Biological Conservation 282 (2023) 110047 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Connected Conservation: Rethinking conservation for a telecoupled world Rachel Carmenta a, b, *, Jos Barlow c, Mairon G. Bastos Lima d, Erika Berenguer e, Shofwan Choiruzzad f, Natalia Estrada-Carmona g, Filipe França h, Giorgos Kallis i, Evan Killick j, Alexander Lees k, Adrian Martin l, Unai Pascual m, Nathalie Pettorelli n, James Reed o, Iokine Rodriguez l, Angela M. Steward p, Terry Sunderland q, r, Bhaskar Vira s, t, Julie G. Zaehringer u, Christina Hicks c a Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TU, UK b University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK c Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, LA1 4YW, UK d Stockholm Environment Institute, Linnégatan 87D, 115 23 Stockholm, Sweden e Ecosystems Lab, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK f School of International Relations, University of Indonesia, Pondok Cina, Beji, Depok City, West Java 16424, Indonesia g Bioversity International, Parc scientifique Agropolis II, 1990 Bd de la Lironde, 34397 Montpellier, France h School of Environmental Science, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Ave, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK i Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain j School of Global Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, UK k Division of Biology & Conservation Ecology, School of Science & the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester M15 6BH, UK l School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TU, UK m Basque Centre for Climate Change Research, Scientific Campus of the University of the Basque Country, 48940, Spain n Environmental Monitoring and Conservation Modelling, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park NW1 4RY, UK o Forests and landscape governance, Center for International Forestry Research, P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD, Bogor 16000, Indonesia p Agricultural Sciences and Rural Development, Federal University of Pará, Belém 66.075.110, Brazil q Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Forest Sciences Centre 4623, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada r Center for International Forestry Research, P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD, Bogor 16000, Indonesia s Department of Geography, University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, UK t Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK u Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: The convergence of the biodiversity and climate crises, widening of wealth inequality, and most recently the Governance COVID-19 pandemic underscore the urgent need to mobilize change to secure sustainable futures. Centres of Tropical forests tropical biodiversity are a major focus of conservation efforts, delivered in predominantly site-level interventions Indigenous people and local communities often incorporating alternative-livelihood provision or poverty-alleviation components. Yet, a focus on site-level (IP&LCs) intervention is ill-equipped to address the disproportionate role of (often distant) wealth in biodiversity collapse. Biocultural Justice Further these approaches often attempt to ‘resolve’ local economic poverty in order to safeguard biodiversity in a IPBES seemingly virtuous act, potentially overlooking local communities as the living locus of solutions to the biodi­ versity crisis. We offer Connected Conservation: a dual-branched conservation model that commands novel actions to tackle distant wealth-related drivers of biodiversity decline, while enhancing site-level conservation to empower biodiversity stewards. We synthesize diverse literatures to outline the need for this shift in conservation practice. We identify three dominant negative flows arising in centres of wealth that disproportionately un­ dermine biodiversity, and highlight the three key positive, though marginalized, flows that enhance biodiversity and exist within biocultural centres. Connected Conservation works to amplify the positive flows, and diminish the negative flows, and thereby orientates towards desired states with justice at the centre. We identify connected conservation actions that can be applied and replicated to address the telecoupled, wealth-related reality of * Corresponding author at: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TU, UK. E-mail address: r.carmenta@uea.ac.uk (R. Carmenta). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110047 Received 13 November 2022; Received in revised form 21 March 2023; Accepted 31 March 2023 Available online 14 April 2023 0006-3207/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). R. Carmenta et al. Biological Conservation 282 (2023) 110047 biodiversity collapse while empowering contemporary biodiversity stewards. The approach calls for conservation to extend its collaborations across sectors in order to deliver to transformative change. 1. Conservation at a crossroads stewards. The convergence of the biodiversity and climate crises, widening of 2.1. A focus on site-level poverty evades the negative impacts of distant wealth inequality, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic under­ wealth score the urgent need to mobilize change to secure sustainable futures (Brondizio et al., 2019; Daszak et al., 2020; Pörtner et al., 2021). In Narratives that uncritically blame or implicitly associate poor people contrast to conventional conservation that tends to focus on site-based at the site-level with biodiversity loss evade the predominant role of intervention often in combination with local poverty alleviation goals, wealth as a key driver of biodiversity decline (Fig. 1) (Otero et al., 2020). or incorporates market-based fixes that further commoditise nature, we Yet distant wealth, not site-level cash poverty, is the dominant driver call for a ‘Connected Conservation’. This new conservation approach behind many of the major threats to biodiversity acting through three challenges conservation to target wealth accumulation as the key factor main flows: (i) trade, (ii) climate change and (iii) a dominant ‘one-world driving environmental degradation, albeit in ‘distant’ geographies. development model’ (Fig. 2). Each is expanded below. Further, it enhances conventional site-level conservation by working to An immense amount of resource draining takes place from North to amplify the contributions of indigenous and local communities to con­ South in unequal exchange under the guise of trade (Hickel et al., 2022). servation – not just locally - in the management of their immediate en­ Globalized commodity trade is often financed by destination countries vironments, but also through enhancing the potential for feedbacks that and involves intentional cost-shifting to lower income regions (Pascual serve to redefine common visions of prosperity, and cultivate positive et al., 2017b), driving environmental and cultural harms in countries human-to-human and human-to-nature values in society at large. Such a with abundant resources (Lenzen et al., 2012) (Fig. 1). Some examples dual-armed approach is now essential to addressing the “global inter­ include agricultural expansion (Ceddia, 2020; Rajão et al., 2020), connectivity” that threatens biodiversity (Lenzen et al., 2012; Liu et al., deforestation (Pendrill et al., 2019; Hoang and Kanemoto, 2021), over- 2013) and achieving the “urgent policy action […] required to transform fishing (Tickler et al., 2018; Sumaila et al., 2019) and illegal wildlife economic, social and financial models” (CBD, 2021) in socially just, trade (Duffy, 2016; Dang Vu, 2021), all of which result in species ex­ equitable and decolonial ways. This policy analysis synthesizes across tinctions, either directly (e.g. with threatened bird species (Marshall broad literatures, to offer the conservation, policy and practice com­ et al., 2020)) or, indirectly (e.g. via bycatch associated with illegal munities a concise account of some of the challenges facing contempo­ fishing gear (Jaramillo-Legorreta et al., 2019)). Pollution is driving rary conservation, and how Connected Conservation can overcome biodiversity decline and change through fertilizer and pesticide run-off them. from intensive commodity production, largely for export (Clark et al., Despite increasing recognition of a new age of telecoupling, in which 2018). Demand for illegal drugs is also key; conservation interventions rising urban living and consumption-heavy lifestyles are dispropor­ and local communities are undermined by weakened territorial control tionately driving biodiversity decline in tropical forest landscapes within source and transit countries (Wrathall et al., 2020). (Brondizio et al., 2019; Almond et al., 2020; Dasgupta, 2020), the Tackling climate change is central to averting global biodiversity loss largely western ‘conservation movement’ (Pascual et al., 2021) remains (Manes et al., 2021; Pörtner et al., 2021). Extreme climatic events such dominated by local interventions and site-level protection or restora­ as flooding, droughts, heatwaves and fires are jeopardizing biodiversity tion, rather than actions focused on wealthy centres. For example, in terrestrial, fresh-water, and marine systems (Barlow et al., 