194
www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America
D
espite use of the best available biophysical informa-
tion and the investment of considerable time and
effort, many conservation initiatives have been ineffective
in motivating and guiding communities to implement the
desired actions. As a result, these efforts fail to achieve
their objectives (Wilson et al. 2007; Knight et al. 2008).
Conservation planning is the development of spatial plans
and the implementation and continued application of
conservation actions (eg protection of sensitive or biodi-
verse areas, management of invasive species, restoration of
degraded landscapes) in specific areas, usually at a regional
scale (eg encompassing a network of sites where conserva-
tion actions are undertaken, within or among ecoregions;
Margules and Pressey 2000). Such planning is intended to
reduce biodiversity declines in a transparent and socially
responsible manner by explicitly stating overall goals and
specific objectives, and then providing options for achiev-
ing them, despite limited financial resources (Margules
and Pressey 2000; Pressey and Bottrill 2009). However,
when such planning fails to characterize the inevitable
hard choices and trade-offs involved in applying conserva-
tion actions, failures in implementation often result.
Insufficient consideration of social processes (the dynamic
interactions between individuals, institutions, social orga-
nizations, and cultural norms) in the social–ecological sys-
tems (SESs) in which the planning has occurred con-
tributes substantially to this failure. Examples of
contributing factors that lead to failures to implement
conservation include poor understanding of the socioeco-
nomic constraints and opportunities that shape imple-
mentation (Cowling and Wilhelm-Rechman 2007;
Knight and Cowling 2007), outside agendas that conflict
with local needs (Chan et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2009), and
insufficient training and incentives for researchers to turn
regional conservation designs into actions on the ground
(Knight et al. 2008; Arlettaz et al. 2010).
Conservation biologists have been reluctant to engage
in the messy and complex social and political aspects of
implementation (Sayer et al. 2008), perhaps because con-
servation planning emerged from the natural sciences and
remains predominantly rooted therein (Knight et al.
2006). Yet such planning – which explicitly values bio-
diversity – is part of a social process. It is also negatively
affected by differences in power between those who make
decisions about biodiversity management and those who
are affected by its outcomes (Knight et al. 2008).
Furthermore, conservation planning is extremely compli-
REVIEWS REVIEWS REVIEWS
A social–ecological approach to conservation
planning: embedding social considerations
Natalie C Ban
1*
, Morena Mills
1,2
, Jordan Tam
3
, Christina C Hicks
1,4
, Sarah Klain
3
, Natalie Stoeckl
4
,
Madeleine C Bottrill
5,6
, Jordan Levine
3
, Robert L Pressey
1
, Terre Satterfield
3
, and Kai MA Chan
3
Many conservation plans remain unimplemented, in part because of insufficient consideration of the social
processes that influence conservation decisions. Complementing social considerations with an integrated
understanding of the ecology of a region can result in a more complete conservation approach. We suggest
that linking conservation planning to a social–ecological systems (SES) framework can lead to a more thor-
ough understanding of human–environment interactions and more effective integration of social considera-
tions. By characterizing SES as a set of subsystems, and their interactions with each other and with external
factors, the SES framework can improve our understanding of the linkages between social and ecological influ-
ences on the environment. Using this framework can help to identify socially and ecologically focused con-
servation actions that will benefit ecosystems and human communities, and assist in the development of more
consistent evidence for evaluating conservation actions by comparing conservation case studies.
