Whose conservation, revisited: how a focus on people-nature relationships spotlights new directions for conservation science

26Citations
Citations of this article
73Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Georgina Mace introduced a compelling perspective on the major shifts in conservation science's framing and purpose from 1960 to 2010. A decade ago, she proposed that the conservation community had begun to move into a new framing of 'people and nature' based on changes in perspectives on the relationships between people and nature and new interdisciplinary concepts and methods used in conservation. Progress in using this frame is clear as 'two-way dynamic relationships between people and nature' have since taken centre stage in science, practice and policy. Now, responding to concerns raised that current approaches to conservation are still not meeting the scale and complexity of the challenges of the Anthropocene, we explore a newly emerging framing of 'people with nature'-an inextricably intertwined perspective on people-nature relationships. This framing builds on Mace's recognition of interconnections and change, as well as new directions offered by conservation's recent transdisciplinary engagements, to go beyond the notion of two-way flows connecting people and nature to emphasize the relationships and inseparability of 'people with nature'. This emerging framing suggests new directions for conservation science and practice to make visible, improve and reimagine degraded people-nature relationships needed to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. This article is part of the discussion meeting issue 'Bending the curve towards nature recovery: building on Georgina Mace's legacy for a biodiverse future'.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Reyers, B., & Bennett, E. M. (2025). Whose conservation, revisited: how a focus on people-nature relationships spotlights new directions for conservation science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 380(1917). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0320

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free