2018; contemporary protection-centred interventions––e.g. Half Earth, ‘30 by França et al., 2020; Manes et al., 2021). Climate change impacts from 30’ – advocate for extensive protected areas within hyperdiverse re­ greenhouse gas emissions have been primarily and historically produced gions, rather than actions targeting distant drivers (Wilson, 2016; Wal­ in centres of wealth; though some tropical countries such as Brazil and dron et al., 2020). Contemporary conservation thereby unduly Indonesia have a high historical contribution through land use change, exonerates those actors in centres of wealth and consumption who are much of this can be attributed to global trade and commodity demand, most responsible for the biodiversity crisis, propagates the white-saviour rather than domestic consumption (Evans, 2021). colonial conservation style (Rudd et al., 2021), forfeits the opportunity Nearly all countries define societal progress as dependent on of learning from contemporary biodiversity stewards, and ultimately continuous and limitless economic growth within capitalist economies. fails conservation and its justice dimensions (Gordon et al., 2010; Díaz This ubiquitous ‘One World’ model of development (Escobar, 2015) et al., 2019). underpins global trade and climate change impacts, thus making it a Here we outline Connected Conservation - based around two foci: (1) powerful underlying (indirect) driver of global declines in biological a new, challenging, and disruptive branch of telecoupled conservation that (Otero et al., 2020) and cultural diversity (biocultural diversity) (Maffi uses novel tools to make visible, and new actions to tackle, systemic and and Woodley, 2012). The One World development model propagates often ‘off-stage’ (mostly distant and diffuse) (Pascual et al., 2017b) cultural norms and mental structures that protect and legitimize the causes of biodiversity loss and (2) collaborative conservation - an associated interests of the wealthy, compel affluence through material enhanced form of existing site-level intervention that amplifies the long- and energy growth, commodification and individualization, and seek standing contribution of local populations to conservation (Garnett “modernity as unending progress” (Feola et al., 2021). Furthermore, et al., 2018). We then identify concrete actions towards this new, financial wealth accumulation drives alienation, rootlessness and transformative and expanded Connected Conservation agenda. inequality, that further undermine conservation (Pickett and Wilkinson, 2010; Martin, 2020). This development paradigm is grounded on an 2. Why addressing distant wealth accumulation matters for extractive and rent-seeking economic model that places humans as conservation dominators of an ever-extractable nature (Muradian and Pascual, 2018). As such, it legitimizes prevailing governance patterns based on compe­ The failure to address the ‘distant’ drivers of biodiversity decline can tition rather than cooperation, which are supported by current global undermine conservation in two important ways: by shirking the cen­ institutions determining national economic policies and regulations trality of financial wealth and by passing-up on the opportunity of (Kothari et al., 2019). This in turn fuels an accelerated global material collaborating with, championing and learning from, biodiversity and energy metabolism that directly degrades ecosystems, homogenises 2 R. Carmenta et al. Biological Conservation 282 (2023) 110047 cultural diversities, and contributes to climate change. flourishes and undermining the capacity of local people to defend All three negative flows from centres of wealth dominate, and extend biodiversity (Temper et al., 2015; Duffy et al., 2019; MacGregor, 2020). beyond jurisdictional borders – or across markedly different socio- In many places, cultural diversity has persistently been attenuated, cultural contexts within countries – in a process known as tele­ subjugated and stigmatized by the dominant flows of trade, climate coupling (Liu et al., 2013). Conventional, largely site-level conservation, change and one-world development that arise from centres of financial is inadequate for tackling these transboundary flows associated with wealth (Maffi and Woodley, 2012). Yet, these communities contribute to global wealth drivers (Gordon et al., 2010; Friess et al., 2015; Díaz et al., biological conservation through three central, albeit increasingly 2019). marginalized, flows: (i) local models of biocultural governance, (ii) diverse knowledge and (iii) plural values (Fig. 2). Each is elaborated below. 2.2. A focus on ‘resolving’ local livelihoods obscures locally-driven In many places, local models of biocultural governance systems solutions (including territorial governance) enable and allow local communities to survive and flourish (Stavenhagen, 2006). Even while being eroded, In addition to circumventing the dominant role of distant drivers, the local governance is a counter-force to globalisation and stands in direct disproportionate focus on site-level conservation places the onus for contrast to one world development – underpinned by the philosophy of change on socially and economically marginalized communities (Adams community and commons (over individualism and private accumula­ et al., 2004; Skutsch and Turnhout, 2020). These approaches often tion), attachment to place and territory, and small environmental foot­ attempt to ‘resolve’ local economic poverty in order to safeguard prints (Feola et al., 2021). For instance, community-based biodiversity (Roe et al., 2015; Woodhouse et al., 2021), in a seemingly agroecological production is associated with resilience, provision of virtuous act delivered by the too-often white saviour, rather than multiple ecosystem services and agro-biodiversity (Padoch and Pinedo- question what constitutes ‘poverty’ and what enhances well-being in Vasquez, 2010; Tscharntke et al., 2012; Tamburini et al., 2020). Despite rural place-based communities (though methods exist for doing so, e.g. constant threat, indigenous people and local communities retain suffi­ Llopis et al., 2019; Carmenta et al., 2022). Further introducing economic cient autonomy to hold roughly 67 % of the world's remotest land under rewards, payments and incentives can perversely nudge local actors in to customary systems of tenure and governance (Garnett et al., 2018). the supply chains that already drive deforestation and biodiversity loss, Further, much of this land represents “intact forest” landscapes that are or overwrite values related to stewardship of nature (Ezzine-de-Blas often effectively conserved and are contemporary strongholds of bio­ et al., 2019; Otero et al., 2020). Crucially, such site-level conservation logical and cultural diversity (Fa et al., 2020; Dawson et al., 2021). may overlook local communities as the living locus of solutions to the Diverse knowledge systems and understanding of people-nature re­ biodiversity crisis - evidence shows how low intensity anthromes over­ lations support, and are maintained by, different ways of knowing and lap with land held and managed by Indigenous and traditional com­ experiencing the world (Ingold, 2002; Maffi and Woodley, 2012). munities (Garnett et al., 2018). It thereby misses the opportunity of Traditional and local ecological knowledge plays an important role in empowering those local biodiversity stewards and fails to engage, structuring species composition, agro-biodiversity, sustainable resource champion and learn from the local knowledge and cultural norms that use and land management and thus is highly relevant for conservation have proven consonant with care for nature (Büscher and Fletcher, (Reyes-García and Benyei, 2019). Furthermore, there are strong asso­ 2019). Meanwhile, wealth-related drivers, and sometimes conservation ciations between cultural and biological diversity leading to the intervention itself, are debasing centres where biocultural diversity Fig. 1. Global portrait of biodiversity loss driven by the role of distant wealth and consumption. Three examples within the IUCN ‘agriculture and aquaculture’ anthropogenic driver of species threat, in key biodiverse regions and in relation to leading commodities: Brazilian soy, Namibian fisheries and Indonesian palm oil. a, Export flow of soy, oil palm and fish produced in biodiverse countries and distributed between the top five importing countries (i.e. centres of financial wealth). Line width indicates the average yearly proportion of total exports using the last 3 years reported. b, Trend data illustrates the total volume of each commodity and potential environmental damage associated with biodiversity loss, land use change (i.e. soy and palm oil harvested area as proxy for deforestation) and total fish catch (i.e. net product weight as a proxy for biodiversity damages in fisheries). Data sources: TRASE, FAOSTATS, SEA AROUND US, FishStatJ. 