Front Ecol Environ 2013; 11(4): 194–202, doi:10.1890/110205 (published online 18 Jan 2013)
In a nutshell:
• Effective conservation planning must include both social and
ecological considerations
• The social–ecological systems (SES) framework described here
provides a basis for comparing conservation case studies
• An SES approach helps to explicitly consider trade-offs
between ecological and social components of a system, allow-
ing compromises to be identified
• A suite of methods and tools borrowed from the social sciences
can help conservation planners understand and navigate the
social complexities that underlie conservation decisions
1
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef
Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
*
(nban@
uvic.ca);
2
Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, St Lucia,
Australia;
3
Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada;
4
The Cairns
Institute and School of Business, James Cook University, Townsville,
Australia;
5
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for
Environmental Decisions, University of Queensland, St Lucia,
Australia;
6
Conservation International, Arlington, VA
NC Ban et al. Social–ecological approach to conservation planning
195
© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org
cated because it presents many problems for which the
“solutions” generally lead to the emergence of additional
issues (Rittel and Webber 1973). Accordingly, while con-
servation plans cannot be expected to routinely produce
win–win solutions, they could yield outcomes that are
acceptable to the various sectors involved (White et al.
2012), and that are better able to guide day-to-day conser-
vation decisions. Considering trade-offs in terms of both
the social and ecological implications of conservation
actions can allow thoughtful and constructive compro-
mises to emerge.
In this review, we discuss various ways in which social
considerations have been included in conservation plan-
ning to date and offer some improvements. We suggest
that linking conservation planning with an interdiscipli-
nary SES framework (Ostrom 2009, 2010; hereafter
referred to as “Ostrom’s SES framework”) is a way to
effectively embed social considerations therein by broad-
ening the predominantly ecological context to a
social–ecological one.
n
Rationale for including social considerations in
conservation planning
The rationale for integrating social considerations into con-
servation planning – from the perspective of planners – is
that the actions that emerge are more likely to achieve their
goals and to be more sustainable. Tailoring plans to the atti-
tudes, preferences, and behaviors of stakeholders, how these
change, and the process of engaging stakeholders transpar-
ently (eg engaging them throughout the planning process
and providing them with all available information so that
they can make informed decisions) should improve the
plans overall and increase compliance with any associated
recommendations (Ban et al. 2009). Explicitly including
social considerations also creates the opportunity for plan-
ning processes to become more realistic and inclusive, clar-
ifying the hard choices and complex trade-offs between and
within conservation and other objectives (eg livelihoods
and equity; Hirsch et al. 2010; McShane et al. 2011).
Although an ethical imperative to include social considera-
tions may not always be evident, because conservation is
motivated by biodiversity values, conservation planners
have an ethical responsibility to respect the right of local
communities to be an integral part of the planning process.
n
Social considerations in conservation planning to
date
A number of approaches have been suggested for expanding
the inclusion of social considerations in conservation plan-
ning. Knight et al. (2006) outlined an operational model for
this that emphasized the need for implementation strategies
and the importance of including stakeholders throughout
the process, to reflect local knowledge when gathering
information about the region under consideration.
Similarly, the stages involved in systematic conservation
planning have been increased from the initial ecology-cen-
tric approach articulated by Margules and Pressey (2000) to
include five new stages (Pressey and Bottrill 2009), most of
which concern the social, economic, and political context
in which the conservation initiative will take place
(WebFigure 1). While current conservation planning
frameworks (Knight et al. 2006; Pressey and Bottrill 2009)
include some social considerations, they do not yet provide
a truly integrative approach that recognizes substantial
social processes and social–ecological linkages.
Practical developments that have occurred as a result of
calls to improve the integration of social considerations
into conservation planning fall into two categories, both
of which are linked to the assessment part of conservation
planning: (1) use of spatial data pertaining to existing
resource use, and (2) the addition of social assessments,
including identification of areas where conservation is
more likely to succeed (ie “conservation opportunities”).
