Relevant and resonant conservation: do we make the case for benefits to people, and does it matter?

Session: Linking Human Well-being, Quality of Life, and Ecosystem Services to Conservation Efforts (2)

Douglas R Pearsall, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected]
Mauri Liberati, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected]
Anna Urso, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected]
Stephanie Hickel, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected]

Abstract

We know that ecosystem services are largely beneficial to people through their influence on health, income, happiness or security. However, most conservation projects focus on and promote improving ecosystem condition or ecosystem services while failing to mention benefits or negative impacts to people. This session highlighted the relevance of restoration to people by connecting improved ecosystem services to human benefits, thus strengthening the case for integrating existing frameworks for ecosystem services and human well-being. Less clear is how well managers and practitioners have highlighted and promoted this relevance to make their conservation more resonant with stakeholders and funders. We reviewed Great lakes coastal wetland protection and restoration investments to characterize the extent to which these investments are promoted for benefits to human well-being. Major funders of coastal wetland conservation in the Great Lakes have invested in hundreds of projects around the basin since 2010. Of these, less than half reference improved ecosystem services as an outcome and a much smaller percentage reference any effects on human well-being. We will provide more precise results and examples of natural resource investment that start with improvements to human well-being as a way to focus those investments and to gain support and funding.

Twitter handle of presenter
@ecoscigeek