Conservation needs to integrate knowledge across scales

Abstract

Wyborn and Evans1 argue that global priority maps for conservation have questionable utility and may crowd out local and more contextual research. While we agree with the authors’ central argument that effective and equitable conservation must be rooted at local scales, the assertion that “conservation needs to break free from global priority mapping” presents a false dichotomy. We should not think in terms of a binary choice of methods (local or global), but rather recognize that information across scales will have the most relevance and power in the future. Wyborn and Evans challenge the creators of global maps to identify their theory of change. Here, we outline six major areas of contribution relevant for priority setting and other conservation-related decisions.(1) Broader context for local decisions. Making effective local policy relies on anticipating economic, political or environmental change operating at larger scales and understanding how it affects local social or biophysical conditions. Global maps reveal the importance of distant connections (also known as telecoupling) in driving change in nature and its contributions to people2. Similarly, species extinction risk is governed by how rae a species is, and a purely local focus cannot fully reveal the regional, continental and global landscape of extinction risks3. Analyses of linkages across scales from local to regional to global are essential for a full understanding of the impacts of policies or actions. Ignoring linkages across scales results in missed opportunities and unintended consequences.(2) Rapid information for globalized decision-making. In an increasingly interconnected world, many actors, including corporations, non-governmental organisations, development banks and supranational organizations such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), make decisions at a global or regional scale; without information on nature, they will (and do) proceed without it. Several global-scale maps and analyses4,5,6 were cited by the CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (CBD/SBSTTA/24/3/Add.2) that informed the content of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Although all global agreements need to be operationalized at national and sub-national scales, global maps provide the basis to set agendas, inform target setting, provide pressure or leverage for governments and others to act, and in some cases provide information on the magnitude of financing required for implementation.(3) Understanding synergies and trade-offs across scales. Setting priorities only at local scales jeopardizes the protection of globally important species or ecosystems, and may lead to land or ocean use strategies that conflict with regional, national and international goals7. Spatial patterns and processes relevant at continental to global scales, such as global biogeographic patterns and areas of importance for multiple environmental goals8, must be understood at that level to inform countries that share the responsibility towards conserving species and ecosystems with wide and cross-border distributions. Cooperation across regional, national or global scales, supported by large-scale studies, can create synergies or efficiencies that have the potential to improve outcomes for people and nature in all local areas9.