Spatial data on human uses
Spatial data on how people use resources are increasingly
incorporated into conservation assessments and are usually
represented as threats to biodiversity or as costs associated
with conservation actions. For instance, when human
activities represent a threat to biodiversity (eg land clear-
ing), planners either avoid highly threatened areas (eg
areas slated for land clearing) to minimize conflict (when
other, less sensitive areas exist that have the same biodiver-
sity values) or give priority to areas of high biodiversity
value that are under threat to protect them before land
clearing occurs (where there are no viable alternatives)
(Pressey and Taffs 2001). Planners deal with costs in simi-
lar ways, where the “costs” relate to acquisition (eg land
value; Ando et al. 1998; Carwardine et al. 2010), manage-
ment, damage to economic activities arising from conser-
vation programs, and loss of extractive opportunities (for a
review of terrestrial and marine systems, respectively, see
Naidoo et al. 2006; Ban and Klein 2009). The term “costs”
is also used more generically, to refer to liabilities related to
past or present human uses. Although there is scope for
improving the representation of costs in conservation
planning, once the costs of a planning process are defined,
planners commonly use decision support tools (such as
Marxan) to minimize costs while achieving conservation
objectives. For example, the rezoning of the Great Barrier
Reef in Australia aimed to incorporate at least 20% of the
total area of each bioregion while reducing human impacts
(Fernandes et al. 2005).
Social assessments
Social assessments (also termed situation analyses, social
analyses, or stakeholder assessments) are a common com-
ponent of conservation planning. These assessments con-
textualize aspects of the social systems that exist in the
planning region, describing the social, cultural, economic,
Social–ecological approach to conservation planning NC Ban et al.
196
www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America
and political conditions in the area (Knight et al. 2006;
Conservation Measures Partnership 2007; Cowling and
Wilhelm-Rechman 2007; Figure 2, stages 1–3, 5). Some
social assessments focus on the local opportunities for con-
servation that emerge where social factors align to create a
willingness among community stakeholders to implement
conservation actions; these may be community-led initia-
tives or may be linked to regional planning (Cowling and
Wilhelm-Rechman 2007). Game et al. (2011) provide an
example of the latter approach, working with communities
in the Solomon Islands to identify protected areas through
several rounds of meetings between community members
and conservation planners, thereby combining the priori-
ties of the communities with a systematic assessment of
areas characterized by a high level of biodiversity.
Limitations of current approaches
To date, the inclusion of social considerations in conserva-
tion planning has been limited in several ways. First,
although social data (eg opportunity costs) have increas-
ingly been included in conservation assessments, the
approaches used have not been consistent (Timko and
Satterfield 2008). Gaining an understanding of what kinds
of social factors matter, why they matter, and how this
information should be collected, integrated, and inter-
preted has proved challenging. Second, incorporating
social data into conservation assessments requires these
data to be simplified and mapped, when in fact some social
or cultural priorities may be distinctly aspatial and/or that
information was not articulated in spatial terms initially.
For example, many ethnographic insights into the underly-
ing tensions that influence compliance (Fabinyi 2010) were
not intended to be mapped and so lack spatial representa-
tion, making it difficult to include them in conservation
assessments. Third, the process and products of systematic
conservation planning tend to be static, prescriptive, and
often technical, which limits the scope for including
dynamics, values, and trade-offs among different objectives
when these considerations are not articulated in prescrip-
tive and technical (usually “measurable”) terms. Fourth,
limited guidance exists on how to move from recognition of
the need to address social aspects of resource use in conser-
vation planning to actually incorporating these into plan-
ning. Despite these limitations, the advantage of the sys-
tematic conservation planning framework (Margules and
Pressey 2000) is that it is transparent and has been widely
used. It can serve as a starting point to infuse a more com-
prehensive view of social considerations and trade-offs into
conservation (see also Satterfield et al. 2013).
n
Insights from the social sciences
Critical perspectives
Given that critical analysis is central to many of the
social sciences, these disciplines offer fertile territory for a
detailed scrutiny of conservation practices. For example,
there have been in-depth criticisms of various aspects of
conservation (eg exclusion or eviction of local peoples)
and community-level conflicts (Agrawal and Gibson
1999; Brosius 1999; Brechin et al. 2003). Such criticisms
should persuade conservation planners to take into
account alternative viewpoints (eg whether biodiversity
matters in its own right, or whether meeting basic human
needs should be a priority) and to bear in mind how a
wide spectrum of different values can influence choices;
such considerations help to clarify some of the motives
underlying human behavior. However, there is under-
standable wariness among conservation planners of such
critical perspectives. The exhaustive analysis of social
systems, such as in anthropological studies, could in prin-
ciple greatly enhance the appropriateness, and effective-
ness, and subsequent implementation of conservation
plans (Harper 2002). The challenge remains: to increase
engagement and communication between natural and
social scientists so as to improve conservation in practice
(Igoe 2011; Redford 2011), in part by providing a com-
mon language and framework for various fields to con-
tribute to a fuller understanding of the drivers and
impacts of conservation initiatives (Ostrom 2009).
