When Agendas Collide: Human Welfare and Biological

Conservation
KAI M. A. CHAN,

ROBERT M. PRINGLE,

JAI RANGANATHAN,

CAROL L. BOGGS,

YVONNE L. CHAN,

PAUL R. EHRLICH,

PETER K. HAFF,

NICOLE E. HELLER,

KARIM AL-KHAFAJI,

AND DENA P. MACMYNOWSKI

Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, U.S.A.

Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University; E501 Encina Hall, Stanford, CA 94305-6055, U.S.A.
Abstract: Conservation should benefit ecosystems, nonhuman organisms, and current and future human
beings. Nevertheless, tension among these goals engenders potential ethical conflicts: conservationists true
motivations may differ from the justifications they offer for their activities, and conservation projects have
the potential to disempower and oppress people. We reviewed the promise and deficiencies of integrating
social, economic, and biological concerns into conservation, focusing on research in ecosystem services and
efforts in community-based conservation. Despite much progress, neither paradigm provides a silver bullet
for conservations most pressing problems, and both require additional thought and modification to become
maximally effective. We conclude that the following strategies are needed to make conservation more effective
in our human-dominated world. (1) Conservation research needs to integrate with social scholarship in a
more sophisticated manner. (2) Conservation must be informed by a detailed understanding of the spatial,
temporal, and social distributions of costs and benefits of conservation efforts. Strategies should reflect this
understanding, particularly by equitably distributing conservations costs. (3) We must better acknowledge
the social concerns that accompany biodiversity conservation; accordingly, sometimes we must argue for
conservation for biodiversitys sake, not for its direct human benefits.
Keywords: community-based conservation, distribution of costs and benefits, ecosystem services, ethics, local
communities, mediation, poverty, transdisciplinarity
Cuando las Agendas Chocan: Bienestar Humano y Conservaci on Biol ogica
Resumen: La conservaci on debera beneficiar a los ecosistemas, a los organismos no humanos y a los seres
humanos actuales y futuros. Sin embargo, las tensiones entre estas metas engendran potenciales conflictos
eticos: las verdaderas motivaciones de los conservacionistas pueden diferir de las justificaciones que ofrecen
por sus actividades, y los proyectos de conservaci on tienen el potencial de reducir facultades y oprimir a la
gente. Revisamos la promisi on y deficiencias de la integraci on de aspectos sociales, econ omicos y biol ogicos
a la conservaci on, de la concentraci on de la investigaci on en los servicios ecosistemicos y los esfuerzos de la
conservaci on basada en comunidades. A pesar de muchos progresos, ning un paradigma proporciona una
soluci on directa a los problemas m as apremiantes de la conservaci on, y ambos requieren de reflexiones y
modificaciones adicionales para ser afectivos al m aximo. Concluimos que se requieren las siguientes estrate-
gias para que la conservaci on sea m as efectiva en un mundo dominado por humanos. (1) La investigaci on
en conservaci on necesita integrar aspectos sociales de manera m as sofisticada. (2) La conservaci on debe ser
Current address: Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British Columbia, 438 AERL, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver,
BC V6T 1Z4, Canada, email kaichan@ires.ubc.ca
Current address: Nicholas School for the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, U.S.A.
Paper submitted November 27, 2005; revised manuscript accepted June 8, 2006.
59
Conservation Biology Volume 21, No. 1, 5968
C
2007 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00570.x
60 Human Welfare and Conservation Chan et al.
informada por el entendimiento detallado de la distribuci on espacial, temporal y social de los costos y ben-
eficios de los esfuerzos de conservaci on. Las estrategias deben reflejar este entendimiento, particularmente
mediante la distribuci on equitativa de los costos de conservaci on. (3) Debemos mejorar el reconocimiento de
las preocupaciones sociales que acompa nan a la conservaci on de la biodiversidad; consecuentemente, algunas
veces debemos argumentar por la conservaci on en favor de la biodiversidad, no por sus beneficios directos
para los humanos.
Palabras Clave: comunidades locales, conservaci onbasada encomunidades, distribuci onde costos y beneficios,
etica, mediaci on, pobreza, servicios ecosist emicos, transdiciplinariedad
Introduction
The crux of conservation is the relationship between peo-
ple and the landscapes that house biodiversity, and the
appropriate nature of that relationship has been debated
at length within the conservation community (Karanth
& Madhusudan 1997; Saberwal 1997; Redford & Sander-
son 2000; Schwartzman et al. 2000). Recently, Chapin
(2004) has questioned whether international conserva-
tion organizations are dealing ethically with local people
and with their corporate donors, while Nature (Nature
2005) has editorialized that certain tropical conservation
groups are becoming too cozy with despotic regimes. Per-
ceived conflicts between conservation and human wel-
fare have alienated potential allies by engendering the
sentiment that conservationists are unconcerned with
peoples problems or are using people only to further
other ends. Although it is possible to debate the depth
and extent of these conflicts, the mere perception of
conflictregardless of its originhas crucial implica-
tions for the success of conservation and must be ad-
dressed.
Many members of the public see environmentalists
as misanthropes, pursuing largely biocentric ends (Shel-
lenberger & Nordhaus 2004). Controversies such as the
jobs-versus-owls showdown in the U.S. Pacific North-
west have left communities near areas of conservation
concern resentful of environmentalists (Satterfield 2002).
Likewise, there are both pro-growth conservatives (Beck-
erman 1995) and pro-welfare liberals (Rosenberg 2004)
who see environmentalists as throwing up barriers to
progress and livelihoods, respectively. What and where
are the convergences between conservation and human
well-being, andwhat andwhere are the divergences? How
should conservationists respond to convergences and di-
vergences, given that every conservation initiative will
involve both?
We briefly review the ethics of conservation and then
discuss the extent of convergence or conflict between
the needs of people and of biodiversity. We focus primar-
ily on the following question: How can researchers help
practitioners conserve biodiversity in light of the trade-
offs between needs?