3 R. Carmenta et al. Biological Conservation 282 (2023) 110047 observation that landscape homogenization (e.g. via monoculture Connected Conservation therefore requires two broad, ideally inter- expansion) leads to lost ways of knowing, or the ‘homogenization of the connected, sets of actions (Fig. 2): (1) telecoupled conservation actions that mind’ (Maffi and Woodley, 2012; Cámara-Leret and Bascompte, 2021). reduce and filter the dominant systemic flows of one-world develop­ A large diversity of values about nature exist within and across so­ ment, climate change and trade from centres of wealth, and (2) collab­ cieties (IPBES, 2022). Within such diversity, positive ‘relational values’ orative conservation actions that enhance and amplify the positive yet (Chan et al. 2016) that express integration with and stewardship of marginalized forms of local governance, diverse knowledge systems and nature tend to be more prevalent in the rural and small-scale commu­ plural values of nature from bioculturally diverse regions. Connected nities that conservation so often engages with (Agarwala et al., 2014). Conservation thus recognizes and mobilises justice and diversity, mak­ Moral, gift and solidarity economies have enabled the resilience and ing space for transformative conservation actions in a movement that persistence of local communities, even while they negotiate their pushes for change at different levels, unconstrained by colonial ideas marginalized positions within dominant models of development and and models of site-level conservation. market exchange in order to maintain their own ways of living (from, In essence, Connected Conservation pursues desired states within with, in, and as) nature (Henrich et al., 2005; Adams et al., 2008; Hill which both biodiversity and humanity can flourish. As illustrated in et al., 2021). Further, diverse conceptions of living a good life likely also Fig. 2, within centres of wealth the desired states uphold (i) accountable enhance our capacity to identify new, viable solutions and alternative and regulated trade supported by (ii) gratification not growth, thereby developments not centred on affluence and wealth accumulation leading to a reduced desire and demand for socio-environmentally (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013; Leyva-Solano, 2019). harmful consumption. Within biocultural centres, Connected Conser­ vation actions pursues (iii) local governance, rights and self- 3. Connected conservation: moving beyond conservation's site- determination, and (iv) respect and learning from diverse knowledge level emphasis and plural values. The actions Connected Conservation needs to progress towards these Addressing biodiversity loss in an economically interconnected desired states are available within four interlinked and overarching le­ world challenges us to develop a revised model of conservation based on vers (Independent group of Scientists, 2019): (i) Governance and greater awareness of connections among actors, locations and disci­ Accountability (e.g. accessible, transparent, effective, fair and systemic); plines. Our ‘Connected Conservation’ model (Fig. 2) targets the role of (ii) Economy and Finance (e.g. private and development aid flows, fis­ wealth in environmental health collapse and biodiversity loss, in­ cal, monetary, trade and subsidies policy); (iii) Individual and Collective terrogates common views of what constitutes poverty and well-being, action (e.g. empowerment, knowledge, participation, mobilisation, and disrupts the dominant flows marginalizing nature. Yet is also rec­ reconfiguration of social norms); and (iv) Science and Technology (e.g. ognizes and supports and contributes to positive, local biocultural public and private, technology transfer, to anticipate, model and assess) governance, practices and values. This process of deconstructing (Fig. 2). Notably, Connected Conservation operates through dual pro­ accepted norms and models, combined with articulating efficient al­ cesses of diminishing and disrupting the negative flows from centres of ternatives, is deemed necessary for the emergence of new sustainable financial accumulation in ‘telecoupled conservation’ and enabling and futures (Feola et al., 2021). amplifying the positive flows in ‘collaborative conservation’. What it Fig. 2. Conceptual overview of Connected Conservation. Three dominant negative flows stem from centres of wealth and reduce biodiversity: one world devel­ opment model, climate change and trade (legal and illegal). Meanwhile three positive, yet presently marginalized flows, stem from biocultural centres and enhance biodiversity: local models of biocultural governance, diverse knowledge, and plural values and conceptions of a good life. Connected Conservation operates through dual processes of diminishing and disrupting the negative flows from centres of financial accumulation in ‘telecoupled conservation’ and enabling and amplifying the positive flows in ‘collaborative conservation’. Connected Conservation actions are operated through a fourfold set of levers: Governance and Accountability (GOV & ACC; e.g. environmental law, meaningful participatory decision making; transparent value chains and trade flows; embedding multi-dimensional wellbeing in na­ tional development indicators); Economy and Finance (ECO & FIN; e.g. fading out perverse subsidies, true pricing of assets); Individual and Collective action (IND & COLL; e.g. education raising social awareness of the impact of conventional wealth; social movements, protest and mobilisation for policy change; experimenting, recognizing and legitimising alternatives) and Science and technology (SCIE & TECH; e.g. research to inform evidence-based actions, monitor and evaluate impacts). 4 R. Carmenta et al. Biological Conservation 282 (2023) 110047 offers is conservation with justice at the centre, albeit while representing to reducing excessive consumer demand for commodities from extrac­ a great challenge to the networks and norms of contemporary conser­ tive sectors and the ‘breaking of capitalist habits’ (Feola et al., 2021). vation, pushing the conservation effort to connect across sectors to Citizen action and mobilisation is vital. While government action is deliver. necessary, mainstreaming norms of living that reduce consumerism is unlikely to manifest without strong, bottom-up, demand from an 3.1. Accountable and regulated trade informed population. Thus, through the interplay between collective action, and science and technology levers – Connected Conservation Novel conservation actions adequate for a telecoupled world will be seeks actions that inform and mobilize publics to demand system the most transformative for the conservation agenda. A set of these must change. Lack of concern or emotional disconnection has shown to be a focus on reducing the negative flows from commodity and wildlife trade main obstacle to more effective collective action, and it is particularly requiring regulations that allow for (a) internalising trade-related ex­ pervasive with long-distance environmental problems such as defores­ ternalities and cost shifting to distant places– e.g. via commodity prices, tation overseas (Bastos Lima et al., 2021). Conversely, the strength of (b) equitably safeguarding the value chain by ensuring actors (and thus humanitarian, emotive story-telling has been central in the climate their actions) and finance are traceable, (c) tightening regulations and change movement (Raymond et al., 2013) and may offer promise for compliance mechanisms to avoid the cost-shifting inherent in trade and conservation (Caldwell and Henry, 2020). Research shows that (d) improving the transparency of trade agreements, fishing licensing revealing the humanitarian dimension of environmental harm may help and large-scale land acquisitions. Achieving these shifts involves actions mobilize actors, and can engage even diverse stakeholders with across all levers. Although changes are ultimately delivered through powerful interests in the status quo (Carmenta et al., 2017). Research on trade policy (i.e. economy and finance and governance levers), these the narrative shifts that would help recalibrate the understanding of will only become available by progress and demand generated through conservation as a form of aid, to conservation as a collective re­ the science and research and collective action levers. This is because sponsibility underscored by principles of stewardship is crucial (Trisos existing trade institutions are designed to protect rather than challenge et al., 2021). Conservation-orientated gaming, citizen science platforms the dominant influence of financial wealth (Visseren-Hamakers et al., and citizens assemblies have all been used to help reach a broader public 2021; Hickel et al., 2022). Powerful vested interests in centres of wealth with messaging about the importance and intricacy of our collective hold great political influence, while small-scale land or resource users relationship with the natural world (Dorward et al., 2017; Fletcher, with less political or economic visibility become scapegoats (Hickel 2017), or enhancing empathy for ‘distant’ citizens through innovative et al., 2022). methods (e.g. virtual reality)(Nelson et al., 2020). The short-term, pro-growth and siloed decision-making tendencies of Broadening access to the knowledge and science that explains sus­ global trade must ultimately be resolved through actions within the tainability problems and the role of actors within them is also important economy and finance lever. This will require addressing the dominant (Blasiak et al., 2021). Connected Conservation must work more closely corporate culture