Interactions between people and the environment
Insights and techniques borrowed from the social sci-
ences have the potential to create more realistic expecta-
tions regarding the outcomes of conservation initiatives
and to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and sustain-
ability of these initiatives by providing a better under-
standing of the complex linkages between people and the
environment at multiple scales (Figure 1). These linkages
have been investigated by several communities of schol-
ars, including political and human ecologists, ecological
anthropologists, and economists. The study of SESs draws
insights from all of these fields, and others as well (Berkes
et al. 2003). A deeper understanding of SES dynamics can
highlight multiple issues that are relevant to conserva-
tion. For example, SES studies can help explain the ben-
efits and drawbacks of multiple knowledge systems (eg
different ways of viewing the world), informal institu-
tions (eg the rules that people abide by, including social
norms), and cross-scale networks. Most importantly, an
SES view emphasizes the unpredictable, dynamic, and
evolved nature of linked social and ecological systems
(Berkes et al. 2003).
Ostrom’s SES framework was developed to provide an
understanding of the governance processes that lead to
improvements in or deterioration of renewable natural
resources (Ostrom 2009). The framework grew out of a
large body of interdisciplinary research about coordinated
resource management successes and failures. It divides
SESs into subsystems, based on the resource (eg forests,
coastal areas, etc), resource units (eg trees, fish), gover-
nance systems (eg management of a forest or a coastal
NC Ban et al. Social–ecological approach to conservation planning
197
© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org
area), and actors (ie stakeholders, such as hikers, loggers,
and fishers). These four subsystems interact with each
other and with the overarching social, economic, and
political settings and related ecosystems (ie interactions
and outcomes, with variables like harvesting levels, delib-
erative processes, activities carried out by communities,
and social and ecological performance measures), leading
to resource management outcomes (Ostrom 2009).
While the framework emerged mainly from studies at
local scales, it is just as applicable at regional and even
global scales. Other frameworks (principally ones that are
not connected with conservation) that have similarly
linked social and ecological components include the fol-
lowing: “pressure–state–impacts–response” (Turner 2000),
“sustainable rural livelihoods” (Scoones 1998), “disaster
resilience of place” (Cutter et al. 2008), and “pressure
and release” (Blaikie et al. 1994). However, we contend
that the SES framework, as presented by Ostrom (2009),
is the most appropriate for use in conservation planning
because it encompasses a comprehensive group of social
and ecological factors, all of which are applicable to con-
servation.
n
Linking the process of conservation planning with
the SES framework
Integrating SES frameworks into conservation gener-
ally, and Ostrom’s SES framework (Ostrom 2009)
specifically, can serve to include nuanced local and
regional social considerations into conservation plan-
ning. This integration can be achieved by providing
practitioners and academics from different disciplines
with a common vocabulary and a logical structure for
classifying factors deemed as important influences in
developing and implementing a conservation plan. In
particular, linking the stages of systematic conservation
planning (Pressey and Bottrill 2009) to Ostrom’s SES
framework (Ostrom 2009; Figure 2; see WebFigures 1
and 2 for more detail) allows planners to think beyond
the usual concerns. For example, at present, conserva-
tion planners do not routinely consider existing or
potential governance systems, even though this might
aid conservation. By understanding governance vari-
ables (ie the attributes that constitute a governance
system, such as rule-making organizations, social norms
that determine informal procedures for management,
collaborations between different agencies or sectors,
legal systems, current rules, and policy tools), planners
can expand their approach and/or conservation actions
to consider some or all of these factors. Thinking about
such variables will also highlight the importance of
multiple scales (eg the dynamics of government agen-
cies and non-governmental groups at levels above and
below the scale at which planning is occurring).