Justifying Conservation in a World of Human Needs
Some environmental ethicists have persuasively justified
conservation based on concern for nonhuman organisms
(e.g., Singer 1993; Rolston 1995; Varner 1998). How-
ever, many projects also promise economic dividends
(Daily & Ellison 2002), and conservationists have in-
creasingly made use of that promise in promoting their
efforts. Research on the links between natural ecosys-
tems and human welfare has demonstrated that many
conservation projects will benefit humanity (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Such winwin scenarios
in which conservation and economic growth are clearly
coupledhave become the holy grail of conservation bi-
ology (Rosenzweig 2003). Nevertheless, these benefits
are often difficult to identify, slow to materialize, dif-
fuse, or discouraged by high transaction costs. Moreover,
the benefits may accrue only to certain sectors of soci-
ety, such as local political elites or geographically remote
firms, while shutting out some local stakeholders whose
actions may ultimately determine the fate of the land-
scape. Most importantly, it usually takes years for the long-
term benefits of conservation to outweigh the short-term
costs, whereas much shorter time horizons hold sway in
economics, politics, and peoples day-to-day decisions.
Thus, even the rosiest winwin conservation scenario
will have detractors and opponents. The remaining ques-
tion is not whether to pursue conservationwe must.
Rather the question is how to achieve conservation given
that economics is more likely than ecology to inform
policy and that the same ethics that justify conservation
also demand that we be mindful of poverty and associ-
ated human suffering (e.g., Singer 1993, 1999). There can
be no universal prescription for how to make conserva-
tion work and no panacea for conflicts between conser-
vation and human interests. Nevertheless, there can be
a standard set of issues for conservationists to keep in
mind.
We considered two areas of research and activity that
have beenapproachedenthusiastically inrecent years and
that illustrate the promise and deficiencies of explicitly
integrating social, economic, and biological concerns in
conservation planning.
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 1, February 2007
Chan et al. Human Welfare and Conservation 61
Insight from Research on Ecosystem Services
Nature provides a set of benefits to human populations
that have broadly been labeled ecosystem services (Daily
1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003, 2005).
Ecosystem services are supplied by natural and seminat-
ural systems and fall into four categories: production of
goods, provision of life-support processes (e.g., water pu-
rification, crop pollination), provision of life-fulfilling pro-
cesses (e.g., aesthetic cultural, and scientific inspiration),
and preservation of future options regarding presently
unrecognized values (Daily et al. 2000).
Although a conservation paradigm rooted in the con-
cept of ecosystem services appeals to many in both sci-
entific and nonscientific communities (Economist 2005),
some conservationists have expressed concern that a
purely anthropocentric approach will be insufficient to
protect biodiversity (e.g., Myers 1997; Redford&Sanjayan
2003). It is generally unclear which elements of biodiver-
sity are critical for service provisionwill an ecosystem-
service-oriented approach value functionally redundant
species only as insurance against risk to other species?
The designation of biodiversity itself as providing life-
fulfilling ecosystem services partly sidesteps this prob-
lem. If biodiversity can be valued inherently in this way,
incorporating ecosystemservices into conservation agen-
das becomes less a paradigm switch than a shift or expan-
sion. The real test, however, of whether an ecosystem
service will facilitate conservation is not whether aca-
demics can valuate it, but whether someoneor some
organizationis able and willing to do what is necessary
to secure it. Western conservationists are clearly more
willing and able to pay for biodiversity conservation than,
say, African peasants (who may be willing but unable;
Pringle 2005) and multinational corporations (which may
be able but unwilling; Revkin 2005).
Furthermore, biodiversity protection per se is subject
to compromise in managing the whole portfolio of ser-
vices because it is impossible to maximize imperfectly
correlated goals simultaneously. And the life-fulfilling ben-
efits arising from biodiversity are imperfectly correlated
with other ecosystem services: although some minimum
level of biodiversity is required for ecosystem function,
the relationship is variable and context dependent (Kre-
men 2005; Srivastava & Vellend 2005). Some lines of ev-
idence suggest a plateau of certain ecosystem functions
and services at intermediate levels of biodiversity (Loreau
et al. 2001; Bell et al. 2005), whereas other evidence sug-
gests that species losses may considerably impair the pro-
vision of services (Ostfeld &LoGiudice 2003; Sekercioglu
et al. 2004; Zavaleta & Hulvey 2004; Larsen et al. 2005;
Lyons et al. 2005). This imperfect relationship is exac-
erbated because non-native species often perform cer-
tain services better than native species. For example, fast-
growing non-native eucalypts may be ideal for forestry or
carbon sequestration but minimally useful in biodiversity
protection (Myers 1984).
In other cases the relationship between biodiversity
and ecosystem services will pit the interests of current
and future people against one another. For example, cur-
rent North American farming practices assume that Eu-
ropean honeybees (Apis mellifera) are more economical
crop pollinators than a suite of indigenous insects (Kre-
men et al. 2002). But preferential use of A. mellifera as
a lone pollinator today may jeopardize future crop pol-
lination because of susceptibility to disease and invasive
species (USDA-NASS 2000). In the mid- or long-term, con-
servation of the native bee community might best assure
the continuity of the pollination service (Kremen et al.
2002).
To understand the practical significance of incongru-
ence between the interests of contemporary human be-
ings, future generations, and nonhuman organisms, we
must understand how conservation projects are likely to
pay off in terms of human welfare. Two problems con-
found the evaluation of social impacts of conservation
projects, however. First, the costs and benefits of con-
servation are not evenly spread over all peoples, places,
and times. The winners might be distant in space and
time from the losers, necessitating analyses at multiple
scales. For example, the benefits of conserving a Mada-
gascar forest were estimated to accrue at both global and
local scales, but witha significant opportunity cost of fore-
gone logging concessions for the national government
(Kremen et al. 2000). More generally, Balmford and Whit-
ten (2003) argue that future generations and the global
community typically benefit most from tropical conser-
vation, whereas local communities and nations bear the
costs. Conservation efforts intended to dissipate develop-
ment or resource extraction pressures necessarily entail
costs to those local people who rely on such activities
(Gadgil & Guha 1993; Salafsky et al. 2001).
