (2006).

zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J. et al. Results from on-the-ground efforts to promote sustainable cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon. Sustainability 10 , 1301 (2018).

MacFarlane, D. et al. Reducing demand for overexploited wildlife products: Lessons from systematic reviews from outside conservation science. Preprint at OSF https://osf.io/preprints/8935b/ (2020).

Thomas-Walters, L. et al. Motivations for the use and consumption of wildlife products. Conserv. Biol. 35 , 483–491 (2021).

Johnson, C. K. et al. Global shifts in mammalian population trends reveal key predictors of virus spillover risk. Proc. R. Soc. B 287 , 20192736 (2020).

Avery, M. Inglorious: Conflict in the Uplands (Bloomsbury, 2015).

Cowling, R. M. Let’s get serious about human behavior and conservation. Conserv. Lett. 7 , 147–148 (2014).

Marselle, M., Turbe, A., Shwartz, A., Bonn, A. & Colléony, A. Addressing behavior in pollinator conservation policies to combat the implementation gap. Conserv. Biol. 35 , 610–622 (2021).

Saunders, C. D. The emerging field of conservation psychology. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 10 , 137–149 (2003).

Google Scholar  

Selinske, M. J. et al. Revisiting the promise of conservation psychology. Conserv. Biol. 32 , 1464–1468 (2018).

Schultz, P. W. Conservation means behavior. Conserv. Biol. 25 , 1080–1083 (2011).

Cinner, J. How behavioral science can help conservation. Science 362 , 889–891 (2018).

Reddy, S. M. W. et al. Advancing conservation by understanding and influencing human behavior. Conserv. Lett. 10 , 248–256 (2017).

Burgess, G. Powers of persuasion? Conservation communications, behavioural change and reducing demand for illegal wildlife products. TRAFFIC Bull. 28 , 65–73 (2016).

Kidd, L. R. et al. Messaging matters: A systematic review of the conservation messaging literature. Biol. Conserv. 236 , 92–99 (2019).

Ostrom, E. et al. The Drama of the Commons (National Academy Press, 2002).

Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P. C. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302 , 1907–1912 (2003).

Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).

Stern, P. C., Young, O. R. & Druckman, D. E. Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions (National Academy Press, 1992).

Veríssimo, D. The past, present, and future of using social marketing to conserve biodiversity. Soc. Mar. Q. 25 , 3–8 (2019).

Veríssimo, D. et al. Does it work for biodiversity? Experiences and challenges in the evaluation of social marketing campaigns. Soc. Mar. Q. 24 , 18–34 (2018).

Green, K. M., Crawford, B. A., Williamson, K. A. & DeWan, A. A. A meta-analysis of social marketing campaigns to improve global conservation outcomes. Soc. Mar. Q. 25 , 69–87 (2019).

DeWan, A., Green, K., Li, X. & Hayden, D. Using social marketing tools to increase fuel-efficient stove adoption for conservation of the golden snub-nosed monkey, Gansu Province, China. Conserv. Evid. 10 , 32–36 (2013).

McDonald, G. et al. Catalyzing sustainable fisheries management though behavior change interventions. Conserv. Biol. 35 , 1176–1189 (2020).

Veríssimo, D. & Wan, A. K. Y. Characterizing efforts to reduce consumer demand for wildlife products. Conserv. Biol. 33 , 623–633 (2019).

Byerly, H. et al. Nudging pro-environmental behavior: evidence and opportunities. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16 , 159–168 (2018).

van der Linden, S., Maibach, E. & Leiserowitz, A. Improving public engagement with climate change: five ‘best practice’ insights from psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10 , 758–763 (2015).

Chapman, D. A., Lickel, B. & Markowitz, E. M. Reassessing emotion in climate change communication. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7 , 850–852 (2017).

Nisa, C. F., Bélanger, J. J., Schumpe, B. M. & Faller, D. G. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nat. Commun. 10 , 4545 (2019).

Valkengoed, A. M. Van & Steg, L. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9 , 158–163 (2019).

Nielsen, K. S. et al. How psychology can help limit climate change. Am. Psychol. 76 , 130–144 (2021).

Dessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J. & van Bavel, R. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 46 , 417–471 (2019).

Palm-Forster, L. H., Ferraro, P. J., Janusch, N., Vossler, C. A. & Messer, K. D. Behavioral and experimental agri-environmental research: methodological challenges, literature gaps, and recommendations. Environ. Resour. Econ. 73 , 719–742 (2019).

Wallen, K. E. & Kyle, G. T. The efficacy of message frames on recreational boaters’ aquatic invasive species mitigation behavioral intentions. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 23 , 297–312 (2018).

Metcalf, A. L., Angle, J. W., Phelan, C. N., Muth, B. A. & Finley, J. C. More ‘bank’ for the buck: microtargeting and normative appeals to increase social marketing efficiency. Soc. Mar. Q. 25 , 26–39 (2019).

Green, K. M., DeWan, A., Arias, A. B. & Hayden, D. Driving adoption of payments for ecosystem services through social marketing, Veracruz, Mexico. Conserv. Evid. 10 , 48–52 (2013).