Furthermore, one area where alternative theories, per-
spectives, and values can be integrated into conserva-
tion plans is within the “action situation” in Ostrom’s
SES framework (Ostrom 2010). The action situation is
a step in the planning process whereby proposed con-
servation actions and their likely outcomes can be eval-
uated in light of the stakeholders’ opinions and beliefs.
In this way, Ostrom’s SES framework can provide a first
Figure 1. Cultural linkages between people and the environment
highlight the importance of considering both ecological and social
aspects in conservation planning. (a) The creation stories of
many different cultures link people and animals, such as the
Haida First Nation’s legend of the raven and first humans as
depicted in this sculpture by Bill Reid, making it inappropriate to
ignore that linkage. Understanding food and harvesting
traditions, such as (b) smoking salmon in Alaska and (c)
catching nearshore reef fish in Palau, helps conservation planning
meet subsistence needs.
(a)
(b)
(c)
UBC Museum of Anthropology
© B Knight
S Klain
Social–ecological approach to conservation planning NC Ban et al.
198
www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America
step toward bringing together social considerations and
conservation practices.
In practice, designing a conservation plan that incor-
porates SES thinking might entail some or all of the
following: (1) careful consideration of both the social
and ecological elements of the target region and their
interactions; (2) inclusion of social scientists familiar
with SES ideas in the planning process; (3) building
capacity within existing complementary local or
regional institutions; (4) discussion among planners
about which methods, tools, and data are appropriate to
the planning context (WebTable 1); and (5) prioritiz-
ing data collection and analysis. Furthermore, main-
streaming key social concepts and methods into exist-
ing planning frameworks through policies and
day-to-day activities can promote acceptance and long-
term commitment of social considerations. Admittedly,
linking the frameworks will take time, experimenta-
tion, and a commitment by planners. We therefore
highlight two specific ways in which conservation plan-
ning and SES thinking can be linked: (1) Ostrom’s SES
framework can be used to guide comparative analyses of
conservation case studies, thereby creating an evi-
dence-base for conservation actions; and (2) social
objectives and stakeholders’ goals can be incorporated
into conservation planning.
Comparative analysis of conservation case studies
The conservation community currently lacks a general
understanding of which conservation actions work in
different contexts (Sutherland et al. 2004). Assessment
of conservation cases under a common framework could
help to develop an understanding of the relationships
between social contexts and effective conservation
actions. This in turn would help identify context-appro-
priate conservation actions, thereby improving the
chances of successful conservation outcomes. A rela-
tively modest allocation of funding to monitor progress
could help to assess the social and ecological effective-
ness of particular strategies (Neugarten et al. 2011).
Although conservation planners could carry out such an
assessment as part of the planning process (ie assess
which conservation actions are more likely to be effec-
tive, based on past experiences), academics could also
play a role here.
Figure 2. Linkages between frameworks for (a) systematic conservation planning (Pressey and Bottrill 2009) and (b)
social–ecological systems (SES) (Ostrom 2007, 2009, 2010). In (a), the colors depict categories of stages: dashed arrows represent
feedback loops between categories of stages, or, where arrows enter boxes, feedback loops between specific stages. The colors in (b)
link the most directly relevant social–ecological subsystems to planning stages in (a). In (b), grey text relates primarily to ecological
considerations, which we do not discuss; solid arrows indicate direct links, and dashed arrows indicate feedbacks; the dashed box
denotes the action situation embedded in a broader SES; the multiple versions of boxes symbolize that there can be multiple subsystems
for each action situation. Abbreviations after stages in (a) refer to those components of the SES, defined in (b), which are relevant to
specific stages of systematic conservation planning. See WebFigures 1 and 2 for more detail.
(a) Systematic conservation planning framework
(b) SES framework