Second, it is likely that impacts that are damped lo-
cally will simply shift to another location. Mayer et al.
(2005) allege that forest protection in China and Finland
has shifted logging pressure to Russia. Unfortunately, the
areas least able to institute successful conservation pro-
grams are often the most susceptible to degradation re-
sulting from successful conservation actions elsewhere
(Gadgil & Guha 1993).
The knowledge that will allow resolution of these
dilemmas has been slowin building. Research on the ben-
efits of conservation has generally been conducted sep-
arately from research on the negative impacts, and each
strand suffers frombiases and limitations. Nearly a quarter
century of work has explored the implications of the har-
vest of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) for forest con-
servation, but recent reviews highlight the many uncer-
tainties that impede effective management and policy de-
velopment. It is difficult to determine sustainable harvest
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 1, February 2007
62 Human Welfare and Conservation Chan et al.
levels and manage extraction even of well-known prod-
ucts such as the Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa Humb. &
Bonpl.) (Boot & Gullison 1995). The long-term impacts
of NTFP harvest on ecosystem-level processes are also
poorly understood (Ticktin 2004). Moreover, the eco-
nomic potential of NTFPs is highly context dependent
(Arnold&Ruz-P erez 2001; Belcher et al. 2005). Divergent
outcomesboth ecological and economicstem from
complex interactions among the development of mar-
kets for NTFPs, the method and level of extraction, and
the household economic strategies of harvesters (Crook
& Clapp 1998; Arnold & Ruz-P erez 2001; Belcher et al.
2005).
Aside from the special case of NTFPs, quantitative anal-
ysis of conservation benefits has typically been the arena
of ecosystem-services research, which is in its infancy
despite a dramatic recent expansion. Most studies focus
on a single service (Turner et al. 2003) and suffer from
the linked problems of inappropriate methods and in-
adequate context-specific data, which limits relevance
to public policy (1998. Special section: forum on valu-
ation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 25:1
136; Ludwig 2000; Xue & Tisdell 2001; Balmford et al.
2002).
A cynical interpretation of the ecosystem-service liter-
ature (McCauley 2006) would be a scramble to illustrate
instances of mutual gain for people and biodiversity. True,
most valuation studies in the ecological literature have
emphasized considerable overlap between nature con-
servation and the supply of services (Kremen et al. 2000,
2004; Xue & Tisdell 2001; Mols & Visser 2002; Knowler
et al. 2003; Ricketts 2004; Ricketts et al. 2004), but this re-
flects the need for proofs-of-concept before ivory-tower
ideas can take root on the ground. That said, the degree of
overlap depends on the scale of biodiversity protection.
In many of the above analyses, there are scales of and
approaches to land management that would benefit bio-
diversity but may not be justified by service values alone
(see also Xu et al. 2003; Hietala-Koivu et al. 2004).
Conversely, studies documenting the social costs of
conservation suffer fromtheir own biases and limitations.
Such research (particularly in the developing world) has
traditionally been the province of anthropologists, his-
torians, and geographers and has tended to overempha-
size socioeconomic injustices associated with conserva-
tion projects (e.g., Leach &Mearns 1996; Neumann 1998;
Sundberg 1998; Brockington 2002) with minimal con-
sideration of potential or realized mutual benefits. This
perspective is understandable: these scholars are filling a
niche left vacant by conservationists who have typically
ignored the unpleasant aspects of nature protection. We
need a better, integrated accounting of the benefits and
costs of nature conservation, which will probably only
occur when teams of natural and social scientists work
together.
Finally, three key market failures continue to prevent
Adam Smiths invisible hand from favoring an efficient al-
locationof resources toconservationinitiatives (Balmford
et al. 2002). As a result conservation efforts that really are
winwin(inthe aggregate) may nevertheless be popularly
perceived as beneficial only for biodiversity. First, deci-
sion makers have imperfect information regarding ecosys-
tem services and their value. The disaster-mitigation ser-
vice of coastal mangroves was revealed widely only after
the crushing tsunami of 26 December 2004 (Danielsen
et al. 2005). Second, there are often considerable posi-
tive externalities of conservation (impacts that have no
market value), whereas landscape conversionwith its
negative externalitiesoften yields immediate, tangible
economic rewards (Balmford et al. 2002). The disaster-
mitigation service of mangroves has no economic market,
whereas the conversion of such mangroves to shrimp la-
goons yields substantial private benefits. Third, there are
many intervention failures (e.g., perverse subsidies, es-
pecially in agriculture, fisheries, and forestry; Myers &
Kent 2001) that artificially enhance the private benefits
of conversion.
Thus, a fuller characterization of ecosystem services
might provide incentive for individuals, businesses, and
governments to internalize long-term and diffuse bene-
fits and to foster nature conservation as part of a diverse
portfolio of strategies. But a detailed understanding of the
benefits of conservation will only guide policy in conjunc-
tion with an equally detailed understanding of the costs,
and it is likely that even a comprehensive assessment of
conservations positive externalities will not ensure the
preservation of biological diversity to the extent that most
conservationists desire.
Insight from Community-Based Conservation Efforts
Another focus of conservation activity at the interface of
nature and society has been in community-based conser-
vation. Such projects attempt to win support for conser-
vation from local people by ceding management author-
ity, ownership, or economic benefits of those resources
to those people (Western & Wright 1994). Early enthu-
siasm for community-based conservation has declined in
the face of mixed results (Berkes 2004), with critiques
emanating from both social and biological perspectives.
Community-based conservation projects have occasion-
ally failed socially because local people bore an inordinate
share of the costs associated with conservation of a re-
source and received an inadequate share of the authority
andbenefits (Songorwa et al. 2000; Salafsky et al. 2001). In
other cases the model has not provided adequate protec-
tion to the resources themselves (Barrett &Arcese 1995).