Stern, P. C. & Dietz, T. A broader social science research agenda on sustainability: Nongovernmental influences on climate footprints. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 60 , 101401 (2020).

Niemiec, R. M., Sekar, S., Gonzalez, M. & Mertens, A. The influence of message framing on public beliefs and behaviors related to species reintroduction. Biol. Conserv. 248 , 108522 (2020).

Watts, D. J. Should social science be more solution-oriented?. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1 , 0015 (2017).

Berkman, E. T. & Wilson, S. M. So useful as a good theory? The practicality crisis in (social) psychological theory. Perspect. Psychol. Sci . https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969650 (2021).

Giner-Sorolla, R. From crisis of evidence to a ‘crisis’ of relevance? Incentive-based answers for social psychology’s perennial relevance worries. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 30 , 1–38 (2019).

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33 , 61–83 (2010).

Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J. & Ginges, J. Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens : making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 11401–11405 (2018).

Ewert, B. Moving beyond the obsession with nudging individual behaviour: towards a broader understanding of behavioural public policy. Public Policy Adm. 35 , 337–360 (2020).

Bhargava, B. S. & Loewenstein, G. Behavioral economics and public policy 102: beyond nudging. Am. Econ. Rev. 105 , 396–401 (2015).

Wright, A. J. et al. Competitive outreach in the 21st century: why we need conservation marketing. Ocean Coast. Manag. 115 , 41–48 (2015).

Veríssimo, D. & McKinley, E. Introducing conservation marketing: why should the devil have all the best tunes? Oryx 50 , 14 (2016).

Nilsson, D., Fielding, K. & Dean, A. J. Achieving conservation impact by shifting focus from human attitudes to behaviors. Conserv. Biol. 34 , 93–102 (2020).

Bennett, N. J. et al. Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conserv. Biol. 31 , 56–66 (2017).

Nelson, K. M., Partelow, S. & Schlüter, A. Nudging tourists to donate for conservation: experimental evidence on soliciting voluntary contributions for coastal management. J. Environ. Manag. 237 , 30–43 (2019).

Niemiec, R. M., Willer, R., Ardoin, N. M. & Brewer, F. K. Motivating landowners to recruit neighbors for private land conservation. Conserv. Biol. 33 , 930–941 (2019).

Byerly, H., D’Amato, A. W., Hagenbuch, S. & Fisher, B. Social influence and forest habitat conservation: experimental evidence from Vermont’s maple producers. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1 , e98 (2019).

Amel, E., Manning, C., Scott, B. & Koger, S. Beyond the roots of human inaction: fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. Science 279 , 275–279 (2017).

Selinske, M. J. et al. Identifying and prioritizing human behaviors that benefit biodiversity. Conserv. Sci. Pr. 2 , e249 (2020).

Diamond, J. M. in Extinctions (ed. Nitecki, M. H.) 191–246 (Univ. Chicago Press, 1984).

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Island Press, 2005).

Wilson, E. O. The Future of Life (Vintage, 2002).

Dukes, J. S. & Mooney, H. A. Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? Trends Ecol. Evol. 14 , 135–139 (1999).

Smith, S. D. et al. Elevated CO 2 increases productivity and invasive species success in an arid ecosystem. Nature 408 , 79–82 (2000).

Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366 , eaax3100 (2019).

Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce U.S. carbon emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 18452–18456 (2009).

Stern, P. C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56 , 407–424 (2000).

Stern, P. C. Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. Am. Psychol. 66 , 303–314 (2011).

Nielsen, K. S., Cologna, V., Lange, F., Brick, C. & Stern, P. C. The case for impact-focused environmental psychology. J. Environ. Psychol . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101559 (2021).

Nielsen, K. S. et al. Improving climate change mitigation analysis: a framework for examining feasibility. One Earth 3 , 325–336 (2020).

Vandenbergh, M. P. & Gilligan, J. M. Beyond Politics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

Selinske, M. J. et al. We have a steak in it: eliciting interventions to reduce beef consumption and its impact on biodiversity. Conserv. Lett. 13 , e12721 (2020).

Seto, K. C. et al. Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41 , 425–452 (2016).

Marteau, T. M. Towards environmentally sustainable human behaviour: targeting non-conscious and conscious processes for effective and acceptable policies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 375 , 20160371 (2017).

Ogilvie, D. et al. Using natural experimental studies to guide public health action: turning the evidence-based medicine paradigm on its head. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 74 , 203–208 (2020).

Marteau, T. M., Fletcher, P. C., Hollands, G. J. & Munafo, M. R. in Handbook of Behavior Change (eds. Hagger, M. S. et al.) 193–207 (Cambridge University Press, 2020).

Rutter, H. et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet 390 , 2602–2604 (2017).

Sutherland, W. J., Fleishman, E., Mascia, M. B., Pretty, J. & Rudd, M. A. Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2 , 238–247 (2011).

Hollands, G. J. et al. The TIPPME intervention typology for changing environments to change behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1 , 0140 (2017).

Michie, S. et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann. Behav. Med. 46 , 81–95 (2013).

Liu, J. et al. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 18 , 26 (2013).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Marteau, T. M., Hollands, G. J. & Fletcher, P. C. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science 337 , 1492–1495 (2012).