that continuously aspires to influence rule-making and with the education and advertising sectors within centres of wealth to monopolise resources (Hickel, 2017). Curbing corporations' lobbying ensure that concepts such as climate change, justice, natural history, influence might be partly achieved by expanding impact evaluation planetary boundaries, political ecology, sustainability and telecoupling processes of proposed mergers, specifically through assessing impacts on are sufficiently embedded within formal educational curricula, because prices, market structures, human well-being and the environment more people may care more for what they know (Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008). broadly (Cafaggi and Pistor, 2015; Clapp, 2021). Lobbying for trade Once inspired, citizens can be a powerful source of pressure on gov­ policy shifts such as blocs against ‘imported deforestation’ (Bager et al., ernments to demand effective and just policies supporting Connected 2021), or moratoria for suppliers or regions linked to environmental Conservation (Raymond et al., 2013; Amel et al., 2017). harm can have considerable impacts. Identifying, communicating and Connected Conservation must identify and lobby for policies that lobbying for policy reforms, such as curbing fisheries subsidies through convey broad ideological shifts towards the “subordinat[ion of] eco­ the World Trade Organisation (Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2020), is nomic objectives to ecological criteria” (Raymond et al., 2013; Escobar, crucial for Connected Conservation. 2015; Hughes et al., 2017). These policies may enable, or require, citi­ Science and technology are fundamental, as they can gather evidence zens and companies to make sustainable decisions regardless of their and develop the tools required to enable needed reforms. For instance own environmental values. Recent research and action shows how TRASE (an open-access platform on supply chain flows) has enabled behavioral science and environmental law can be used across scales to transparent monitoring of trade and finance linked to externalities (or foster positive changes (Balmford et al., 2021). For instance, environ­ cost-shifting) of deforestation (Gardner et al., 2019), while Global mental law can assist transformational change through enforcement, Fishing Watch is improving traceability via tracking global fishing ac­ correctives and compensation for victims, which ultimately signal to tivity in near real time. Evidence-based information can strengthen society that over-consumption and associated damages are no longer lawsuits focused on delivering liability for environmental and social acceptable (e.g. illegal wildlife trade (Phelps et al., 2021)). externalities of extraction. For example, ‘counter-forensics’ (Digital Ar­ Connected Conservation requires bringing together a wide range of chitecture group) generated evidence fundamental to the ultimate stakeholders and sectors to demystify and popularize contemporary expulsion of a giant palm oil company from FSC certification in old ‘alternative’ living models that respect planetary boundaries (Rockström growth Papuan forest (BBC, 2021). et al., 2009; Raworth, 2017). Examples of such models include social housing ventures that aspire to reduce overconsumption (Angel, 2021; 3.2. Gratification rather than growth Martínez, 2021), and the movement of cities geared around reclaiming and protecting the commons to satisfy social wellbeing without the need One key way to diminish all three negative flows – one world of expansion (Comú et al., 2019; Russell, 2019; Thompson, 2021). development, climate change and global trade (Brondizio et al., 2019; Additional examples, already being put into action, include community Pörtner et al., 2021) – involves reducing the demand for commodity economies, transition towns, and ecovillages – and are geared towards consumption in centres of wealth. This requires actions across all levers, enhanced resilience through, potentially replicable and scalable, dec­ many of which are not within the conventional remit of site-level con­ arbonized and care-focused communities (Hopkins et al., 2008; Litfin, servation and challenge conservation to work towards transforming 2012; Gibson-Graham et al., 2013; Kallis and March, 2015). Connected deeply entrenched ideologies of success and progress (Cinner and Kit­ Conservation can support a research agenda focused on identifying the tinger, 2015; Balmford et al., 2021). impacts of these alternative models, and how to raise their profile to Redefining common visions of prosperity is considered fundamental promote large-scale change (Balmford et al., 2021). Lobbying for 5 R. Carmenta et al. Biological Conservation 282 (2023) 110047 supportive policies could help ensure that increased demand for new (Garcia and Shirley, 2013). For example, place-based curricula have aspirational futures is coupled with government investments to been a formidable tool in the political agency and resistance of the normalize and make available the alternative models needed, which in marginalized, from the Zapatistas of Mexico and the peasant agro-food turn can shift cultural norms and consumer preferences (Scott, 2008), territories (TCAs) of Colombia, to the Eskola Rimba (Rimba School) of particularly, when accompanied by better advertising regulation. Indonesia (Leyva-Solano, 2019; Manurung, 2019; Feola et al., 2021). At Proximity between research and activism has proven a fertile ground their most powerful, place-based educational material will reach beyond for transformation (Fletcher et al., 2020). For example, the fusion of local curriculums and be delivered to wider social groups (Guilherme post-growth and degrowth academic and activist movements have and Hüttner, 2015). started to define alternative aspirational futures that replace and recast Crucially, Connected Conservation must move beyond simplified notions of wealth and understandings of progress, and also identify assumptions of values and incentives. For example, from a focus on policy options that may support them (Kallis, 2018). These ‘radical’ shifting human behavior through individual motives and values partners (e.g. activists, climate action youth, eco-feminists, political (Balmford et al., 2021), towards focussing on larger-scale systemic ecologists) have, however, hitherto remained peripheral to conventional shifts, or questioning structural socio-economic conditions driving conservation but hold great promise for Connected Conservation (Mas­ exclusion, disempowerment and associated aspects of poverty. Further, sarella et al., 2021). the concept of biodiversity stewards remains branded as a ‘romantic’ vision that stands against the ‘better evidence’ and pragmatic realism of 3.3. Embracing diverse knowledge systems and values frameworks centred on utility-maximising ‘man’ (Bregman, 2020). These colonial tendencies of conventional conservation are now being An enhanced model of site-level conservation (i.e. collaborative called out (Armenteras, 2021; Gram-Hanssen et al., 2021; Trisos et al., conservation) must be supported by empowering alternative knowledge 2021). New research could help identify what enables the resilience and systems, visions of a good life and the plurality of values about nature persistence of local communities (rather than their collapse) (Smith (IPBES, 2022). It can do so by amplifying the presently marginalized et al., 2021) and, in so doing, identify how best to support communities flows that contribute to transformative sustainability values (Visseren- over the long term. For example, in Indonesia's oil palm frontiers strong Hamakers et al., 2021). Establishing meaningful recognition and broad social connections, integral customary traditions and embedded people- validation for the diverse lifeways, notions of a good life and knowledge nature relationships are central to the rejection of oil palm development systems requires profound change in conservation practice in centres of (Yuliani et al., 2020). wealth (see Sections 3.1 and 3.2), as well as in site-level conservation Increasingly, local communities and networks are mobilising to action. Decolonial conservation approaches that engage with trans­ share their knowledge and build alternative futures. Though still mar­ disciplinary co-production of knowledge and impact evaluations are ginal and as yet unable to make significant macro-level transformations, opening new horizons (Rodríguez and Inturias, 2018). For instance, the such initiatives reflect a visible counter-trend to one-world develop­ shift enables Connected Conservation to be more aligned with local ment. These alternatives can be a re-assertion of ancient cultures, or be conceptions of well-being and the full suite of values that influence and very new, but all have a core of ethical values that put justice and nature motivate behaviours; it also helps reveal the true extent of injustices (including humans) at the centre. Bringing together these ideas and created by environmental harms, or indeed sometimes conservation practices to create a critical mass is seen as crucial, and learnings from intervention itself (Carmenta et al., n.d.; Cundill et al., 2017; Zafra-Calvo initiatives such as the Global Tapestry of Alternatives and the Vikalp et al., 2020). New relational frameworks are enriching our under­ Sangam (Alternatives Confluence) represent promising opportunities for standing of the ways in which the environment mediates and contributes Connected Conservation partnerships (Kothari, 2020). to multi-dimensional human well-being (Chan et al. 2016; Sterling et al., 2017). 