Author
Amanda Driver (Sanbi)
Bio: Amanda Driver (Sanbi) is an academic researcher from Botanical Society of America. The author has contributed to research in topics: Biodiversity & Spatial planning. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 25 publications receiving 2359 citations.
Papers
More filters
••
National University of Cordoba1, Addis Ababa University2, National Autonomous University of Mexico3, State University of Campinas4, United Nations Environment Programme5, UNESCO6, United States Department of Agriculture7, Indiana University8, University of British Columbia9, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation10, University of Paris-Sud11, Landcare Research12, University College London13, Autonomous University of Madrid14, University of Cambridge15, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research16, University of Southern Denmark17, United Nations University18, Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment19, The Nature Conservancy20, University of the South Pacific21, University of East Anglia22, Kyushu University23, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology24, University of Washington25, Budapest University of Technology and Economics26, Environmental Law Institute27, Ankara University28, University of Portsmouth29, Chinese Academy of Sciences30, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay31, Kyoto University32, Joseph Fourier University33, National Scientific and Technical Research Council34, University of Yaoundé35, Polish Academy of Sciences36, University of São Paulo37, École Normale Supérieure38, University of Otago39, Stanford University40, University of Queensland41, Azim Premji University42, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ43, University of Ghana44, Corvinus University of Budapest45, Stockholm University46, Lakehead University47, Indian Institute of Forest Management48, Seoul National University49, Sofia University50
TL;DR: The first public product of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is its Conceptual Framework as discussed by the authors, which will underpin all IPBES functions and provide structure and comparability to the syntheses that will produce at different spatial scales, on different themes, and in different regions.
1,585 citations
••
TL;DR: This work reviewed eight South African conservation planning processes and identified key ingredients of best practice for undertaking systematic conservation assessments in a way that facilitates implementing conservation action.
Abstract: Systematic conservation assessment and conservation planning are two distinct fields of conserva- tion science often confused as one and the same. Systematic conservation assessment is the technical, often computer-based, identification of priority areas for conservation. Conservation planning is composed of a systematic conservation assessment coupled with processes for development of an implementation strategy and stakeholder collaboration. The peer-reviewed conservation biology literature abounds with studies ana- lyzing the performance of assessments (e.g., area-selection techniques). This information alone, however, can never deliver effective conservation action; it informs conservation planning. Examples of how to translate systematic assessment outputs into knowledge and then use them for "doing" conservation are rare. South Africa has received generous international and domestic funding for regional conservation planning since the mid-1990s. We reviewed eight South African conservation planning processes and identified key ingredients of best practice for undertaking systematic conservation assessments in a way that facilitates implementing conservation action. These key ingredients include the design of conservation planning processes, skills for conservation assessment teams, collaboration with stakeholders, and interpretation and mainstreaming of products (e.g., maps) for stakeholders. Social learning institutions are critical to the successful operationaliza- tion of assessments within broader conservation planning processes and should include not only conservation planners but also diverse interest groups, including rural landowners, politicians, and government employees.
235 citations
01 Jan 2012
156 citations
01 Jan 2005
148 citations
••
TL;DR: This work examined how knowledge co-production and boundary work can bridge the gap between planning and implementation and promote cross-sectoral cooperation and provides practical guidance for promoting uptake of conservation science and contributes to an evidence base on how conservation efforts can be improved.
Abstract: Knowledge co-production and boundary work offer planners a new frame for critically designing a social process that fosters collaborative implementation of resulting plans. Knowledge co- production involves stakeholders from diverse knowledge systems working iteratively toward common vision and action. Boundary work is a means of creating permeable knowledge boundaries that satisfy the needs of multiple social groups while guarding the functional integrity of contributing knowledge systems. Resulting products are boundary objects of mutual interest that maintain coherence across all knowledge boundaries. We examined how knowledge co-production and boundary work can bridge the gap between planning and implementation and promote cross-sectoral cooperation. We applied these concepts to well-established stages in regional conservation planning within a national scale conservation planning project aimed at identifying areas for conserving rivers and wetlands of South Africa and developing an institutional environment for promoting their conservation. Knowledge co-production occurred iteratively over 4 years in interactive stake- holder workshops that included co-development of national freshwater conservation goals and spatial data on freshwater biodiversity and local conservation feasibility; translation of goals into quantitative inputs that were used in Marxan to select draft priority conservation areas; review of draft priority areas; and packaging of resulting map products into an atlas and implementation manual to promote application of the priority area maps in 37 different decision-making contexts. Knowledge co-production stimulated dialogue and negotiation and built capacity for multi-scale implementation beyond the project. The resulting maps and information integrated diverse knowledge types of over 450 stakeholders and represented >1000 years of collective experience. The maps provided a consistent national source of information on priority conservation areas for rivers and wetlands and have been applied in 25 of the 37 use contexts since their launch just over 3 years ago. When framed as a knowledge co-production process supported by boundary work, regional conservation plans can be developed into valuable boundary objects that offer a tangible tool for multi- agency cooperation around conservation. Our work provides practical guidance for promoting uptake of conservation science and contributes to an evidence base on how conservation efforts can be improved.