Sumaila, U. R. et al. Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies. Mar. Policy 109 , 103695 (2019).

Bernedo, M., Ferraro, P. J. & Price, M. The persistent impacts of norm-based messaging and their implications for water conservation. J. Consum. Policy 37 , 437–452 (2014).

Ferraro, P. J. & Price, M. K. Using nonpecuniary strategies to influence behavior: evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95 , 64–73 (2013).

Dayer, A. A., Lutter, S. H., Sesser, K. A., Hickey, C. M. & Gardali, T. Private landowner conservation behavior following participation in voluntary incentive programs: recommendations to facilitate behavioral persistence. Conserv. Lett. 11 , e12394 (2018).

Kelly, R. et al. Ten tips for developing interdisciplinary socio-ecological researchers. SEPR 1 , 149–161 (2019).

Campbell, L. M. Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conserv. Biol. 19 , 574–577 (2005).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for funding from the Cambridge Conservation Initiative Collaborative, Fund and Arcadia, RSPB and the Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont. A.B. is supported by a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit award. E.E.G. was supported by a NERC studentship (grant number NE/L002507/1). We thank P. C. Stern for helpful discussion and feedback.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Kristian Steensen Nielsen, Richard B. Bradbury, Emma E. Garnett & Andrew Balmford

Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Theresa M. Marteau

Department of Management, Society and Communication, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

Jan M. Bauer

Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB, Sandy, UK

Richard B. Bradbury

TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK

Steven Broad & Gayle Burgess

Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK

Mark Burgman

Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

Hilary Byerly

Psychology Department, The College of Wooster, Wooster, OH, USA

Susan Clayton

Center for Behavior and the Environment, Rare, Querétaro, México

Dulce Espelosin

Carey Business School and the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, a joint department of the Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Paul J. Ferraro

Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

Brendan Fisher & Taylor H. Ricketts

Environmental Program, Rubinstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Emma E. Garnett

College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

Julia P. G. Jones

Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

Mark Otieno

Department of Agricultural Resource Management, University of Embu, Embu, Kenya

Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA

Stephen Polasky

Natural Capital Project, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA

Tropical Biology Association, Cambridge, UK

Rosie Trevelyan

Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Sander van der Linden

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Diogo Veríssimo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conceptualization of the research. K.S.N., T.M.M. and A.B. wrote the manuscript. The other contributing authors (J.M.B., R.B.B., S.B., G.B., M.B., H.B., S.C., D.E., P.J.F., B.F., E.E.G., J.P.G.J., M.O., S.P., T.H.R., R.T., S.v.d.L. and D.V.) provided critical comments and revisions. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristian Steensen Nielsen .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks Rebecca Niemiec, Philip Seddon and Matthew Selinske for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Nielsen, K.S., Marteau, T.M., Bauer, J.M. et al. Biodiversity conservation as a promising frontier for behavioural science. Nat Hum Behav 5 , 550–556 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01109-5

Download citation

Received : 30 November 2020

Accepted : 31 March 2021

Published : 13 May 2021

Issue Date : May 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01109-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Realizing the full potential of behavioural science for climate change mitigation.

• Kristian S. Nielsen
• Viktoria Cologna
• Kimberly S. Wolske

Nature Climate Change (2024)

Achieving transformational change through the consilience of behavioral science and radical alternatives

• Daniel J. Read
• Matthew J. Selinske

Sustainability Science (2024)

A global analysis of coral reef conservation preferences

• Peter John Robinson
• Pieter van Beukering
• Luke Brander

Nature Sustainability (2023)

Pesticides drive patterns of insect visitors and pollination-related attributes of four crops in Buea, Southwest Cameroon

• Everdine Che Nchang
• Daniel Brice Kenko Nkontcheu
• Eric Bertrand Fokam

International Journal of Tropical Insect Science (2023)

Understanding the social impacts of enforcement activities on illegal wildlife trade in China

• Tien Ming Lee

Ambio (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• UNESCO's commitment
• Culture and values
• Conservation and sustainable use
• Local, indigenous and scientific knowledge
• Education and awareness
• Ocean Sciences
• UNESCO Biodiversity Portal
• International governance mechanisms
• United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration
• United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development
• Ocean Biodiversity Information System

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity

Biodiversity is currently being lost at up to 1,000 times the natural rate. Some scientists are now referring to the crisis as the ‘Earth’s sixth mass extinction’, comparable to the last great extinction crisis 65 million years ago. These extinctions are irreversible and pose a serious threat to our health and wellbeing. Designation and management of protected areas is the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation. However, despite an increase in the total number of protected areas in the world, biodiversity continues to decline.

An integrated landscape approach to conservation planning plays a key role in ensuring suitable habitats for species. However, many protected areas are not functioning as effectively as originally intended, due in part to limited resources to maintain these areas and/or enforce relevant legal frameworks. In addition, current protected area networks may need to be re-aligned to account for climate change. Efforts to preserve biodiversity must take into account not only the physical environment, but also social and economic systems that are well connected to biodiversity and ecosystem services. For protected areas to contribute effectively to a secure future for biodiversity, there is a need for measures to enhance the representativeness of networks, and to improve management effectiveness.