Barrett et al. (2001) suggest that community-based con-
servation is most effective when resource access is re-
stricted by strong local systems. This is undoubtedly true
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 1, February 2007
Chan et al. Human Welfare and Conservation 63
from the perspective of nature, if not necessarily that of
people, and there are successes on record (Dinerstein et
al. 1999).
Nevertheless, the same institutions that provide the
necessary strong local control of threatened resources
are also vulnerable to corruption and exploitation, as
when local elites monopolize the flow of benefits into
the community (Homer-Dixon 1999). Zimbabwes CAMP-
FIRE program, cited by some as an example of success-
ful community-based conservation (Getz et al. 1999), has
been roundly criticized by some social scientists noting
widespread local disenchantment with both the program
and the local officials administering it (Alexander & Mc-
Gregor 2003).
In many of these cases history has obstructed
community-based conservation projects. For example,
Good Neighborliness programs sponsored by the Tan-
zania National Parks have failed because of distrust and
miscommunication, fueled by collective memories of
colonial abuses, between local Maasai and conservation
groups (Igoe 2003). The portrayal of conservation as cul-
tural imperialism, although rebutted by Terborgh and
van Schaik (2002) on ethical grounds, nonetheless re-
mains a practical problem in areas where the coercive
hand of the state has blurred the line between colonial
and postcolonial regimes. Many protected areas in for-
mer colonies were gazetted by Europeans and essentially
for Europeans (Anderson & Grove 1987), whereas oth-
ers were established in the aftermath of independence
with the explicit aim of enticing wealthy international
tourists. Community-based projects aim to counter these
exclusionary models and emphasize the local benefits of
conservation (Salafsky & Wollenberg 2000). But rural in-
habitants may nevertheless perceive these processes as
parallela coercive partitioning of space that privileges
the interests of foreign elitesdespite whatever bene-
fits they might derive from that partitioning (Neumann
2001). Terborgh and van Schaiks (2002) contention that
just compensation, transparency, and public account-
ability will prevent the repetition of past injustices is
probably correct, but only if these principles are brought
out of abstraction and applied as an integral part of every
new conservation plan.
Community-based conservation research offers in-
sights into promotion of conservation from the bottom
up (Jones & Murphree 2004). But we can only expect
such projects to yield sustainable gains for biodiversity if
the gains for people are linked and are themselves sus-
tainable (Salafsky et al. 2001).
Dealing with Conflict
Merely recognizing that biological conservation and hu-
man welfare are both ethical imperatives and that they
are (imperfectly) interlinked will not solve any problems.
Efforts to design globally applicable strategies, when a
patchwork of locally and regionally tailored approaches
is required, also will fall short. Nevertheless, we suggest
some ways in which conservation researchers can help
guide effective conservation policy.
Broad Engagement with Social Issues and Social Scholarship
When conservation biologists presume to prescribe or
demand policies based only on biological considerations,
it suggests indifference to human concerns. Although bio-
logical concerns ought sometimes to overrule social con-
cerns in matters of public policy, they should do so only
if the respective impacts have been considered carefully.
Earnest efforts to understand the concerns of people
and institutions relevant to areas of conservation signifi-
cance will require earnest efforts to work with social sci-
entists in addition to local communities. Calls for trans-
disciplinary work in conservation (e.g., Daily & Ehrlich
1999; Mascia et al. 2003; Max-Neef 2005) have been in
fashion for some time, and they have yielded some im-
portant advances, particularly when the collaborations
have been between ecologists and economists. In par-
ticular, integrated ecological-economic models have pro-
duced new insights into the relationship between eco-
logical function and economic benefit (Guo et al. 2000;
Costanza et al. 2002; Nalle et al. 2004; Polasky et al.
2005). Conservation biologists have collaborated much
more rarely with cultural anthropologists, human geogra-
phers, or social historians. This is a shame because these
are the scholars who can best inform conservationists
about the social and cultural implications of conservation
work. They also can provide clarity about the sometimes-
controversial methods (such as consensus building and
argument-based models) used to manage the conflict of-
ten associated with conservation efforts (Peterson et al.
2005, 2006; Leach 2006). We suspect that the divergent
philosophies and research styles of these disciplines have
obstructed collaboration: for example, the epistemologi-
cal challenges to objectivity commonly raised in the social
science literature alarm many natural scientists (Guyer &
Richards 1996).
Perhaps contrary to common sentiment among natural
scientists, so-called relativist scholarship may offer unex-
pected and useful insights (Ludwig 2001). Social scien-
tists have repeatedly pointed out that a particular set of
facts may be socially constructed and interpreted in in-
numerable ways, a lesson that has implications for how
researchers relate to people. Because academic science
cannot lay sole claim to truth, researchers should demon-
strate humility and respect and cultivate an attitude of
mutual learning. Western tropical conservation biologists
in particular would do well to recognize the plurality of
knowledge systems across cultures (Robertson & Hull
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 1, February 2007
64 Human Welfare and Conservation Chan et al.
2001; Pedynowski 2003) and that their relative wealth
and education often creates a power imbalance between
them and the people they work among (Foucault 1980;
Song & MGonigle 2001).
Obviously, many tropical conservation biologists have
arrived at organic and highly functional understandings
of the social and political contexts in which they work.
Others apparently have not (Chapin 2004). In any case
efforts to break down disciplinary boundaries (Ludwig et
al. 2001) will achieve important advances in communi-
cation, both within academic culture and across global
cultures.
Spatial, Temporal, and Social Distributions of Costs and
Benefits
Conservation biologists are aware of the importance of
determining the biological benefits of a prospective con-
servation effort. Hence we have seen biodiversity inven-
tories (Kremen et al. 1994), biodiversity hotspots (My-
ers et al. 2000) and coldspots (Kareiva & Marvier 2003),
priority ecoregions (Olson et al. 2001), and optimal re-
serve design (Meir et al. 2004), among other approaches.