143 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: The notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP) was introduced by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) as mentioned in this paper, a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies.
Abstract: A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework ( 1 ) is the notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) ( 2 ). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature's contribution to people.
1,470 citations
••
TL;DR: This work focuses on what costs are, why they are important to consider, how they can be quantified and the benefits of their inclusion in priority setting, and considers prospects for integrating them into conservation planning.
Abstract: Recent studies that incorporate the spatial distributions of biological benefits and economic costs in conservation planning have shown that limited budgets can achieve substantially larger biological gains than when planning ignores costs. Despite concern from donors about the effectiveness of conservation interventions, these increases in efficiency from incorporating costs into planning have not yet been widely recognized. Here, we focus on what these costs are, why they are important to consider, how they can be quantified and the benefits of their inclusion in priority setting. The most recent work in the field has examined the degree to which dynamics and threat affect the outcomes of conservation planning. We assess how costs fit into this new framework and consider prospects for integrating them into conservation planning.
998 citations
••
University of the Basque Country1, University of Cambridge2, National Autonomous University of Mexico3, University of Córdoba (Spain)4, Corvinus University of Budapest5, University of Southern Denmark6, University of Gothenburg7, University of East Anglia8, Lund University9, University of Kiel10, United Nations11, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ12, University of Khartoum13, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology14, University of Washington15, University of Oxford16, Ministry of Forestry17, University College Dublin18, National University of Cordoba19, Carthage University20, University of Chile21, Harvard University22, Norwegian University of Life Sciences23, University of Pretoria24, University of Antwerp25, Wetlands International26, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro27, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources28, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research29, University of Western Australia30, National University of General Sarmiento31, Calcutta Institute of Engineering and Management32, European Commission33, Government of Canada34, Finnish Environment Institute35, International Institute of Minnesota36, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro37, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro38, Victoria University of Wellington39, Indian Institute of Forest Management40, University of Tokyo41
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present the rationale for the inclusive valuation of nature's contributions to people (NCP) in decision making, as well as broad methodological steps for doing so, and argue that transformative practices aiming at sustainable futures would benefit from embracing such diversity, which require recognizing and addressing power relationships across stakeholder groups that hold different values on human nature-relations and NCP.
985 citations
••
National University of Cordoba1, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ2, Leipzig University3, Indiana University4, United Nations5, University of the West Indies6, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology7, National Autonomous University of Mexico8, University of Minnesota9, University of Cambridge10, BirdLife International11, University of British Columbia12, National University of Río Negro13, National Institute for Environmental Studies14, Chiba University15, Michigan State University16, International Institute of Minnesota17, United Nations University18, Stellenbosch University19, Simón Bolívar University20, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation21, Hungarian Academy of Sciences22, University of Queensland23, Duke University24, Imperial College London25, Natural History Museum26, University of the West of England27, Stockholm University28, Clark University29, IFREMER30, University of Cape Town31, Radboud University Nijmegen32, George Mason University33, Royal Botanic Gardens34, University of Oxford35, University of the Philippines Diliman36
TL;DR: The first integrated global-scale intergovernmental assessment of the status, trends, and future of the links between people and nature provides an unprecedented picture of the extent of the authors' mutual dependence, the breadth and depth of the ongoing and impending crisis, and the interconnectedness among sectors and regions.
Abstract: The human impact on life on Earth has increased sharply since the 1970s, driven by the demands of a growing population with rising average per capita income. Nature is currently supplying more materials than ever before, but this has come at the high cost of unprecedented global declines in the extent and integrity of ecosystems, distinctness of local ecological communities, abundance and number of wild species, and the number of local domesticated varieties. Such changes reduce vital benefits that people receive from nature and threaten the quality of life of future generations. Both the benefits of an expanding economy and the costs of reducing nature's benefits are unequally distributed. The fabric of life on which we all depend-nature and its contributions to people-is unravelling rapidly. Despite the severity of the threats and lack of enough progress in tackling them to date, opportunities exist to change future trajectories through transformative action. Such action must begin immediately, however, and address the root economic, social, and technological causes of nature's deterioration.
913 citations