• Growth in protected areas in many countries is helping to maintain options for the future, but sustainable use and management of territory outside protected areas remains a priority.
• Measures to improve environmental status within conservation areas, combined with landscape-scale approaches, are urgently needed if their efficiency is to be improved.
• Lack of adequate technical and financial resources and capacity can limit the upscaling of innovative solutions, demonstrating further the need for regional and subregional co-operation.
• Capacity building is a key factor in the successful avoidance and reduction of land degradation and informed restoration.
• Capacity development needs should be addressed at three levels: national, provincial and local.
• There is a need for capacity building to enable sources outside government to inform relevant departments and policies on biodiversity (e.g. through consultancies, academia and think tanks).

Sites, connected landscapes and networks

Conserving biodiversity and promoting sustainable use.

UNESCO works on the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of its components through UNESCO designated sites, including biosphere reserves , World Heritage sites and UNESCO Global Geoparks . In 2018, UNESCO designated sites protected over 10 million km 2 , an area equivalent to the size of China. These conservation instruments have adopted policies and strategies that aim to conserve these sites, while supporting the broader objectives of sustainable development. One such example is the policy on the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention.

UNESCO is also the depository of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance . Countless species of plants and animals depend on these delicate habitats for survival.

The first comprehensive assessment of species that live within World Heritage sites reveals just how critical they are to preserving the diversity of life on Earth.

The MAB Programme and the World Network of Biosphere Reserves: connecting landscapes and reconciling conservation with development

Biosphere reserves are designated under UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme and promote solutions reconciling the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use at local and regional scales.

This dynamic and interactive network of sites works to foster the harmonious integration of people and nature for sustainable development through participatory dialogue, knowledge sharing, poverty reduction, human wellbeing improvements, respect or cultural values and efforts to improve society’s ability to cope with climate change. Progress has been achieved in connecting landscapes and protected areas through biosphere reserves, however further efforts are needed.

• World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR)
• BIOsphere and Heritage of Lake Chad (BIOPALT)
• Women for Bees - a joint Guerlain and UNESCO programme
• Protecting Great Apes and their habitats
• Ecosystem restoration for sustainable development in Haiti ( Français | Español )
• Green Economy in Biosphere Reserves project in Ghana, Nigeria and Tanzania *
• More activities and projects

and the sustainable use of its components through UNESCO designated sites

Capacity building

Capacity building is needed to provide adequate support to Member States to attain the international biodiversity goals and the SDGs. In some countries, technical, managerial and institutional capacity to define guidelines for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is inadequate. Additionally, existing institutional and technical capacity is often fragmented and uncoordinated. As new ways of interacting with biodiversity emerge, it is essential that stakeholders are trained and have sufficient capacity to implement new and varied approaches. Further efforts will be needed therefore to facilitate capacity building by fostering learning and leadership skills.

UNESCO is mandated to assist Member States in the design and implementation of national policies on education, culture, science, technology and innovation including biodiversity.

The BIOPALT project: integrated management of ecosystems

More than 30 million people live in the Lake Chad Basin. The site is highly significant in terms of  biodiversity and natural and cultural heritage. The cross-border dimension of the basin also presents opportunities for sub-regional integration. The  BIOsphere and Heritage of Lake Chad (BIOPALT) project focuses on poverty reduction and peace promotion, and aims to strengthen the capacities of the Lake Chad Basin Commission member states to safeguard  and  manage sustainably the water resources, socio-ecosystems and cultural resources of the region.

Women for bees: Women’s empowerment and biodiversity conservation

Women for Bees is a state-of-the-art female beekeeping entrepreneurship programme launched by UNESCO and Guerlain. Implemented in UNESCO designated biosphere reserves around the world with the support of the French training centre, the Observatoire Français d’Apidologie (OFA), the programme has actor, film maker and humanitarian activist Angelina Jolie for a Godmother, helping promote its twin objectives of women’s empowerment and biodiversity conservation.

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and capacity development

Capacity development is  present in all areas of IOC ’s work, at the global programme level as well as  within  each of its three sub-commissions and  the IOC-INDIO regional committee. In 2015, IOC adopted its Capacity Development Strategy. IOC is the custodian agency for SDG 14A.

In collaboration with the International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange (IODE) , IOC has implemented a network of Regional Training Centres under the OceanTeacher Global Academy (OTGA) project, which has seven such centres around the world (Belgium, Colombia, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Mozambique and Senegal). Through its network of centres, OTGA provides a  programme of training courses related to IOC programmes, which contribute to the sustainable management of  oceans and coastal areas worldwide. OTGA has developed an e-Learning  Platform that hosts all training  resources for the training courses and makes them freely available to any interested parties.

Since 2012,  270 scientists from 69 countries have been trained to  manage  marine  biodiversity  data,  publish  data  through the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS) , and perform scientific data analysis for reporting and assessment. Since 1990, IOC West Pacific Regional Training and  Research  Centres  have  trained  more  than  1,000 people in a variety of topics including: 

• monitoring the ecological impacts of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems,
• harmful algal blooms,
• traditional and molecular taxonomy,
• reef health monitoring, and
• seagrass and mangrove ecology and management.

