Hard choices

Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being

Thomas O. McShane, Paul D. Hirsch, Tran Chi Trung, Alexander N. Songorwa, Ann Kinzig, Bruno Monteferri, David Mutekanga, Hoang Van Thang, Juan Luis Dammert, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Meredith Welch-Devine, J. Peter Brosius, Peter Coppolillo, Sheila O'Connor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

418 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Win-win solutions that both conserve biodiversity and promote human well-being are difficult to realize. Trade-offs and the hard choices they entail are the norm. Since 2008, the Advancing Conservation in a Social Context (ACSC) research initiative has been investigating the complex trade-offs that exist between human well-being and biodiversity conservation goals, and between conservation and other economic, political and social agendas across multiple scales. Resolving trade-offs is difficult because social problems - of which conservation is one - can be perceived and understood in a variety of disparate ways, influenced (in part at least) by how people are raised and educated, their life experiences, and the options they have faced. Pre-existing assumptions about the "right" approach to conservation often obscure important differences in both power and understanding, and can limit the success of policy and programmatic interventions. The new conservation debate challenges conservationists to be explicit about losses, costs, and hard choices so they can be openly discussed and honestly negotiated. Not to do so can lead to unrealized expectations, and ultimately to unresolved conflict. This paper explores the background and limitations of win-win approaches to conservation and human well-being, discusses the prospect of approaching conservation challenges in terms of trade-offs and hard choices, and presents a set of guiding principles that can serve to orient strategic analysis and communication regarding trade-offs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)966-972
Number of pages7
JournalBiological Conservation
Volume144
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

biodiversity
social problems
life events
communication (human)
terms of trade
social problem
economics
communication
cost

Keywords

  • Biodiversity conservation
  • Development
  • Human well-being
  • Trade-offs

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., ... O'Connor, S. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 966-972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038

Hard choices : Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. / McShane, Thomas O.; Hirsch, Paul D.; Trung, Tran Chi; Songorwa, Alexander N.; Kinzig, Ann; Monteferri, Bruno; Mutekanga, David; Thang, Hoang Van; Dammert, Juan Luis; Pulgar-Vidal, Manuel; Welch-Devine, Meredith; Peter Brosius, J.; Coppolillo, Peter; O'Connor, Sheila.

In: Biological Conservation, Vol. 144, No. 3, 2011, p. 966-972.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McShane, TO, Hirsch, PD, Trung, TC, Songorwa, AN, Kinzig, A, Monteferri, B, Mutekanga, D, Thang, HV, Dammert, JL, Pulgar-Vidal, M, Welch-Devine, M, Peter Brosius, J, Coppolillo, P & O'Connor, S 2011, 'Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being', Biological Conservation, vol. 144, no. 3, pp. 966-972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038
McShane, Thomas O. ; Hirsch, Paul D. ; Trung, Tran Chi ; Songorwa, Alexander N. ; Kinzig, Ann ; Monteferri, Bruno ; Mutekanga, David ; Thang, Hoang Van ; Dammert, Juan Luis ; Pulgar-Vidal, Manuel ; Welch-Devine, Meredith ; Peter Brosius, J. ; Coppolillo, Peter ; O'Connor, Sheila. / Hard choices : Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. In: Biological Conservation. 2011 ; Vol. 144, No. 3. pp. 966-972.
@article{8db4c85b573148bca0d4640b8699fc2e,
title = "Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being",
abstract = "Win-win solutions that both conserve biodiversity and promote human well-being are difficult to realize. Trade-offs and the hard choices they entail are the norm. Since 2008, the Advancing Conservation in a Social Context (ACSC) research initiative has been investigating the complex trade-offs that exist between human well-being and biodiversity conservation goals, and between conservation and other economic, political and social agendas across multiple scales. Resolving trade-offs is difficult because social problems - of which conservation is one - can be perceived and understood in a variety of disparate ways, influenced (in part at least) by how people are raised and educated, their life experiences, and the options they have faced. Pre-existing assumptions about the {"}right{"} approach to conservation often obscure important differences in both power and understanding, and can limit the success of policy and programmatic interventions. The new conservation debate challenges conservationists to be explicit about losses, costs, and hard choices so they can be openly discussed and honestly negotiated. Not to do so can lead to unrealized expectations, and ultimately to unresolved conflict. This paper explores the background and limitations of win-win approaches to conservation and human well-being, discusses the prospect of approaching conservation challenges in terms of trade-offs and hard choices, and presents a set of guiding principles that can serve to orient strategic analysis and communication regarding trade-offs.",
keywords = "Biodiversity conservation, Development, Human well-being, Trade-offs",
author = "McShane, {Thomas O.} and Hirsch, {Paul D.} and Trung, {Tran Chi} and Songorwa, {Alexander N.} and Ann Kinzig and Bruno Monteferri and David Mutekanga and Thang, {Hoang Van} and Dammert, {Juan Luis} and Manuel Pulgar-Vidal and Meredith Welch-Devine and {Peter Brosius}, J. and Peter Coppolillo and Sheila O'Connor",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "144",
pages = "966--972",
journal = "Biological Conservation",
issn = "0006-3207",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hard choices