Whereas most conservationbiologists nowappreciate the
need to work with society, methods for characterizing hu-
man costs and benefits are considerably more primitive
(National Research Council 2005). This problemrequires
investments in effort and technology similar in scope to
those that have been applied to the biological facets of
conservation planning, with a focus on the distributional
complexities.
The long-term prospects of conservation efforts are
likely to be determined not just by the aggregate costs
and benefits, but also by their distribution across time
and space (e.g., Kremen et al. 2000; Balmford et al. 2002;
Hanley et al. 2003). Economic analyses frequently assume
distributional issues will be corrected after efficiency has
been maximized (Sen 1999), but we suggest otherwise.
When attempting to establish a conservation or restora-
tion project in an impoverished place, we need a detailed
understanding of the distribution of impacts to ensure ef-
fectiveness, equity, and sustainability (Costanza & Folke
1997). For example, which individual(s) will receive the
lions share of revenue from the proposed project, and
which other individuals should we therefore strive to
see employed in some conservation-related capacity? Pre-
cisely where is conflict over restricted access to fuelwood
likely to arise? Exactly how much time will it take before
watershed benefits from forest restoration begin to make
themselves felt? Better questions will enable better solu-
tions. If village X will suffer most from restricted access
to fuelwood, a development organization should be en-
gaged to help ensure an adequate supply of power there.
If it will take 5 years for a watershed restoration project
to provide positive benefits, community Y should be pro-
vided with 5 years of compensatory alternatives.
Conservation biologists should consider how the pri-
vate costs stemming from conservation initiatives vary
with socioeconomic stratum and adjust their proposals
accordingly. Balmford et al. (2002) note that the result of
landscape conversion is often short-term private gain,
but it is also true that there are many people eking out
an existence by means of such gains. The humanitarian
implications of conservation projects that obstruct these
private gains are presumably different if the bearer is a
subsistence farmer as opposed to an executive in a large
corporation (and failure to recognize this difference is
already causing consternation among antipoverty advo-
cates: GRAIN 2005; Lovera 2005). A fuller accounting of
the distribution of costs and benefits will reveal when
and where solutions for societal gain would incur dev-
astating private losses, and thus when, where, and how
policy reform for global gain should be accompanied by
compensation of private loss.
Project Justification
The recognition that conservation is proceeding too
slowly and that people are loss-averse (Arrow 1965; Tver-
sky & Kahneman 1986) has led many to reframe con-
servation. We hear less about undoing human damage
to nature and more about salvaging nature for economic
reasons (Balmford et al. 2002). This is an appropriate tac-
tic in many situationsparticularly where relative wealth
and stability allow people to pay and to plan for distant
time horizonsand will do much to foster new conser-
vation partnerships in coming years. Wherever clearcut
winwin scenarios can be identified, they should obvi-
ously be pursued doggedly and the results publicized.
Such happy coincidences will do much to extinguish the
notion that there cannot be environmental stewardship
alongside economic growth and welfare.
Nevertheless, we must guard against the assumption
that economics can single-handedly rescue conservation.
To assume this would be to believe (in the face of contrary
evidence) that market forces would always favor conser-
vation. Alternatively, we must satisfy ourselves that bio-
diversity that cannot survive in the marketplace is not
worth conserving. Goods, services, and their providers
get bought and sold. They also get discontinued, become
obsolete, compete with one another, and go bankrupt
(Janzen2001). Markets andtechnology are unpredictable,
and they are therefore fickle friends for conservation,
which typically seeks to provide biodiversity protection
in perpetuity. If we argue, or even imply, that native bees
are important because they provide pollination services
to coffee farmers, what do we say about bees that be-
come obsolete when coffee prices bottomout and coffee
farmers become pineapple farmers? What is our plan for
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 1, February 2007
Chan et al. Human Welfare and Conservation 65
conserving water sheds after technology delivers com-
petitively superior filtration and purification? Internaliz-
ing externalities and harnessing market forces may buy
biodiversity some time, but we should not expect this
alone to deliver protection in perpetuity.
If a conservation project seems essential for biodiver-
sity, how then should conservation biologists build sup-
port for it? The first task is to assess whether the eco-
nomic or public-health payoffs are likely to be high and
sustainable. If they are, then that unit of conservation
can be marketed as a number of thingsas a venture in
capitalism, as a civic or government responsibility, or as
a humanitarian necessityand the appropriate partners
solicited (private landowners, local people or their gov-
ernments, and international aid or development organi-
zations, respectively). If they are not, then it is unwise
to promise or even imply the possibility of economic re-
turns. There have been cases in the developing world
in which conservation programs offered returns that did
not materialize (at least on locally relevant timelines), re-
sulting in disillusionment and a popular backlash against
nature (e.g., Alexander & McGregor 2003). Without the
promise of economic returns, we then have conservation
for biodiversitys sake, funded by conservation-minded
philanthropists and enforced by laws (as far as ethical
and practicable). In these cases by all means invite peo-
ple in; encourage domestic ecotourism and bioliteracy
to nurture biophilic impulses and a sense of pride in the
landscape (Wilson 1984; Janzen 2001); and facilitate lo-
cal livelihoods by employing local people (e.g., Sheil &
Lawrence 2004). But do not expect or wait for people
who are not first and foremost conservationists to make
the initial capital investment in conservation.
Conclusions
In the discussion about conservation practice, the cate-
gory people has little meaning and must be disaggre-
gated. Failure to do so renders debate about the relation-
ship between conservation and human concerns sterile
at best. We cannot argue issues such as people versus
parks (Schwartzman et al. 2000) without asking, Which
people? What parks? This point may at first seemobvious.
But if it is, one would never know it from browsing the
conservation biology literature, where the terms indige-
nous peoples, landowners, and the public are regularly
encountered, monolithic, and without context.
The challenges we pose to conservation biologists (and
practitioners) are as follows. Obviously, there is a need to
analyze and explain biodiversity and to ask how the char-
acterization and internalization of ecosystemservices can
generate revenue for conservation. For these efforts to re-
sult in widespread and lasting conservation, however, in-
vestigators must answer this question with some nuance
and with reference to time, space, and socioeconomic
conditions. Every project with winners might have losers.