3.4. Respecting local biocultural governance, self-determination and An example of progress in this direction is a site-level approach to rights assess and enhance governance of area-based conservation developed by an international consortium of NGOs and scientists. SAGE (Site-level The collaborative branch of Connected Conservation sees empow­ Assessment of Governance and Equity) is a toolkit for multi-stakeholder ered, autonomous and self-determined local communities being sup­ assessment of conservation governance designed around three di­ ported by established, recognized and defended rights. The positive mensions of equity: recognition, procedure and distribution (Schreck­ flows of local biocultural governance, diverse values and diverse enberg et al., 2016). This and other related initiatives such as the IUCN knowledge can be enhanced and safeguarded by governance changes Green List are important because they change the basis upon which we that move away from the traditional approach of ‘resolving’ frugal evaluate the performance of area-based conservation, from singular lifestyles, and instead champion the authority, rights and capabilities of attention on biodiversity gains (and/or financial poverty alleviation) to contemporary biodiversity stewards to exercise diverse visions of pros­ measures more attuned with biocultural approaches, including recog­ perity (Stavenhagen, 2006; Garnett et al., 2018), and living well with nition of local values and knowledge. By documenting and duly recog­ nature. nizing diverse people-nature relationships, IPBES is also helping to Forms of governance that enable place-based stewardship of nature counter dominant worldviews and build momentum towards broader in the context of local culture and knowledge, provide effective, equi­ recognition of the contribution of biodiversity to human well-being and table and cost-efficient models for conservation and restoration of bio­ the diverse relationships between people and nature (Pascual et al., diverse landscapes (Schleicher et al., 2017; Reyes-García et al., 2019). 2017a; Díaz et al., 2018). This major contribution to conservation – and its diversity of local and The capability to reclaim, rebuild and revive cultural ties is a resis­ alternative models of conservation – is now beginning to be recognized tance option that defends marginalized peoples and their cultures from in international conservation. For example through the adoption of new homogenization (Rodríguez and Inturias, 2018; Yuliani et al., 2018; terminology (e.g. Other Effective area based Conservation Measures Leyva-Solano, 2019). Connected Conservation requires strong collabo­ (OECMs) or Indigenous and Community Conserved areas (ICCAs)) to ration with place-based voices that defy dominant development in recognize areas of land and sea that are effectively conserved locally defence of diverse values, norms, knowledges and socio-ecological even where the primary management objective focuses on culture, au­ practices (Pilgrim and Pretty, 2010; Fletcher et al., 2020; Pascual tonomy or wellbeing, rather than biodiversity conservation per se et al., 2021). Working with humility across stakeholders and sectors can (Alves-Pinto et al., 2021; Gurney et al., 2021; Shaw, 2021). Biosphere enable governance responses – such as educational curricula that Reserves (BRs) sponsored by UNESCO offer an example of a site-based reproduce and recognize local traditional and Indigenous perspectives biocultural model of conservation supported through formal global 6 R. Carmenta et al. Biological Conservation 282 (2023) 110047 conservation governance. They promote a model for learning about well-being as part of it. diverse ways of living with nature that incorporates a biocultural basis for conservation. This principle was established with the first example in CRediT authorship contribution statement Cape Horn (Berghoefer et al., 2010) and their benefits over more segregationist models of conservation have since been documented in RC, JB, CH and BV conceived the idea for the study; FF and NEC many locations, along with the possibilities for strengthening the BR curated the data and ran the analysis; RC, JB, AM, NEP, FF prepared and approach through greater commitment to biocultural diversity (Karez developed the Figures and Visualizations; RC, JB, CH led the writing of et al., 2015). The BR model links with larger scale ‘telecoupled’ con­ the original draft. RC, JB, MBL, EB, SC, NEC, FF, EK, AL, AM, UP, NP, JR, servation as it is influenced by global efforts to counter hegemonic one- IR, AS, TS, BV, JGZ and CH developed sub-section parts and made world development, through global legal interventions such as the critical contributions to the review & editing phases of subsequent United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and drafts, and gave final approval for publication. global scientific initiatives such as the knowledge and value pluralism. Broader innovations within state legal systems can enhance biodi­ Declaration of competing interest versity conservation locally, providing a pathway for self-determined management strategies informed by plural values. Legal governance, There is no conflict of interest. and specifically environmental law, holds unrealized potential to uphold environmental protection and support place-based conservation and Data availability associated localized cultural practices (Phelps et al., 2021). For instance, in 2017, the government of New Zealand/Aotearoa granted personhood Data will be made available on request. to the Whanganui River (Te Awa Tupua) as a result of nation-to-nation negotiations with the Māori of the Whanganui Iwi (Macpherson, 2019). Ecuador has incorporated Indigenous law into its constitution by giving Acknowledgements rights to ‘Pachamama’ (Mother Earth) as well as recognizing “buen vivir” (“living well”) as a holistic measure to protect marginalized RC is grateful to the support of the Frank Jackson Foundation that members of society, and support Indigenous principles of responsibility, enabled this work. reciprocity and interconnectedness (Sajeva, 2017). Important instances of resistance and self-determination have been References catalysed through the collective action lever in multiple biocultural centres which Connected Conservation can support. For example, Adams, C., Murrieta, R.S.S., Neves, W., Harris, M., 2008. Amazon Peasant Societies in a Changing Environment. Springer. peasant and Indigenous movements and networks such as the Zapatistas, Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., La Via Campesina, TCAs and ICCAs all orientate around principles of Vira, B., Wolmer, W., 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of localized aspirational futures, and are grounded on principles such as poverty. Science 306, 1146–1149. Agarwala, M., Atkinson, G., Fry, B.P., Homewood, K., Mourato, S., Rowcliffe, J.M., autonomy, food sovereignty, solidarity, sufficiency, participation and Wallace, G., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2014. Assessing the relationship between human the collective (Kothari et al., 2019; Feola et al., 2021). Through diverse well-being and ecosystem services: a review of frameworks. Conserv. Soc. 12, partnerships with stakeholders that are embedded in place, locally 437–449. Almond, R.E.A., MG, Petersen, T. (Eds.), 2020. Living Planet Report 2020 - Bending the salient welfare needs and hardships can be identified. Sound health is a Curve of Biodiversity Loss. prerequisite for the freedom to choose and self-define futures, and some Alves-Pinto, H., Geldmann, J., Jonas, H., Maioli, V., Balmford, A., Latawiec, A.E., conservation initiatives are now working in collaboration with the Crouzeilles, R., Strassburg, B., 2021. Opportunities and challenges of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) for biodiversity conservation. Perspect. health sector to provide these services that inadvertently strengthen Ecol. Conserv. 19, 115–120. community capability to remain and to flourish (Miller, 2020). Amel, E., Manning, C., Scott, B., Koger, S., 2017. Beyond the roots of human inaction: fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. Science 356, 275–279. Angel, J., 2021. New municipalism and the state: remunicipalising energy in Barcelona, 4. Conclusion from prosaics to process. Antipode 53, 524–545. Armenteras, D., 2021. Guidelines for healthy global scientific collaborations. Nat. Ecol. Conservation science and practice is constantly evolving, from its Evol. 1–2. Bager, S.L., Persson, U.M., dos Reis, T.N., 2021. Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing original biological focus (Soulé, 1985), to its more recent consideration imported deforestation. One Earth 4, 289–306. of people and societies (Mace, 2014) and a phase featuring investments Balmford, A., Bradbury, R.B., Bauer, J.M., Broad, S., Burgess, G., Burgman, M., in nature (Kareiva and Marvier, 2012). It is evident another step change Byerly, H., Clayton, S., Espelosin, D., Ferraro, P.J., 2021. Making more effective use is unfolding (Büscher and Fletcher, 2019). Connected Conservation of human behavioural science in conservation interventions. Biol. Conserv. 