Most courses take place in a face-to-face classroom environment,  however training can also be conducted online using ICTs and the OceanTeacher e-Learning Platform, thereby increasing the number of people reached.

and peace-building through the promotion of green economy and the valorization of the basin's natural resources

Governance and connecting the scales

Governance systems in many countries function as indirect drivers of changes to ecosystems and biodiversity. At present, most policies that address biodiversity are fragmented and target specific. Additionally, the current design of governance, institutions and policies rarely takes into account the diverse values of biodiversity. There are also substantial challenges to the design and implementation of effective transboundary and regional initiatives to halt biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, climate change and unsustainable development. Another key challenge to successful policy-making is adequate mobilization of financial resources. Increased funding from both public and private sources, together with innovative financing mechanisms such as ecological fiscal transfers, would help to strengthen institutional capacities.

• Governance options that harness synergies are the best option for achieving the SDGs.
• There is a need to develop engagement and actions with diverse stakeholders in governance through regional cooperation and partnerships with the private sector.  
• Mainstreaming biodiversity into development policies, plans and programmes can improve efforts to achieve both the Aichi Targets and the SDGs.

UNESCO works to engage with new governance schemes at all levels through the LINKS Programme , the MAB Programme , the UNESCO-CBD Joint Programme and integrated management of ecosystems linking local to regional scales.

UNESCO supports the integrated management of ecosystems linking local to regional scales, especially through transboundary biosphere reserves, World Heritage sites and UNESCO Global Geoparks. The governance and management of a biosphere reserve places special emphasis on the crucial role that combined knowledge, learning and capacity building play in creating and sustaining a dynamic and mutually beneficial interactions between the conservation and development objectives at local and regional scales.

A transboundary biosphere reserve is defined by the following elements: a shared ecosystem; a common culture and shared traditions, exchanges and cooperation at local level; the will to manage jointly the territory along the bio-sphere reserve values and principles; a political commitment resulting in an official agreement between governmental authorities of the countries concerned. The transboundary biosphere reserve establishes a coordinating structure representative of various administrations and scientific boards, the authorities in charge of the different areas included the protected areas, the representatives of local communities, private sector, and NGOs. A permanent secretariat and a budget are devoted to its functioning. Focal points for co-operation are designated in each country participating.

Transboundary conservation and cooperation

The Trifinio Fraternidad Transboundary Biosphere Reserve is located between El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. It is the first transboundary biosphere reserve in Central America and represents a major contribution to the implementation of the Mesoamerican Corridor. It includes key biodiversity areas, such as Montecristo National Park and a variety of forest ecosystems.

Trifinio Fraternidad Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (El Salvador/Guatemala/Honduras)

Related items

• Information and communication
• Social and human sciences
• Natural sciences
• Programme implementation
• See more add

Conservation of nature's strongholds needed to halt biodiversity loss

Researchers argue for scaling-up area-based conservation to maintain ecological integrity.

To achieve global biodiversity targets, conservationists and governments must prioritize the establishment and effective management of large, interconnected protected areas with high ecological integrity, John G. Robinson from the Wildlife Conservation Society, US, and colleagues argue in an essay publishing May 21 in the open-access journal PLOS Biology .

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), signed at the 2022 Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal, recognized the importance of protecting large areas of natural habitat to maintain the resilience and integrity of ecosystems. To halt biodiversity loss, these protected and conserved areas need to be in the right places, connected to one another, and well managed. One of the GBF targets is to protect at least 30% of the global land and ocean by 2030, known as the 30x30 target.

To achieve GBF targets, the authors propose prioritizing large, interconnected protected areas with high ecological integrity, that are effectively managed and equitably governed. They emphasize the importance of conserving landscapes at scales large enough to encompass functioning ecosystems and the biodiversity they contain. In many cases, this will require interconnected groups of protected areas that are managed together. Effective governance means that the diversity of stakeholders and rights holders are recognized and that the costs and benefits are shared equitably between them. The authors argue that protected and conservation areas that meet all four criteria -- which they name "Nature's Strongholds" -- will be disproportionately important for biodiversity conservation. They identify examples of Nature's Strongholds in the high-biodiversity tropical forest regions of Central Africa and the Amazon.

By applying the four criteria presented in this essay to identify Nature's Strongholds around the world, governments and conservationists can coordinate their efforts to best address threats to biodiversity, the authors say.

The authors add, "'Nature's Strongholds' -- large, interconnected, ecologically intact areas that are well managed and equitably governed -- are identified in Amazonia and Central Africa. The approach offers an effective way to conserve biodiversity at a global scale."