Can those losers be identified and their responses antic-
ipated? Can that conflict be preemptively defused? Can
conflict and harmony be mapped, as can slope and vege-
tation, as data layers in geographical information systems,
to design better mitigation strategies?
Conservation biologists must also become more adept
at bridging disciplinary divides and consulting the social
science literature for insights about how to design cultur-
ally, politically, and socioeconomically appropriate con-
servation plans. When possible we should solicitand
heedthe advice not only of economists and legal schol-
ars, but also of psychologists, ethicists, anthropologists,
and geographers. We must embrace unrealized allies in
the business and development communities by develop-
ing nontechnical planning tools that can be used by non-
conservation partners to integrate conservation priorities
into their projects. The added time and complexity of in-
tegrating these other perspectives introduces an undeni-
able trade-off such that integration might appear to be a
luxury we cannot afford. It takes time and effort to do
things right.
Single mindedness was an asset in building global
awareness of the biodiversity crisis. But a solution to the
crisis requires a fusion of biological and social considera-
tions, with sophistication and depth of thinking that give
substance to todays conservation and people slogans
and marketing phrases.
Acknowledgments
This essay resulted from a set of discussions that involved
many people. We are particularly grateful to the follow-
ing individuals for constructive comments along the way:
S. Anderson, J. Bruzgul, E. Fleishman, R. Goldman, P.
Kareiva, A. Launer, R. Naidoo, L. Pejchar, T. Ricketts, T. Sat-
terfield, H. Tallis, D. Wilcove, participants in discussions
at Stanford Universitys Center for Conservation Biology,
and participants in G.C. Dailys conservation-incentives
symposium (held at Stanford University in, 2005).
Literature Cited
Alexander, J., and J. McGregor. 2003. Our sons didnt die for animals.
Pages 162189 in T. O. Ranger, editor. The historical dimensions of
democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe. University of Zimbabwe
Press, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Anderson, D., and R. Grove. 1987. Introduction. Pages 112 in D. Ander-
son and R. Grove, editors. Conservation in Africa: people, policies,
practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Arnold, J. E. M., and M. Ruz-P erez. 2001. Can non-timber forest prod-
ucts matchtropical forest conservationand development objectives?
Ecological Economics 39:437447.
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 1, February 2007
66 Human Welfare and Conservation Chan et al.
Arrow, K. J. 1965. Aspects of the theory of risk-bearing. Academic Book
Store, Helsinki.
Balmford, A., and T. Whitten. 2003. Who should pay for tropical conser-
vation, and how could the costs be met? Oryx 37:238250.
Balmford, A., et al. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature.
Science 297:950953.
Barrett, C. B., and P. Arcese. 1995. Are integrated conservation-
development projects (ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of
large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 23:1073
1084.
Barrett, C. B., K. Brandon, C. Gibson, and H. Gjertsen. 2001. Conserv-
ing tropical biodiversity amid weak institutions. Bioscience 51:497
502.
Beckerman, W. 1995. Small is stupid: blowing the whistle on the greens.
Duckworth, London.
Belcher, B., M. Ruz-P erez, and R. Achdiawan. 2005. Global patterns
and trends in the use and management of commercial NTFPs: im-
plications for livelihoods and conservation. World Development
33:14351452.
Bell, T., J. A. Newman, B. W. Silverman, S. L. Turner, andA. K. Lilley. 2005.
The contribution of species richness and composition to bacterial
services. Nature 436:11571160.
Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserva-
tion Biology 18:621630.
Boot, R. G. A., and R. E. Gullison. 1995. Approaches to developing sus-
tainable extraction systems for tropical forest products. Ecological
Applications 5:896903.
Brockington, D. 2002. Fortress conservation: the preservation of the
Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Indiana University Press, Bloom-
ington.
Chapin, M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch
2004:1731.
Costanza, R., and C. Folke. 1997. Valuing ecosystem services with effi-
ciency, fairness, andsustainability as goals. Pages 4968inG. C. Daily,
editor. Natures services: societal dependence on natural ecosys-
tems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Costanza, R., A. Voinov, R. Boumans, T. Maxwell, F. Villa, L. Wainger,
and H. Voinov. 2002. Integrated ecological economic modeling of
the Patuxent River watershed, Maryland. Ecological Monographs
72:203231.
Crook, C., and R. A. Clapp. 1998. Is market-oriented forest conserva-
tion a contradiction in terms? Environmental Conservation 25:131
145.
Daily, G. C., editor. 1997. Natures services: societal dependence on
natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Daily, G. C., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1999. Managing earths ecosystems: an
interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 2:277280.
Daily, G. C., and K. Ellison. 2002. The neweconomy of nature: the quest
to make conservation profitable, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Daily, G. C., et al. 2000. The value of nature and the nature of value.
Science 289:395396.
Danielsen, F., et al. 2005. The Asian tsunami: a protective role for coastal
vegetation. Science 310:643.
Dinerstein, E., A. Rijal, M. Bookbinder, B. Kattel, and A. Rajuria. 1999.
Tigers as neighbours: efforts to promote local guardianshipof endan-
gered species in lowland Nepal. Pages 316333 in J. Seidensticker,
S. Christie, and P. Jackson, editors. Riding the tiger. Tiger conserva-
tion in human-dominated landscapes. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge United Kingdom.
Economist, 2005. Are you being served? The Economist 21 April: 7678.
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other
writings, 19721977. Harvester Press, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Gadgil, M., and R. Guha 1993. This fissured land: an ecological history
of India. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Getz, W. M., et al. 1999. Sustaining natural and human capital: villagers
and scientists. Science 283:18551856.
GRAIN. 2005. No, air, dont sell yourself . . . . Seedling:3441.