261, 109256. builds on this momentum to take us beyond site-level emphasis, or Barlow, J., França, F., Gardner, T.A., Hicks, C.C., Lennox, G.D., Berenguer, E., simplistic narratives about poverty and local biodiversity threats. It Castello, L., Economo, E.P., Ferreira, J., Guénard, B., Gontijo Leal, C., Isaac, V., instead highlights the role of wealth-related drivers in precipitating Lees, A.C., Parr, C.L., Wilson, S.K., Young, P.J., Graham, N.A.J., 2018. The future of hyperdiverse tropical ecosystems. Nature 559, 517–526. biodiversity and cultural loss. Bringing about the four desired states in Bastos Lima, M.G., Harring, N., Jagers, S.C., Löfgren, Å., Persson, U.M., Sjöstedt, M., which biological and cultural diversity can flourish will not be easy or Brülde, B., Langlet, D., Steffen, W., Alpízar, F., 2021. Large-scale collective action to straightforward– there are strongly embedded power structures that avoid an Amazon tipping point - key actors and interventions. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 3, 100048. encourage incremental innovation (Feola et al., 2021), rather than more BBC, 2021. Korindo: Korean Palm Oil Giant Stripped of Sustainability Status. fundamental changes to challenge the status quo. We do not contend Berghoefer, U., Rozzi, R., Jax, K., 2010. Many eyes on nature: diverse perspectives in the that the conservation sector has either the expertise or capacity to Cape Horn biosphere reserve and their relevance for conservation. Ecol. Soc. 15. Blasiak, R., Dauriach, A., Jouffray, J., Folke, C., Österblom, H., Bebbington, J., deliver the four desired states alone, but highlight the necessary trans­ Bengtsson, F., Causevic, A., Geerts, B., Grønbrekk, W., Henriksson, P., 2021. formation to contemporary conservation, and the imperative to pursue Evolving perspectives of stewardship in the seafood industry. Frontiers in new actions and alliances. Conservation must challenge itself to meet marineScience 8. Bregman, R., 2020. Humankind: A Hopeful History. Bloomsbury Publishing. this need, working in diverse partnerships and with different sectors and Brondizio, E., Settele, J., Díaz, S., Ngo, H.T., 2019. IPBES (2019): Global Assessment disciplines to bring about fundamental changes with justice at the Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science- centre. A key task will be to improve our understanding of the impact of Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Connected Conservation actions across scales (Editorial, 2021), and how Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., 2019. Towards convivial conservation. Conserv. Soc. 17, 283–296. best to apply these actions so that we can live well without destroying Cafaggi, F., Pistor, K., 2015. Regulatory capabilities: a normative framework for the biological and cultural diversity that defines the living world and our assessing the distributional effects of regulation. Regul. Gov. 9, 95–107. 7 R. Carmenta et al. Biological Conservation 282 (2023) 110047 Caldwell, M., Henry, P.C., 2020. How cultural branding, story-telling, and Garcia, J., Shirley, V., 2013. Performing decolonization: lessons learned from indigenous personification can save the iconic Australian koala. Psychol. Mark. 37, 1781–1789. youth, teachers and leaders' engagement with critical indigenous pedagogy. Cámara-Leret, R., Bascompte, J., 2021. Language extinction triggers the loss of unique J. Curric. Theor. 28. medicinal knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118. Gardner, T.A., Benzie, M., Börner, J., Dawkins, E., Fick, S., Garrett, R., Godar, J., Carmenta, R., Steward, A., Albuquerque, A., Carneiro, R., Vira, B., Estrada, Carmona N., Grimard, A., Lake, S., Larsen, R.K., 2019. Transparency and sustainability in global 2022. The comparative performance of land sharing, land sparing type interventions commodity supply chains. World Dev. 121, 163–177. on place-based human well-being. People Nat. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Garnett, S.T., Burgess, N.D., Fa, J.E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. pan3.10384. J., Watson, J.E.M., Zander, K.K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E.S., 2018. A spatial overview Carmenta et al., n.d.Carmenta R, Steward A, Albuquerque A, Carvalho R, Vira B, Estrada- of the global importance of indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369. Carmona N (n.d.). The comparative performance of land sharing, land sparing type Gibson-Graham, J.-K., Cameron, J., Healy, S., 2013. Take Back the Economy: An Ethical interventions on place-based wellbeing. People and Nature. Guide for Transforming Our Communities. U of Minnesota Press. Carmenta, R., Zabala, A., Daeli, W., Phelps, J., 2017. Perceptions across scales of Gómez-Baggethun, E., Corbera, E., Reyes-García, V., 2013. Traditional ecological governance and the indonesian peatland fires. Glob. Environ. Chang. 46. knowledge and global environmental change: research findings and policy CBD, 2021. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. implications. Ecol. Soc. 18. Ceddia, M.G., 2020. The super-rich and cropland expansion via direct investments in Gordon, I.J., Pettorelli, N., Katzner, T., Gompper, M.E., Mock, K., Redpath, S., Garner, T. agriculture. Nat. Sustain. 3, 312–318. W.J., Altwegg, R., 2010. International year of biodiversity: missed targets and the Chan, K.M.A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez- need for better monitoring, real action and global policy. Anim. Conserv. 13, Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., 2016. Opinion: Why protect 113–114. nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, Gram-Hanssen, I., Schafenacker, N., Bentz, J., 2021. Decolonizing transformations 1462–1465. through ‘right relations’. Sustain. Sci. 1–13. Cinner, J.E., Kittinger, J.N., 2015. 22 linkages between social systems and coral reefs. Guilherme, A., Hüttner, É., 2015. Exploring the new challenges for indigenous education Ecology of fishes on. Coral Reefs 215. in Brazil: some lessons from ticuna schools. Int. Rev. Educ. 61, 481–501. Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Ota, Y., Bailey, M., Hicks, C.C., Khan, A.S., Rogers, A., Gurney, G.G., Darling, E.S., Ahmadia, G.N., Agostini, V.N., Ban, N.C., Blythe, J., Sumaila, U.R., Virdin, J., He, K.K., 2020. Changing the narrative on fisheries Claudet, J., Epstein, G., Himes-Cornell, A., Jonas, H.D., 2021. Biodiversity Needs subsidies reform: enabling transitions to achieve SDG 14.6 and beyond. Mar. Policy Every Tool in the Box: Use OECMs. 117, 103970. Heimlich, J.E., Ardoin, N.M., 2008. Understanding behavior to understand behavior Clapp, J., 2021. The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the change: a literature review. Environ. Educ. Res. 14, 215–237. global food system. Nat. Food 2, 404–408. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R., Clark, M., Hill, J., Tilman, D., 2018. The diet, health, and environment trilemma. Annu. Alvard, M., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., 2005. “Economic man” in cross-cultural Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 109–134. perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behav. Brain Sci. 28, Comú, B.E., Bookchin, D., Colau, A., 2019. Fearless Cities: A Guide to the Global 795–815. Municipalist Movement. New Internationalist, UK. Hickel, J., 2017. The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and Its Solutions. Cundill, G., Bezerra, J.C., De Vos, A., Ntingana, N., 2017. Beyond benefit sharing: place Random House. attachment and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding Hickel, J., Dorninger, C., Wieland, H., Suwandi, I., 2022. Imperialist appropriation in the communities. Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 140–148. world economy: drain from the global south through unequal exchange, 1990–2015. Dang Vu, H.N., 2021. When cheap talk is not that cheap – interviewing the super-rich Glob. Environ. Chang. 73, 102467. about illegal wildlife consumption. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 1–6. Hill, R., Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Molnár, Z., Van Velden, J., 2021. Nature’s Dasgupta, P., 2020. Interim Report of the Independent Review on the Economics of contributions to people: weaving plural perspectives. One Earth 4, 910–915. Biodiversity. Hoang, N.T., Kanemoto, K., 2021. Mapping the deforestation footprint of nations reveals Daszak, P., das Neves, C., Amuasi, J., Hayman, D., Kuiken, T., Roche, B., Zambrana- growing threat to tropical forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 845–853. Torrelio, C., Buss, P., Dundarova, H., Feferholtz, Y., Foldvari, G., Igbinosa, E., Hopkins, R., Hopkins, R., Heinberg, R., 2008. The Transition Handbook: From Oil Junglen, S., Liu, Q., Suzan, G., Uhart, M., Wannous, C., Woolaston, K., Mosig Dependency to Local Resilience. Green books Totnes. Reidl, P., O’Brien, K., Pascual, U., Stoett, P., Li, H., Ngo, H.T., 2020. Workshop Hughes, T.P., Barnes, M.L., Bellwood, D.R., Cinner, J.E., Cumming, G.