T2 - Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being

AU - McShane, Thomas O.

AU - Hirsch, Paul D.

AU - Trung, Tran Chi

AU - Songorwa, Alexander N.

AU - Kinzig, Ann

AU - Monteferri, Bruno

AU - Mutekanga, David

AU - Thang, Hoang Van

AU - Dammert, Juan Luis

AU - Pulgar-Vidal, Manuel

AU - Welch-Devine, Meredith

AU - Peter Brosius, J.

AU - Coppolillo, Peter

AU - O'Connor, Sheila

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Win-win solutions that both conserve biodiversity and promote human well-being are difficult to realize. Trade-offs and the hard choices they entail are the norm. Since 2008, the Advancing Conservation in a Social Context (ACSC) research initiative has been investigating the complex trade-offs that exist between human well-being and biodiversity conservation goals, and between conservation and other economic, political and social agendas across multiple scales. Resolving trade-offs is difficult because social problems - of which conservation is one - can be perceived and understood in a variety of disparate ways, influenced (in part at least) by how people are raised and educated, their life experiences, and the options they have faced. Pre-existing assumptions about the "right" approach to conservation often obscure important differences in both power and understanding, and can limit the success of policy and programmatic interventions. The new conservation debate challenges conservationists to be explicit about losses, costs, and hard choices so they can be openly discussed and honestly negotiated. Not to do so can lead to unrealized expectations, and ultimately to unresolved conflict. This paper explores the background and limitations of win-win approaches to conservation and human well-being, discusses the prospect of approaching conservation challenges in terms of trade-offs and hard choices, and presents a set of guiding principles that can serve to orient strategic analysis and communication regarding trade-offs.

AB - Win-win solutions that both conserve biodiversity and promote human well-being are difficult to realize. Trade-offs and the hard choices they entail are the norm. Since 2008, the Advancing Conservation in a Social Context (ACSC) research initiative has been investigating the complex trade-offs that exist between human well-being and biodiversity conservation goals, and between conservation and other economic, political and social agendas across multiple scales. Resolving trade-offs is difficult because social problems - of which conservation is one - can be perceived and understood in a variety of disparate ways, influenced (in part at least) by how people are raised and educated, their life experiences, and the options they have faced. Pre-existing assumptions about the "right" approach to conservation often obscure important differences in both power and understanding, and can limit the success of policy and programmatic interventions. The new conservation debate challenges conservationists to be explicit about losses, costs, and hard choices so they can be openly discussed and honestly negotiated. Not to do so can lead to unrealized expectations, and ultimately to unresolved conflict. This paper explores the background and limitations of win-win approaches to conservation and human well-being, discusses the prospect of approaching conservation challenges in terms of trade-offs and hard choices, and presents a set of guiding principles that can serve to orient strategic analysis and communication regarding trade-offs.

KW - Biodiversity conservation

KW - Development

KW - Human well-being

KW - Trade-offs

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951809039&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79951809039&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038

DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038

M3 - Article

VL - 144

SP - 966

EP - 972

JO - Biological Conservation

JF - Biological Conservation

SN - 0006-3207

IS - 3

ER -