Including stewardship in ecosystem health assessment

To adapt to the ecological crises and social inequities of the Anthropocene, a new conservation paradigm is emerging that embraces people in nature and the positive roles people play in ecosystem health through land stewardship. We discuss the emergence of this new model and explore the methods needed to research and coordinate stewardship as part of conservation landscape planning through a practical case study. Updating conservation frameworks to include the positive impacts people have on ecosystems, we argue, is a powerful leverage point for catalysing more effective and equitable nature conservation and other large-scale societal transformations necessary for just sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

133,45 € per year

only 11,12 € per issue

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Synergies and complementarities between ecosystem accounting and the Red List of Ecosystems

Article 28 August 2024

Prioritizing India’s landscapes for biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being

Article 06 February 2023

Future-proofing ecosystem restoration through enhancing adaptive capacity

Article Open access 07 April 2023

References

  1. Zalasiewicz, J. et al. The Anthropocene: comparing its meaning in geology (chronostratigraphy) with conceptual approaches arising in other disciplines. Earths Future9, e2020EF001896 (2021). Google Scholar
  2. Barnosky, A. D. et al. Introducing the scientific consensus on maintaining humanity’s life support systems in the 21st century: information for policy makers. Anthropocene Rev.1, 78–109 (2014). Google Scholar
  3. Díaz, S. et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.14, 1–16 (2015). Google Scholar
  4. Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA115, 8252–8259 (2018). CASGoogle Scholar
  5. IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
  6. Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A., Reyers, B. & Rockström, J. Social–ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc.21, 41 (2016). Google Scholar
  7. Heller, N. E. & Zavaleta, E. S. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol. Conserv.142, 14–32 (2009). Google Scholar
  8. Cole, D. N. & Yung, L. (eds) Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change (Island Press, 2010).
  9. Heller, N. E. & Hobbs, R. J. Development of a natural practice to adapt conservation goals to global change. Conserv. Biol.28, 696–704 (2014). Google Scholar
  10. Kashwan et al. From racialized neocolonial global conservation to an inclusive and regenerative conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev.63, 4–19 (2021). Google Scholar
  11. Artelle, K. A. et al. Decolonial model of environmental management and conservation: insights from Indigenous-led grizzly bear stewardship in the Great Bear Rainforest. Ethics Policy Environ.24, 283–323 (2021). Google Scholar
  12. Halpern, B. S. et al. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature488, 615–620 (2012). CASGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosa, I. M. D. et al. Multiscale scenarios for nature futures. Nat. Ecol. Evol.1, 1416–1419 (2017). Google Scholar
  14. West, S., Haider, L. J., Stålhammar, S. & Woroniecki, S. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosyst. People16, 304–325 (2020). Google Scholar
  15. Bieling, C. & Plieninger, T. (eds) The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).
  16. Chapin, F. S. et al. Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol.25, 241–249 (2010). Google Scholar
  17. Folke, C. et al. Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio40, 719–738 (2011). Google Scholar
  18. Bennett, N. J. et al. Environmental stewardship: a conceptual review and analytical framework. Environ. Manage.61, 597–614 (2018). Google Scholar
  19. Wolf, K. L., Blahna, D. J., Brinkley, W. & Romolini, M. Environmental stewardship footprint research: linking human agency and ecosystem health in the Puget Sound region. Urban Ecosyst.16, 13–32 (2013). Google Scholar
  20. Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. & Wright, A. Nature’s Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Biodiversity Conservation and Food Sovereignty (Routledge, 2019); https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429028557
  21. Whyte, K. Settler colonialism, ecology, and environmental injustice. Environ. Soc.9, 125–144 (2018). Google Scholar
  22. Ellis, E. C. & Ramankutty, N. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front. Ecol. Environ.6, 439–447 (2008). Google Scholar
  23. Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J. M. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science277, 494–499 (1997). CASGoogle Scholar
  24. Cockburn, J. et al. Collaborative stewardship in multifunctional landscapes: toward relational, pluralistic approaches. Ecol. Soc.24, 32 (2019). Google Scholar
  25. Tsing, A. L. et al. (eds) Arts of Living on a Damaged Planet: Ghosts and Monsters of the Anthropocene (Univ. Minnesota Press, 2017).
  26. Cronon, W. (ed.) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature (W. W. Norton, 1996).
  27. Taylor, D. E. The Rise of the American Conservation Movement: Power, Privilege, and Environmental Protection (Duke Univ. Press, 2016).
  28. Domínguez, L. & Luoma, C. Decolonising conservation policy: how colonial land and conservation ideologies persist and perpetuate Indigenous injustices at the expense of the environment. Land9, 65 (2020). Google Scholar
  29. Neumann, R. P. Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa (Univ. California Press, 1998).
  30. Agrawal, A. & Redford, K. Conservation and displacement: an overview. Conserv. Soc.7, 1–10 (2009). Google Scholar
  31. Walley, C. J. Rough Waters: Nature and Development in an East African Marine Park (Princeton Univ. Press, 2004).