Guo, Z. W., X. M. Xiao, and D. M. Li. 2000. An assessment of ecosystem
services: water flowregulationandhydroelectric power production.
Ecological Applications 10:925936.
Guyer, J., and P. Richards. 1996. The invention of biodiversity: social per-
spectives on the management of biological variety in Africa. Africa
66:113.
Hanley, N., F. Schlapfer, and J. Spurgeon. 2003. Aggregating the benefits
of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use
and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management 68:297
304.
Hietala-Koivu, R., J. Lankoski, and S. Tarmi. 2004. Loss of biodiversity and
its social cost in an agricultural landscape. Agriculture Ecosystems
& Environment 103:7583.
Homer-Dixon, T. F. 1999. Environment, scarcity, and violence. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Igoe, J. 2003. Scaling up civil society: donor money, NGOs and the pas-
toralist land rights movement in Tanzania. Development and Change
34:863885.
Janzen, D. H. 2001. Lumpy integration of tropical wild biodiversity with
its society. Pages 133148 in W. J. Kress and G. W. Barrett, editors. A
new century of biology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C.
Jones, B. T. B., and M. W. Murphree. 2004. Community-based natural
resource management as a conservation mechanism: lessons and
directions. Pages 64103 in B. Child, editor. Parks in transition: bio-
diversity, rural development and the bottomline. Earthscan, London.
Karanth, K. U., and M. D. Madhusudan. 1997. Avoiding paper tigers
and saving real tigers: response. Conservation Biology 11:818
820.
Kareiva, P., and M. Marvier. 2003. Conserving biodiversity coldspots:
recent calls todirect conservationfunding tothe worlds biodiversity
hotspots may be bad investment advise. American Scientist 91:344
351.
Knowler, D. J., B. W. MacGregor, M. J. Bradford, and R. M. Peterman.
2003. Valuing freshwater salmonhabitat onthe west coast of Canada.
Journal of Environmental Management 69:261273.
Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to
know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8:468479.
Kremen, C., A. M. Merenlender, and D. D. Murphy. 1994. Ecologi-
cal monitoring: a vital need for integrated conservation and de-
velopment programs in the tropics. Conservation Biology 8:388
397.
Kremen, C., J. O. Niles, M. G. Dalton, G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, J. P. Fay,
D. Grewal, and R. P. Guillery. 2000. Economic incentives for rain
forest conservation across scales. Science 288:18281832.
Kremen, C., N. M. Williams, R. L. Bugg, J. P. Fay, and R. W. Thorp. 2004.
The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by
native bee communities in California. Ecology Letters 7:11091119.
Kremen, C., N. M. Williams, and R. W. Thorp. 2002. Crop pollination
fromnative bees at risk fromagricultural intensification. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
99:1681216816.
Larsen, T. H., N. M. Williams, and C. Kremen. 2005. Extinction order and
altered community structure rapidly disrupt ecosystem functioning.
Ecology Letters 8:538547.
Leach, M., and R. Mearns, editors. 1996. The lie of the land: chal-
lenging received wisdom on the African environment. Heinemann,
Portsmouth.
Leach, W. D. 2006. Theories about consensus-based conservation. Con-
servation Biology 20:573575.
Loreau, M., et al. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current
knowledge and future challenges. Science 294:804808.
Lovera, S. 2005. Environmental markets impoverish the poor.
The Katoomba Groups Ecosystem Marketplace. Available at
http://ecosystemmarketplace.net
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 1, February 2007
Chan et al. Human Welfare and Conservation 67
Ludwig, D. 2000. Limitations of economic valuation of ecosystems.
Ecosystems 3:3135.
Ludwig, D. 2001. The era of management is over. Ecosystems 4:758
764.
Ludwig, D., M. Mangel, and B. Haddad. 2001. Ecology, conservation, and
public policy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:481
517.
Lyons, K. G., C. A. Brigham, B. H. Traut, and M. W. Schwartz. 2005. Rare
species and ecosystem functioning. Conservation Biology 19:1019
1024.
Mascia, M. B., J. P. Brosius, T. A. Dobson, B. C. Forbes, L. Horowitz,
M. A. McKean, and N. J. Turner. 2003. Conservation and the social
sciences. Conservation Biology 17:649650.
Max-Neef, M. A. 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Eco-
nomics 53:516.
Mayer, A. L., P. E. Kauppi, P. K. Angelstam, Y. Zhang, and P. M.
Tikka. 2005. Importing timber, exporting ecological impact. Science
308:359360.
McCauley, D.J. 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature 443:2728.
Meir, E., S. Andelman, and H. P. Possingham. 2004. Does conservation
planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecology Letters
7:615622.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003. Ecosystems and human well-
being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and human well-
being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Mols, C. M. M., and M. E. Visser. 2002. Great Tits can reduce caterpillar
damage in apple orchards. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:888899.
Myers, N. 1984. The primary source: tropical forests and our future.
Norton, New York.
Myers, N. 1997. Biodiversitys genetic library. Pages 255273 in G.
C. Daily, editor. Natures services: societal dependence on natural
ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Myers, N., and J. Kent 2001. Perverse subsidies: how tax dollars can un-
dercut the environment and the economy. Island Press, Washington,
D.C.
Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca,
and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.
Nature 403:853858.
Nalle, D. J., C. A. Montgomery, J. L. Arthur, S. Polasky, and N. H. Schu-
maker. 2004. Modeling joint production of wildlife and timber. Jour-
nal of Environmental Economics and Management 48:9971017.
National Research Council. 2005. Valuing ecosystem services: to-
ward better environmental decision-making. Page 277. National
Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Nature. 2005. Save the people, too. Nature 435:855856.
Neumann, R. P. 1998. Imposing wilderness: struggles over livelihoodand
nature preservation in Africa. University of California Press, Berke-
ley.
Neumann, R. P. 2001. Disciplining peasants in Tanzania: from state vi-
olence to self-surveillance in wildlife conservation. Pages 305327
in N.L. Peluso and M. Watts, editors. Violent environments. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Olson, D. M., et al. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the worlds: a new
map of life on earth. BioScience 51:933938.