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Kleypas, J., Van De Leemput, I.A., Lough, J.M., Morrison, T.H., 2017. Coral reefs in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. the Anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90. Dawson, N., Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E., Loveridge, R., Nicole, D., Wongbusarakum, S., Independent group of Scientists, 2019. Global Sustainable Development Report: The Sangha, K., Scherl, L., Phan, H.P., Zafra-Calvo, N., 2021. The role of indigenous Future Is Now - Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecol. Soc. 26. Ingold, T., 2002. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Skill. Routledge. Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A., Brauman, K.A., 2018. Assessing nature's contributions to IPBES, 2022. Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of people. Science 359, 270–272. Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E.S., Ngo, H.T., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Ecosystem Services. In: Balvanera, P., Pascual, U., Christie, M., Baptiste, B., Brauman, K.A., Butchart, S.H.M., Chan, K.M.A., 2019. Pervasive human-driven González-Jiménez, D. (Eds.). IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/ decline of life on earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366. 10.5281/zenodo.6522522. Dorward, L.J., Mittermeier, J., Sandbrook, C., Spooner, F., 2017. Pokémon go: benefits, Jaramillo-Legorreta, A.M., Cardenas-Hinojosa, G., Nieto-Garcia, E., Rojas-Bracho, L., costs, and lessons for the conservation movement. Conserv. Lett. 10, 160–165. Thomas, L., Ver Hoef, J.M., Moore, J., Taylor, B., Barlow, J., Tregenza, N., 2019. Duffy, R., 2016. The illegal wildlife trade in global perspective. In: Handbook of Decline towards extinction of Mexico’s vaquita porpoise (Phocoena sinus). R. Soc. Transnational Environmental Crime. Edward Elgar Publishing. Open Sci. 6, 190598. Duffy, R., Massé, F., Smidt, E., Marijnen, E., Büscher, B., Verweijen, J., Ramutsindela, M., Kallis, G., 2018. Degrowth. Columbia University Press. Simlai, T., Joanny, L., Lunstrum, E., 2019. Why we must question the militarisation Kallis, G., March, H., 2015. Imaginaries of hope: the utopianism of degrowth. Ann. Assoc. of conservation. Biol. Conserv. 232, 66–73. Am. Geogr. 105, 360–368. Editorial, 2021. Weighing up policy tools. Nature Sustainability 4, 561. Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., 2012. What is conservation science? Bioscience 62, 962–969. Escobar, A., 2015. Degrowth, postdevelopment, and transitions: a preliminary Karez, C., Hernández Faccio, J., Schüttler, E., Rozzi, R., Garcia, M., Meza, Á., Clüsener- conversation. Sustain. Sci. 10, 451–462. Godt, M., 2015. Learning experiences about intangible heritage conservation for Evans, S., 2021. Which Countries Are Historically Responsible for Climate Change?. sustainability in biosphere reserves. Mater. Cult. Rev. 82, 84–96. Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Corbera, E., Lapeyre, R., 2019. Payments for environmental services Kothari, A., 2020. Earth vikalp sangam: proposal for a global tapestry of alternatives. and motivation crowding: towards a conceptual framework. Ecol. Econ. 156, Globalizations 17, 245–249. 434–443. Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F., Acosta, A., 2019. Finding Pluriversal Fa, J.E., Watson, J.E.M., Leiper, I., Potapov, P., Evans, T.D., Burgess, N.D., Molnár, Z., Paths. Pluriverse: A Post-development Dictionary. Tulika Books. Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Duncan, T., Wang, S., 2020. Importance of indigenous Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Foran, B., Lobefaro, L., Geschke, A., 2012. peoples' lands for the conservation of intact Forest landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 18, 135–140. 109–112. Feola, G., Koretskaya, O., Moore, D., 2021. (Un) making in sustainability transformation Leyva-Solano, X., 2019. Zapatista autonomy. In: Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Escobar, A., beyond capitalism. Glob. Environ. Chang. 69, 102290. Demaria, F., Acosta, A. (Eds.), Pluriverse: A Post-development Dictionary. Tulika Fletcher, R., 2017. Gaming conservation: nature 2.0 confronts nature-deficit disorder. Books. Geoforum 79, 153–162. Litfin, K., 2012. Reinventing the future: the global ecovillage movement as a holistic Fletcher, R., Massarella, K., Kothari, A., Das, P., Dutta, A., Büscher, B., 2020. A new knowledge community. In: Environmental Governance. Routledge, pp. 138–156. furture for conservation. In: Progressive International. Liu, J., Hull, V., Batistella, M., Defries, R., Dietz, T., Fu, F., Hertel, T.W., Izaurralde, R.C., França, F.M., Benkwitt, C.E., Peralta, G., Robinson, J.P.W., Graham, N.A.J., Tylianakis, J. Lambin, E.F., Li, S., Martinelli, L.A., Mcconnell, W.J., Moran, E.F., Naylor, R., M., Berenguer, E., Lees, A.C., Ferreira, J., Louzada, J., 2020. Climatic and local Ouyang, Z., Polenske, K.R., Reenberg, A., De, G., Rocha, M., Simmons, C.S., stressor interactions threaten tropical forests and coral reefs. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Verburg, P.H., Vitousek, P.M., Zhang, F., Zhu, C., Liu, J., Hull, V., Batistella, M., 375, 20190116. Defries, R., Dietz, T., Fu, F., Hertel, T.W., Izaurralde, R.C., Lambin, E.F., Li, S., Friess, D., Jacob, P., Garmendia, E., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2015. Payments for ecosystem Martinelli, L.A., Mcconnell, W.J., Moran, E.F., Naylor, R., Ouyang, Z., Polenske, K.R., services (PES) in the face of external biophysical stressors. Glob. Environ. Chang. 30. Reenberg, A., De, G., Simmons, C.S., Verburg, P.H., Vitousek, P.M., Zhang, F., Zhu, C., 2013. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 18. 8 R. Carmenta et al. Biological Conservation 282 (2023) 110047 Llopis, J.C., Harimalala, P.C., Bär, R., Heinimann, A., Rabemananjara, Z.H., Reyes-García, V., Benyei, P., 2019. Indigenous knowledge for conservation. Nature Zaehringer, J.G., 2019. Effects of protected area establishment and cash crop price Sustainability 2, 657–658. dynamics on land use transitions 1990–2017 in North-Eastern Madagascar. J. Land Reyes-García, V., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Öllerer, K., Use Sci. 14, 52–80. Wilson, S.J., Brondizio, E.S., 2019. The contributions of indigenous peoples and local Mace, G.M., 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558–1560. communities to ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 27, 3–8. MacGregor, K., 2020. Programmatic Review and Implementation of International Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Conservation Grants. Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Macpherson, E., 2019. The Pluralism of River Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand and Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Al, E., Colombia. 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Maffi, L., Woodley, E., 2012. Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Sourcebook. Soc. 14, 32. Routledge. Rodríguez, I., Inturias, M.L., 2018. Conflict transformation in indigenous peoples' Manes, S., Costello, M.J., Beckett, H., Debnath, A., Devenish-Nelson, E., Grey, K.-A., territories: doing environmental justice with a ‘decolonial turn’. Dev. Stud. Res. 5, Jenkins, R., Khan, T.M., Kiessling, W., Krause, C., 2021. Endemism increases species’ 90–105. climate change risk in areas of global biodiversity importance. Biol. Conserv. 257, Roe, D., Booker, F., Day, M., Zhou, W., Allebone-Webb, S., Hill, N.A.O., Russell, D., 2015. 109070. Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats to specified Manurung, B., 2019. Indigenous Peoples and Culture: Orang Rimba’s Education. Human elements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the conservation status of Rights Education in Asia-Pacific, 9. those elements? Environ. Evid. 4 (1), 1–22. Marshall, H., Collar, N.J., Lees, A.C., Moss, A., Yuda, P., Marsden, S.J., 2020. Spatio- Rudd, L.F., Allred, S., Bright Ross, J.G., Hare, D., Nkomo, M.N., Shanker, K., Allen, T., temporal dynamics of consumer demand driving the asian songbird crisis. Biol. Biggs, D., Dickman, A., Dunaway, M., 2021. Overcoming racism in the twin spheres Conserv. 241, 108237. of conservation science and practice. Proc. R. Soc. B 288, 20211871. Martin, A., 2020. Biodiversity: Crisis, Conflict and Justice. Environmental Justice. Russell, B., 2019. Beyond the local trap: new municipalism and the rise of the fearless Routledge. cities. Antipode 51, 989–1010. Martínez, Alonso L., 2021. Barcelona’s housing policy under austerity urbanism: a Sajeva, G., 2017. The conservation of the environment in Ecuador's constitution. contribution to the debate on degrowth and urban planning. Local Environ. 1–15. Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica 47, 359–382. Massarella, K., Nygren, A., Fletcher, R., Büscher, B., Kiwango, W.A., Komi, S., Krauss, J. Schleicher, J., Peres, C.A., Amano, T., Llactayo, W., Leader-Williams, N., 2017. E., Mabele, M.B., McInturff, A., Sandroni, L.T., 2021. Transformation beyond Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in the conservation: how critical social science can contribute to a radical new agenda in Peruvian Amazon. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10. biodiversity conservation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 49, 79–87. Schreckenberg, K., Franks, P., Martin, A., Lang, B., 2016. Unpacking equity for protected Miller, A., 2020. Planet Indonesia: Community Health. Planet Indoneisa. https://www. area conservation. Parks 22, 11–26. planetindonesia.org/community-health. Scott, J.C., 2008. Seeing Like a State. Yale university Press. Muradian, R., Pascual, U., 2018. A typology of elementary forms of human-nature Shaw, C., 2021. Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas. Environmental Defenders: relations: a contribution to the valuation debate. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, Deadly Struggles for Life and Territory, 80. 8–14. Skutsch, M., Turnhout, E., 2020. REDD+: if communities are the solution, what is the Nelson, K., Anggraini, E., Schlüter, A., 2020. Virtual reality as a tool for environmental problem? World Dev. 130, 104942. conservation and fundraising. PLoS ONE 15. Smith, M.E., Lobo, J., Peeples, M.A., York, A.M., Stanley, B.W., Crawford, K.A., Otero, I., Farrell, K.N., Pueyo, S., Kallis, G., Kehoe, L., Haberl, H., Plutzar, C., Hobson, P., Gauthier, N., Huster, A.C., 2021. The persistence of ancient settlements and urban García-Márquez, J., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., 2020. Biodiversity policy beyond sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118. economic growth. Conserv. Lett. 13 (4), e12713. Soulé, M.E., 1985. What is conservation biology? Bioscience 35, 727–734. Padoch, C., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., 2010. Saving slash-and-burn to save biodiversity. Stavenhagen, R., 2006. Indigenous peoples: Land, territory, autonomy, and self- Biotropica 42, 550–552. determination. In: Rosset, P., Patel, R., Courville, M. (Eds.), Promised Land: Pascual, U., Adams, W.M., Díaz, S., Lele, S., Mace, G.M., Turnhout, E., 2021. Biodiversity Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform. Food First Books, Oakland, CA, pp. 208–211. and the challenge of pluralism. Nat. Sustain. 1–6. Sterling, E.J., Filardi, C., Toomey, A., Sigouin, A., Betley, E., Gazit, N., Newell, J., Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R.T., Başak Albert, S., Alvira, D., Bergamini, N., Blair, M., Boseto, D., Burrows, K., Bynum, N., Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S.M., Caillon, S., Caselle, J.E., Claudet, J., Cullman, G., Dacks, R., Eyzaguirre, P.B., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S.E., Al-Hafedh, Y.S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S.T., Gray, S., Herrera, J., Kenilorea, P., Kinney, K., Kurashima, N., MacEy, S., Malone, C., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Breslow, S.J., Bullock, C., Cáceres, D., Daly-Hassen, H., Mauli, S., McCarter, J., McMillen, H., Pascua, P., Pikacha, P., Porzecanski, A.L., De Figueroa, E., Golden, C.D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Robert, P., Salpeteur, M., Sirikolo, M., Stege, M.H., Stege, K., Ticktin, T., Vave, R., Keune, H., Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P.H., Mead, A., O’Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Wali, A., West, P., Winter, K.B., Jupiter, S.D., 2017. Biocultural approaches to well- Pengue, W., Pichis-Madruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1798–1806. Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B.B., van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F., Yagi, N., Sumaila, U.R., Ebrahim, N., Schuhbauer, A., Skerritt, D., Li, Y., Kim, H.S., Mallory, T.G., 2017a. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Lam, V.W.L., Pauly, D., 2019. Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16. subsidies. Mar. Policy 109, 103695. Pascual, U., Palomo, I., Adams, W.M., Chan, K.M.A., Daw, T.M., Garmendia, E., Gómez- Tamburini, G., Bommarco, R., Wanger, T.C., Kremen, C., van der Heijden, M.G.A., Baggethun, E., De Groot, R.S., Mace, G.M., Martín-López, B., 2017b. Off-stage Liebman, M., Hallin, S., 2020. Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem service burdens: a blind spot for global sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett. ecosystem services without compromising yield. ScienceAdvances 6, eaba1715. 12, 75001. Temper, L., Del Bene, D., Martinez-Alier, J., 2015. Mapping the frontiers and front lines Pendrill, F., Persson, U.M., Godar, J., Kastner, T., 2019. Deforestation displaced: trade in of global environmental justice: the EJAtlas. J. Polit. Ecol. 22, 255–278. forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition. Environ. Res. Thompson, M., 2021. What's so new about new municipalism? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 45, Lett. 14, 55003. 317–342. Phelps, J., Aravind, S., Cheyne, S., Dabrowski Pedrini, I., Fajrini, R., Jones, C.A., Lees, A. Tickler, D., Meeuwig, J.J., Palomares, M.-L., Pauly, D., Zeller, D., 2018. Far from home: C., Mance, A., Nagara, G., Nugraha, T.P., Webb, E.L., 2021. Environmental liability distance patterns of global fishing fleets. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar3279. litigation could remedy biodiversity loss. Conserv. Lett. 14 (6), e12821. Trisos, C.H., Auerbach, J., Katti, M., 2021. Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for Pickett, K., Wilkinson, R., 2010. The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better for Everyone. a more ethical ecology. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5 (9), 1205–1212. Penguin UK. Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J.M., Rand, T.A., Didham, R.K., Fahrig, L., Batáry, P., Pilgrim, S., Pretty, J.N., 2010. Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections. Bengtsson, J., Clough, Y., Crist, T.O., Dormann, C.F., 2012. Landscape moderation of Earthscan. biodiversity patterns and processes-eight hypotheses. Biol. Rev. 87, 661–685. Pörtner, H., Scholes, R., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai, X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Razzaque, J., McElwee, P., Turnhout, E., Kelemen, E., Rusch, G. Chan, L., Cheung, W., Diamond, S., Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., M., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Chan, I., Lim, M., Islar, M., Gautam, A.P., Foden, W., Gasalla, M.A., Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Ichii, K., Williams, M., Mungatana, E., Karim, M.S., Muradian, R., Gerber, L.R., Lui, G., Liu, J., Jacob, U., Insarov, G., Kiessling, W., Leadley, P., Leemans, R., Levin, L., Lim, M., Spangenberg, J.H., Zaleski, D., 2021. Transformative governance of biodiversity: Maharaj, S., Managi, S., Marquet, P.A., Midgley, G., Oberdorff, T., Obura, D., insights for sustainable development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 53, 20–28. Osman, E., Pandit, R., Pascual, U., APF, Pires, Popp, A., Reyes-García, V., Waldron, A., Adams, V., Allan, J., Arnell, A., Asner, G., Atkinson, S., Baccini, A., Sankaran, M., Settele, J., Shin, Y.J., Sintayehu, D.W., Smith, P., Steiner, N., Baillie, J., Balmford, A., Austin Beau, J., 2020. Protecting 30% of the Planet for Strassburg, B., Sukumar, R., Trisos, C., Val, A., Wu, J., Aldrian, E., Parmesan, C., Nature: Costs, Benefits and Economic Implications. Pichs-Madruga, R., Roberts, D., Rogers, A., Díaz, S., Fischer, M., Hashimoto, S., Wilson, E.O., 2016. Half-earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life. WW Norton & Company. Lavorel, S., Wu, N., Ngo, H., McElwee, P., 2021. Scientific Outcome of the IPBES- Woodhouse, E., Bedelian, C., Barnes, P. R., Cruz-Garcia, G. S., Dawson, N., Gross-Camp, IPCC Co-sponsored Workshop on Biodiversity and Climate Change. N., … Morgera, E. (2021). Rethinking entrenched narratives about protected areas Rajão, R., Soares-Filho, B., Nunes, F., Börner, J., Machado, L., Assis, D., Oliveira, A., and human wellbeing in the Global South. UCL Open: Environment Preprint. Pinto, L., Ribeiro, V., Rausch, L., 2020. The rotten apples of Brazil’s agribusiness. Wrathall, D.J., Devine, J., Aguilar-González, B., Benessaiah, K., Tellman, E., Sesnie, S., Science 369, 246–248. Nielsen, E., Magliocca, N., McSweeney, K., Pearson, Z., 2020. The impacts of Raworth, K., 2017. A doughnut for the anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st cocaine-trafficking on conservation governance in Central America. Glob. Environ. century. Lancet Planet. Health 1, e48–e49. Chang. 63, 102098. Raymond, L., Weldon, S.L., Kelly, D., Arriaga, X.B., Clark, A.M., 2013. Making change: norm-based strategies for institutional change to address intractable problems. Polit. Res. Q. 67, 197–211. 9 R. Carmenta et al. Biological Conservation 282 (2023) 110047 Yuliani, E.L., de Groot, W.T., Knippenberg, L., Bakara, D.O., 2020. Forest or oil palm Zafra-Calvo, N., Balvanera, P., Pascual, U., Merçon, J., Martín-López, B., van plantation? Interpretation of local responses to the oil palm promises in Kalimantan, Noordwijk, M., Mwampamba, T.H., Lele, S., Speranza, C.I., Arias-Arévalo, P., 2020. Indonesia. Land Use Policy 96, 104616. Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: insights from the global Yuliani, E.L., de Jong, E.B.P., Knippenberg, L.W.J., Bakara, D.O., Salim, M.A., south. Glob. Environ. Chang. 63, 102115. Sunderland, T., 2018. Keeping the land: indigenous communities struggle over land use and sustainable forest management in Kalimantan. Indonesia 23 (4), 49. 10