• Ecology Research
• Endangered Plants
• Biodiversity
• Rainforests
• Land Management
• Urbanization
• Environmental Policies
• Biodiversity hotspot
• Organic farming
• Agroecology
• Conservation biology
• Sustainable land management
• Deforestation
• Unified neutral theory of biodiversity

Story Source:

Materials provided by PLOS . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• John G. Robinson, Danielle LaBruna, Tim O’Brien, Peter J. Clyne, Nigel Dudley, Sandy J. Andelman, Elizabeth L. Bennett, Avecita Chicchon, Carlos Durigan, Hedley Grantham, Margaret Kinnaird, Sue Lieberman, Fiona Maisels, Adriana Moreira, Madhu Rao, Emma Stokes, Joe Walston, James EM Watson. Scaling up area-based conservation to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework’s 30x30 target: The role of Nature’s Strongholds . PLOS Biology , 2024; 22 (5): e3002613 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• New AI Accurately Predicts Fly Behavior
• Extreme Impacts: Metals Stronger When Heated
• Rare Earth Element's Secrets Exposed
• Origin of Sun's Magnetic Field
• Measuring Spin of Supermassive Black Hole
• 'Cell Cannibalism' Across Tree of Life
• Very Low Emission Concrete at Scale
• Kangaroos: Fearing Human 'Super Predator'
• Stopping Flu Before It Takes Hold
• Cosmic Rays Illuminate the Past

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

Biodiversity and human well-being: an essential link for sustainable development

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA [email protected].
• 2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA.
• 3 Tennenbaum Marine Observatories Network, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013, USA.
• 4 Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.
• 5 Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4R2.
• PMID: 27928039
• PMCID: PMC5204155
• DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2016.2091

As society strives to transition towards more sustainable development pathways, it is important to properly conceptualize the link between biodiversity (i.e. genes, traits, species and other dimensions) and human well-being (HWB; i.e. health, wealth, security and other dimensions). Here, we explore how published conceptual frameworks consider the extent to which the biodiversity-HWB links are being integrated into public discourse and scientific research and the implications of our findings for sustainable development. We find that our understanding has gradually evolved from seeing the value of biodiversity as an external commodity that may influence HWB to biodiversity as fundamental to HWB. Analysis of the literature trends indicates increasing engagement with the terms biodiversity, HWB and sustainable development in the public, science and policy spheres, but largely as independent rather than linked terms. We suggest that a consensus framework for sustainable development should include biodiversity explicitly as a suite of internal variables that both influence and are influenced by HWB. Doing so will enhance clarity and help shape coherent research and policy priorities. We further suggest that the absence of this link in development can inadvertently lead to a ratcheting down of biodiversity by otherwise well-meaning policies. Such biotic impoverishment could lock HWB at minimum levels or lead to its decline and halt or reverse progress in achieving sustainable development.

Keywords: biodiversity; ecosystem services; human well-being; sustainable development.

© 2016 The Authors.

Publication types

• Biodiversity*
• Conservation of Natural Resources*
• Health Status*
• Personal Satisfaction*

• Get involved

• Navigating Towards a Nature-Positive Future pdf (6.3 MB)

Navigating Towards a Nature-Positive Future: Strategic Uptake of Evidence Towards Tangible Biodiversity Solutions

Navigating Towards a Nature-Positive Future

May 22, 2024

Document type, sustainable development goals, related publications, publications, sdg push: unlocking new pathways to sdg acceleration.

SDG Push is about realizing development ambition and redefining how we build acceleration pathways. It helps pinpoint policy choices that ‘move the needle’ towa...

2024 LGBTI Inclusion Index: Report on the Pilot Implement...

This report could be useful for statisticians, national human rights institutions, policymakers, researchers and activists. It elaborates on the key findings an...

Making finance work for people and planet: How countries ...

This report contains achievements, lessons and best practices to date, drawing from country experiences in using the integrated national financing framework (IN...

How Digital is Transforming the Lives of Young People in ...

This report explores the opportunities and challenges of digital technologies by hearing from young people – in their own words. Through a bespoke survey chatbo...

Accelerating the Green Transition: Socioecological System...

This paper explores lessons and insights from a new generation of integrated local solutions that have emerged across the region to manage risks and build resil...

Mapping Essential Life Support Areas to Achieve the Susta...

This policy brief captures insights from this project to help policymakers use integrated spatial planning to support the achievement of SDGs, with a focus on t...

December 2022 - You are accessing an archived version of our website. This website is no longer maintained or updated. The Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform has been migrated here: https://sdgs.un.org/

You will be redirected to the new Partnership Platform in 10 seconds.

• A/70/472 - Sustainable development: report of the Second Committee [Arabic] [Chinese] [English] [French] [Russian] [Spanish]
• A/70/472/Add.6 - Convention on Biological Diversity: Report of the Second Committee [Arabic] [Chinese] [English] [French] [Russian] [Spanish]
• A/70/472/Add.7 - Harmony with Nature: Report of the Second Committee [Arabic] [Chinese] [English] [French] [Russian] [Spanish]

Search the site

Links to social media channels

Biodiversity Is in Crisis—Here's one way to fix it

A growing movement of projects and partnerships is using locally driven and gender-responsive nature-based solutions to address the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. Scaling up this work to match the urgency and reach of the crises will be a challenge—but it’s one we must embrace.