Ostfeld, R. S., and K. LoGiudice. 2003. Community disassembly, bio-
diversity loss, and the erosion of an ecosystem service. Ecology
84:14211427.
Pedynowski, D. 2003. Science(s)which, when and whose? Probing
the metanarrative of scientific knowledge in the social construction
of nature. Progress in Human Geography 27:735752.
Peterson, M. N., M. J. Peterson, and T. R. Peterson. 2005. Conservation
and the myth of consensus. Conservation Biology 19:762767.
Peterson, M. N., M. J. Peterson, and T. R. Peterson. 2006. Why conser-
vation needs dissent. Conservation Biology 20:576578.
Polasky, S., E. Nelson, E. Lonsdorf, P. Fackler, and A. Starfield. 2005.
Conserving species in a working landscape: land use with bio-
logical and economic objectives. Ecological Applications 15:1387
1401.
Pringle, R. M. 2005. The Nile perch in Lake Victoria: local responses
and adaptations. Africa 75:510538.
Redford, K., and M. A. Sanjayan. 2003. Retiring Cassandra. Conservation
Biology 17:14731474.
Redford, K. H., and S. E. Sanderson. 2000. Extracting humans from na-
ture. Conservation Biology 14:13621364.
Revkin, A. C. 2005. Former Bush aide who edited reports is hired by
Exxon. The New York Times, June 15.
Ricketts, T. H. 2004. Tropical forest fragments enhance pollinator activ-
ity in nearby coffee crops. Conservation Biology 18:12621271.
Ricketts, T. H., G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, and C. D. Michener. 2004.
Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
101:1257912582.
Robertson, D. P., and R. B. Hull. 2001. Beyond biology: toward a more
public ecology for conservation. Conservation Biology 15:970
979.
Rolston, H. I. 1995. Duties to endangered species. Pages 6075 in R.
Elliot, editor. Environmental ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
United Kingdom.
Rosenberg, T. 2004. What the world needs now is DDT. The New York
Times, 11, April.
Rosenzweig, M. L. 2003. Win-win ecology: how the earths species can
survive in the midst of human enterprise. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, United Kingdom.
Saberwal, V. K. 1997. Saving the tiger: more money or less power? Con-
servation Biology 11:815817.
Salafsky, N., et al. 2001. A systematic test of an enterprise strategy for
community-based biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology
15:15851595.
Salafsky, N., and E. Wollenberg. 2000. Linking livelihoods and conser-
vation: a conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integra-
tion of human needs and biodiversity. World Development 28:1421
1438.
Satterfield, T. 2002. Anatomy of a conflict: identity, knowledge, and
emotion in old-growth forests. Michigan State University Press, East
Lansing.
Schwartzman, S., D. Nepstad, and A. Moreira. 2000. Arguing tropi-
cal forest conservation: people versus parks. Conservation Biology
14:13701374.
Sekercioglu, C. H., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2004. Ecosystem con-
sequences of bird declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 101:1804218047.
Sen, A. K. 1999. Development as freedom. Knopf, New York.
Sheil, D., and A. Lawrence. 2004. Tropical biologists, local people and
conservation: new opportunities for collaboration. Trends in Ecol-
ogy & Evolution 19:634638.
Shellenberger, M., and T. Nordhaus. 2004. The death of environmental-
ism: global warming politics in a post-environmental world. Avail-
able at http://www.thebreakthrough.org
Singer, P. 1993. Practical ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom.
Singer, P. 1999. The Singer solution to world poverty. The New York
Times Magazine 5 September:6063.
Song, S. J., and R. M. M. Gonigle. 2001. Science, power, and system dy-
namics: the political economy of conservationbiology. Conservation
Biology 15:980989.
Songorwa, A. N., T. Buhrs, and K. F. D. Hughey. 2000. Community-based
wildlife management in Africa: a critical assessment of the literature.
Natural Resources Journal 40:603643.
Srivastava, D. S., and M. Vellend. 2005. Biodiversity-ecosystem function
research: is it relevant to conservation? Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution and Systematics 36:267294.
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 1, February 2007
68 Human Welfare and Conservation Chan et al.
Sundberg, J. 1998. Ngo landscapes in the Maya Biosphere Reserve,
Guatemala. Geographical Review 88:388412.
Terborgh, J., and C. van Schaik. 2002. Why the world needs parks. Pages
314 in J. Terborgh, C. van Schaik, L. Davenport, and M. Rao, editors.
Making parks work: strategies for preserving tropical nature. Island
Press, Washington, D.C.
Ticktin, T. 2004. The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber
forest products. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:1121.
Turner, R. K., J. Paavola, P. Cooper, S. Farber, V. Jessamy, and S. Georgiou.
2003. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions.
Ecological Economics 46:493510.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1986. Rational choice and the framing
of decisions. Journal of Business 59:52515278.
USDA-NASS U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statis-
tics Service. 2000. A look at the U.S. beekeeping industry. USDA-
NASS, Washington, D.C.
Varner, G. E. 1998. In natures interests? Interests, animal rights, and
environmental ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United King-
dom.
Western, D., and M. A. Wright, editors. 1994. Natural connections: per-
spectives in community-based conservation. Island Press, Washing-
ton, D. C.
Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts.
Xu, Z. M., G. D. Cheng, Z. Q. Zhang, Z. Y. Su, and J. Loomis. 2003. Ap-
plying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic
value of restoring ecosystemservices in Ejina region. Ecological Eco-
nomics 44:345358.
Xue, D., and C. Y. Tisdell. 2001. Valuing ecological functions of biodi-
versity in Changbaishan Mountain Biosphere Reserve in northeast
China. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:467481.
Zavaleta, E. S., and K. B. Hulvey. 2004. Realistic species losses dispropor-
tionately reduce grassland resistance to biological invaders. Science
306:11751177.
Conservation Biology
Volume 21, No. 1, February 2007