Equity trade‐offs in conservation decision making |
| |
| Authors: | Elizabeth A. Law Nathan J. Bennett Christopher D. Ives Rachel Friedman Katrina J. Davis Carla Archibald Kerrie A. Wilson |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The University of Queensland, Australia;2. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Australia;3. Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada;4. School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195‐5685, U.S.A.;5. Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University, Monterey, CA 93940, U.S.A.;6. School of Geography, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, U.K.;7. UWA School of Agriculture & Environment, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia;8. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | Conservation decisions increasingly involve multiple environmental and social objectives, which result in complex decision contexts with high potential for trade‐offs. Improving social equity is one such objective that is often considered an enabler of successful outcomes and a virtuous ideal in itself. Despite its idealized importance in conservation policy, social equity is often highly simplified or ill‐defined and is applied uncritically. What constitutes equitable outcomes and processes is highly normative and subject to ethical deliberation. Different ethical frameworks may lead to different conceptions of equity through alternative perspectives of what is good or right. This can lead to different and potentially conflicting equity objectives in practice. We promote a more transparent, nuanced, and pluralistic conceptualization of equity in conservation decision making that particularly recognizes where multidimensional equity objectives may conflict. To help identify and mitigate ethical conflicts and avoid cases of good intentions producing bad outcomes, we encourage a more analytical incorporation of equity into conservation decision making particularly during mechanistic integration of equity objectives. We recommend that in conservation planning motivations and objectives for equity be made explicit within the problem context, methods used to incorporate equity objectives be applied with respect to stated objectives, and, should objectives dictate, evaluation of equity outcomes and adaptation of strategies be employed during policy implementation. |
| |
| Keywords: | conservation planning conservation policy environmental management ethical pluralism prioritization trade‐offs compensaciones manejo ambiental planeació n de la conservació n pluralismo é tico polí tica de la conservació n priorizació n |
|
|