The Rwenzori Mountains loom large over the surrounding scenery in southwestern Uganda. Here, snowmelt and rainwaters flow through alpine meadows and forests of otherworldly flora, including giant lobelia and heather taller than a person, to provide the source waters of the Nile. Moving south, the lakes, rivers, and grasslands of Queen Elizabeth National Park are home to not only elephants, buffalo, and hippopotami but also vast herds of kob—and the tree-climbing lions that prey on them.

Standing within these beautiful settings, you could be forgiven for thinking that nature is thriving. However, these exceptional places, inscribed as part of our collective natural heritage by UNESCO , are increasingly islands of ecosystem health in fragmented landscapes and seascapes beset by outside pressures.

The Sixth Extinction

It is a well-known story, and the headlines are often dire. Rates of species extinction and ecosystem degradation are accelerating; according to the 2019 Global Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES ), 1 million animal and plant species are currently threatened with extinction, many within decades, unless urgent, transformative action is taken. Abundance has plummeted for many of those species not yet gone; WWF’s 2022 Living Planet Report notes an average decline of 69% in the relative abundance of monitored wildlife populations around the world between 1970 and 2018. The scale of the problem is so large that it is now commonly referred to as the sixth extinction : the loss of an unusually large number of species in a short time, driven by human activities .  

Compounding Crises

IPBES cites five anthropogenic factors as key drivers of this crisis: land- and sea-use change; direct exploitation of natural resources; climate change; pollution; and invasive species.

Nature has a foundational role in global health, food systems, livelihoods, climate adaptation, economies, and security. Thus, the acceleration of nature loss, when considered in the context of rising demands from growing populations for both ecosystem services and natural resources, means that avoiding further degradation or loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services should be an increasingly important consideration for governments, communities, and the private sector.

This crisis is unfolding in the context of rising global temperatures. The climate crisis is having a significant impact on the natural world. While land- and sea-use changes are currently the greatest drivers of nature loss, a failure to limit planetary warming to 1.5°C will result in climate change becoming the dominant cause of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation in the coming decades.

Climate change is disrupting natural feedback loops and altering the habitats and ranges of various fauna and flora. Its impacts also undermine the delivery of ecosystem services, harming human lives and livelihoods and compromising efforts to eradicate poverty and hunger and provide safe water for billions of people. Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, alongside the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, will depend on a coordinated response to these deeply connected emergencies .

How Can Nature-based Solutions Build Climate Change Resilience?

But while climate change and biodiversity loss often act to reinforce one another, so do effective climate change adaptation and nature protection. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have emerged as an integrated concept beyond climate change adaptation and traditional conservation. NbS may have the potential to tackle multiple societal challenges , such as protecting, managing, and restoring biodiversity and ecosystems. Their services are increasingly seen as an effective way to address some of the shared root causes and impacts of the biodiversity and climate crises.

In Belize, Fiji, and the Greater Virunga and Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) landscapes in sub-Saharan Africa, NbS are being rolled out to increase the resilience of both communities and ecosystems to climate change. Through the Climate Adaptation and Protected Areas (CAPA) Initiative , IISD is working with the Wildlife Conservation Society, the World Wide Fund for Nature, and local partners and communities within these spaces to conserve, protect, restore, and sustainably manage protected areas.

More than 50 km from the mainland of Belize , Glover’s Reef atoll lies just inches above the deep blue waters of the western Caribbean. Glover’s is a critical link in a chain of reefs and islands that form the largest barrier reef in the Western Hemisphere. Here, IISD and the Wildlife Conservation Society are working to strengthen the reef's health and its ability to support local livelihoods, remain a suitable habitat for marine species, and provide coastal protections against extreme weather events.

Half a world away, in southwestern Uganda, lies what is arguably Africa’s most biodiverse landscape. The Greater Virunga Landscape stretches along the shared borders of Uganda, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo—a mosaic of mountains, savannas, rivers, lakes, swamps, tropical rainforests, and volcanoes. Here, conservation interventions implemented by the World Wide Fund for Nature and partners focused on reforestation, invasive species removal, land restoration, and nature-based livelihoods will help build the resilience of three national parks (Rwenzori Mountains, Queen Elizabeth, and Bwindi Impenetrable) and the communities that surround them to rising temperatures, increased flood risk, landslides, and erosion. Even more work is happening under the project in the KAZA landscape and in Fiji to support reforestation, restock wildlife, promote sustainable fisheries, and improve flood mitigation, among other activities.

The threats facing these ecosystems—and, by extension, the conservation practitioners that manage and support them; the communities that sustain and depend on them; the flora and fauna that make them indispensable—can often seem insurmountable. But there is hope. CAPA is one small part of a growing movement of projects, partnerships, and approaches using NbS to simultaneously address these two existential emergencies. Scaling up this work to match the urgency and reach of the crises will be a challenge, but it is a challenge we must embrace.

To learn more about the CAPA Initiative, please visit www.iisd.org/capa .

Insight details

You might also be interested in, climate adaptation and protected areas initiative: nature-based solutions for climate adaptation (infographic).

Climate change impacts greatly affect ecosystems and the communities who depend on them. Nature-based solutions for adaptation (NbS) can play a vital role in helping people and biodiversity build resilience to climate risks. Learn more about what effective NbS for adaptation are and their practical application across different ecosystems to strengthen their resilience.