  32. Sandbrook, C., Fisher, J. A., Holmes, G., Luque-Lora, R. & Keane, A. The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nat. Sustain.2, 316–323 (2019). Google Scholar
  33. Ostrom, E. & Nagendra, H. Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA103, 19224–19231 (2006). CASGoogle Scholar
  34. Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E. & Evans, K. L. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv. Biol.30, 133–141 (2016). CASGoogle Scholar
  35. Schleicher, J. et al. Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people. Nat. Sustain.2, 1094–1096 (2019). Google Scholar
  36. Ogden, L. et al. Global assemblages, resilience, and Earth Stewardship in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ.11, 341–347 (2013). Google Scholar
  37. Bennett, N. J. et al. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv.205, 93–108 (2017). Google Scholar
  38. Jax, K. et al. Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for understanding nature’s contributions to human well-being. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.35, 22–29 (2018). Google Scholar
  39. Kimmerer, R. W. & Lake, F. K. The role of Indigenous burning in land management. J. For.99, 36–41 (2001). Google Scholar
  40. Hoffman, K. M. et al. Conservation of Earth’s biodiversity is embedded in Indigenous fire stewardship. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA118, e2105073118 (2021). CASGoogle Scholar
  41. Bird, R. B. & Nimmo, D. Restore the lost ecological functions of people. Nat. Ecol. Evol.2, 1050–1052 (2018). Google Scholar
  42. Anderson, M. K. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources (Univ. California Press, 2013).
  43. Knudson, C., Kay, K. & Fisher, S. Appraising geodiversity and cultural diversity approaches to building resilience through conservation. Nat. Clim. Change8, 678–685 (2018). Google Scholar
  44. Barthel, S., Crumley, C. L. & Svedin, U. Biocultural refugia: combating the erosion of diversity in landscapes of food production. Ecol. Soc.18, 71 (2013). Google Scholar
  45. Schuster, R., Germain, R. R., Bennett, J. R., Reo, N. J. & Arcese, P. Vertebrate biodiversity on Indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas. Environ. Sci. Policy101, 1–6 (2019). Google Scholar
  46. Garnett, S. T. et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain.1, 369–374 (2018). Google Scholar
  47. Colwell, R. et al. Revisiting Leopold: resource stewardship in the national parks. PARKS20, 15–24 (2014). Google Scholar
  48. Kremen, C. & Merenlender, A. M. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science362, eaau6020 (2018). Google Scholar
  49. Spotswood, E. N. et al. The biological deserts fallacy: cities in their landscapes contribute more than we think to regional biodiversity. BioScience71, 148–160 (2021).
  50. Chan, K. M. A. et al. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA113, 1462–1465 (2016). CASGoogle Scholar
  51. Mathevet, R., Bousquet, F. & Raymond, C. M. The concept of stewardship in sustainability science and conservation biology. Biol. Conserv.217, 363–370 (2018). Google Scholar
  52. Enqvist, J. P. et al. Stewardship as a boundary object for sustainability research: linking care, knowledge and agency. Landsc. Urban Plan.179, 17–37 (2018). Google Scholar
  53. Graber, D. M. in Reinventing Nature?: Responses To Postmodern Deconstruction (eds Soulé, M. E. & Lease, G.) 123–136 (Island Press, 1995).
  54. Lomba, A. et al. Back to the future: rethinking socioecological systems underlying high nature value farmlands. Front. Ecol. Environ.18, 36–42 (2020). Google Scholar
  55. Muñoz-Erickson, T. A., Aguilar-González, B. & Sisk, T. D. Linking ecosystem health indicators and collaborative management: a systematic framework to evaluate ecological and social outcomes. Ecol. Soc.12, 6 (2007). Google Scholar
  56. Skybrook, D. Navigating purpose and collaboration in social impact networks. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev.https://doi.org/10.48558/DKNG-XM91 (2018).
  57. Spence, M., Ehrlichman, D., & Sawyer, D. Cutting through the complexity: a roadmap for effective collaboration. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev.https://doi.org/10.48558/6R2C-V706 (2018).
  58. Collins, P. W., Latta, B. C. & Roemer, G. W. Does the order of invasive species removal matter? The case of the eagle and the pig. PLoS ONE4, e7005 (2009). Google Scholar
  59. Weiss, S. B. Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and management of nutrient-poor grasslands for a threatened species. Conserv. Biol.13, 1476–1486 (1999). Google Scholar
  60. Rapport, D. J., Costanza, R. & McMichael, A. J. Assessing ecosystem health. Trends Ecol. Evol.13, 397–402 (1998). CASGoogle Scholar
  61. Oberlack, C. et al. Archetype analysis in sustainability research: meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making. Ecol. Soc.24, 26 (2019). Google Scholar
  62. Asner, G. P. & Martin, R. E. Spectranomics: emerging science and conservation opportunities at the interface of biodiversity and remote sensing. Glob. Ecol. Conserv.8, 212–219 (2016). Google Scholar

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation. We thank G. Knoblock for his support and encouragement. Thank you to T. Robinson, C. Glazer and K. Tomozawa for geographic information system assistance with the development of the SLHA. We appreciate the input and review provided by E. Hadly and T. Matza. This work would not be possible without the cooperation and inspiration of the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network.

Author information

  1. Kelly McManus Chauvin Present address: Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
  2. Anthony D. Barnosky Present address: Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Nicole E. Heller
  2. Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Kelly McManus Chauvin & Anthony D. Barnosky
  3. Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network, Half-Moon Bay, CA, USA Dylan Skybrook
  1. Nicole E. Heller