Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
in the Anthropocene?
Conservation in the Anthropocene faces unprecedented challenges of urgency, complexity,
and uncertainty in the context of pressing socioeconomic concerns like poverty and food
security and impending ecological and climatic tipping points (Rockström et al. 2009, Glaser
2012, Barnosky et al. 2013, Griggs et al. 2013, Hughes et al. 2013). Most conservation questions
are complex, uncertain and socially nuanced, requiring an interdisciplinary approach and an
understanding of complex socioecological systems (Waltner-Toews et al. 2003, Rogers et al.
2013). Maintaining biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainable livelihoods are common
to both conservation and development, and provide focus for conservation management
based on an ecosystem approach. Long-term data from palaeoecology, historical ecology,
long-term monitoring, and experiments help to elucidate ecosystem responses to changing
climate, land-use, and other drivers, thereby contributing to developing landscape visions
that are ecologically realistic and socially desirable (Gillson and Marchant 2014).
The protected area network is pivotal to conservation success, but a range of protected area
models accommodating degrees of human use, as well as a well-managed matrix outside of
protected areas, are essential for addressing the need for ecological connectivity and ecosys-
tem services (Corson et al. 2014). A landscape approach, incorporating a long-term perspec-
tive, embeds protected area networks in mosaics of agrarian and high-intensity landscape
elements, thereby providing material needs while accommodating cultural, spiritual, and
aesthetic concerns and fostering a deeper connection between people and nature (Musac-
chio 2011, Wu 2011, 2012, Barthel et al. 2013, Opdam et al. 2013).
While the economic valuation of ecosystem services is one approach to quantifying and
possibly strengthening the link between people and nature, it does not capture the import-
ance of biodiversity to livelihoods, nor the cultural and spiritual elements of nature and land-
scapes (de Groot et al. 2005, MEA 2005, Chapin III et al. 2010, O'Farrell et al. 2011). Payments
for ecosystem services can thus only be one strand of a landscape approach that encourages
the social and cultural motivators for biodiversity conservation, and helps to extend the focus
and reach of nature conservation outside of formal protected area networks into the arena of
sustainability science (see Chapter 6) (Bhagwat 2009, O'Farrell and Anderson 2010, Wu 2012).
Heterogeneous agrarian landscapes that provide wildlife habitat as well as food produc-
tion and job opportunities are valued by many people, disenchanted with the monotony of
intensive agriculture and forestry plantations, and concerned about the health and environ-
mental effects of industrialized production systems (Fischer et al. 2012, von Wehrden et al.
2014). Even marginal systems that have relatively low impact can be extremely important to
livelihoods and food security at the household and local levels, whereas landscapes of high
production do not necessarily help food security if access and distribution are limited (Rey-
ers et al. 2009, O'Farrell et al. 2010, Tscharntke et al. 2012, Milcu et al. 2014b). Urban areas
can also provide opportunities for creative design that includes green space and urban food
production, as well as potentially providing biodiversity conservation opportunities includ-
ing scientific, educational and recreational benefits (see above and Chapter 6). Livelihood
Search WWH ::
Custom Search