May 2, 2024

Enhancing Biodiversity Co-Benefits From Nature-Based Solutions

This technical report provides a set of recommendations to help plan, design, and implement nature-based solutions (NbS) for adaptation that enhance biodiversity and ecosystem integrity.

July 6, 2023

Why Supporting Food Systems and Protecting Biodiversity Need to Go Hand in Hand

Phasing out or repurposing incentives harmful to biodiversity is critical for sustainable development. What can we learn from existing efforts in the United Kingdom, India, and Brazil?

November 6, 2023

Synergies Between Biodiversity and Climate Policy Frameworks – A Series of Thematic Papers

These thematic papers have everything policy-makers need to pursue more synergistic responses to address the co-existing challenge of climate change and biodiversity loss.

May 20, 2022

Frontiers | Science News

• Science News

Research Topics

Biodiversity loss: three research topics revealing threats and solutions.

The planet is demanding a reset in our interactions with nature. Protecting and restoring biodiversity is no longer optional because when nature suffers, so do we .

According to United Nations data, "current negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystems will undermine progress towards 80% of the assessed targets of eight Sustainable Development Goals."

As a result, the theme for this year’s International Day for Biological Diversity is ’Be part of the Plan’, a call to action for everyone to support the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework , also known as the Biodiversity Plan.

In light of the crucial role of biodiversity to the health of our planet, we have listed three of our most impactful Research Topics on the causes and consequences of biodiversity loss.

All articles are openly available to view and download.

1 | Aquatic One Health—The Intersection of Marine Wildlife Health, Public Health, and Our Oceans

33,400 views | 10 articles

This Research Topic provides insights into marine wildlife and aquaculture disease processes, conditions, and health issues. It also demonstrates the potential to influence public health within the One Health framework.

The interrelatedness of environmental, animal, and public wellbeing form the basis of the 'One Health' concept, a framework to guide research and conservation efforts by studying not only animal health in isolation, but also in the context of public and environmental health.

Humankind's past and present use of ocean ecosystems as waste sinks has had significant, wide-ranging, and negative effects on marine life and human health, making this topic highly relevant to the mission of biodiversity preservation.

View Research Topic

2 | Ethnofood Chemistry: Bioactive Components in Unexploited Foods from Centres of Biodiversity

45,000 views | 11 articles

A Research Topic looking at ethno plant foods from centers of biodiversity -Africa, Asia and Australia, North, and Central America, South America, Europe, and Central Asia- with bioactive components of nutritional and health value.

Ethnofoods—traditional foods—originate from the heritage and culture of an ethnic group that uses their knowledge of local plants and animal sources. They are also unexploited and underutilized by the wider community worldwide.

This topic highlights the importance of incorporating ethno-plant foods into nutrition intervention programs globally to combat hidden hunger and provide nutrition and food security. Furthermore, it contributes to demonstrating the possibility of developing sustainable food systems.

3 | Community Series in the Wildlife Gut Microbiome and Its Implication for Conservation Biology, Volume II

53,100 views | 21 articles

This Research Topic dives into the potential connection between gut microbiome and conservation biology. Microbiome studies can increase our understanding of non-native species invasion, host response to pathogens and chemical contamination, and host ability to tolerate climate change.

The animal gut microbiota can be beneficial in many ways, including dietary supplementation, host immune function, and behavior. The microbiomes of animals affect host fitness, population characteristics such as demography, and health status, as well as adaptability. For example, the fitness effects of gut microbiomes on wild animals may have important implications for the conservation and management of species.

Post related info

May 21, 2024

Frontiers Science Communications

Post categories, featured news, related subjects, research topics, related content.

Five Research Topics exploring the science of mental health

Frontiers' Research Topic publishing program: pioneering the future of scientific publishing

Frontiers institutional partnerships update – winter 2024

Latest posts.

Babies in the womb exposed to two languages hear speech differently when born

Screen time not the main factor making parent-child interactions worse, study finds

A devastating fire 2,200 years ago preserved a moment of life and war in Iron Age Spain — right down to a single gold earring

Mariana Fuentes - Changing the currency of conservation

International Day for Biodiversity 2024

“Be part of the Plan”, the theme of the International Day for Biodiversity 2024, is a call to action for all stakeholders to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity by supporting the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, also referred to as the the Biodiversity Plan. 

The International Day for Biodiversity is celebrated every year on 22 May and coordinated by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), part of the United Nations Environment Programme. This observance commemorates the adoption of the text of the CBD on 22 May 1992 and provides a unique opportunity to generate support for the Convention, its Protocols and related action frameworks.

Governments, indigenous peoples and local communities, non-governmental organizations, lawmakers, businesses, and individuals are being encouraged to highlight the ways in which they are supporting the implementation of the Biodiversity Plan.

• Take action and “Be part of the Plan” here . 
• Find out more about the International Day for Biodiversity here . 

For media and interview requests, contact us on: [email protected] mentioning [Media request] in the subject heading.

News and Media

Get the latest news from UN-Water; Understand what is happening around the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Interact in our campaigns; Explore newly released publications and where events are taking place around the world.