Biological Conservation 195 (2016) 9–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bioc

Perspectives

Designing virtuous socio-ecological cycles for biodiversity conservation

Scott A. Morrison ⁎
The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Increasing the pace and scale of biodiversity conservation in a human-dominated world requires conservationists
Received 15 June 2015 to effect systemic change in complex and dynamic socio-ecological systems. Recently, Morrison (2015)
Received in revised form 13 December 2015 introduced a conceptual framework to help conservation planners design a theory of change, i.e., a hypothesis
Accepted 20 December 2015
of how their intervention will lead to a desired future condition. Here, I elaborate on that heuristic, and provide
Available online 8 January 2016
guidance for developing its core components. The framework focuses attention on identifying the conditions
Keywords:
needed to support biodiversity, and on establishing virtuous socio-ecological cycles between people and their
Biodiversity environment that will generate those conditions. Planning a virtuous cycle requires specifying the people
Ecosystem services whose interaction with nature is needed to change, and what relevance the proposed conservation would
Planning have to them. The conservation intervention will largely focus on mobilizing those people to institutionalize pol-
Socio-ecological system icies or practices that mainstream, through self-reinforcing positive feedbacks, the delivery of that conservation
Theory of change outcome. The framework complements existing conservation planning tools and methods – such as biodiversity
Values mapping, situation analysis – by providing context and focus for their application. The clarity of objective versus
strategy, of ends versus means, provided by this framework can increase the effectiveness of conservationists,
who routinely must estimate and compare the conservation return on investment of different potential interven-
tions and negotiate tradeoffs between biodiversity protection and other societal values.
© 2016 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction strategies for conservation in a human-dominated world (Fig. 1). The

framework represents key components of a conservation ‘theory of
Conservationists must dramatically increase their effectiveness to change’, i.e., an articulation of how an intervention is expected via causal
stem the tide of extinction on Earth (Urban, 2015). Doing so, however, relationships to lead to a desired future condition (Weiss, 1995). The
in our increasingly complex, crowded, and resource constrained world framework also helps reconcile tensions between proponents of intrinsic
is challenging, in part because biodiversity conservation is a societal versus utilitarian values of nature (see Hunter et al., 2014, and Section 2),
value not always shared by others. Advocates for biodiversity must because the components of the theory of change are the same regardless
compete with those working to advance other agendas, some of which of what values motivate the conservation. The framework depicts biodi-
may be compatible with conservation, others not. Thus, a key strategy versity conservation as the ultimate objective, but does not require
in many conservation efforts is to demonstrate how conservation can be users to differentiate why; the rationale may be because of its intrinsic,
aligned with other societal goals, so as to broaden the constituency for instrumental, or precautionary, option value. Instead, the framework
conservation, reduce tradeoffs, and create “win–wins” for people and focuses users on exploring why conservation might be relevant to people
nature (Chan et al., 2007). Some argue further that the protection of who need to be mobilized to act in a way that supports nature, because,
ecosystem services should actually be the primary objective of conserva- ultimately, conservation depends on social, economic, political, and
tion, in contrast to protection of biodiversity per se (e.g., Kareiva et al., cultural systems to sustain it. Here, I expand on the initial framework
2012). Unfortunately, however, protection of many ecosystem services and provide guidance for designing its central feature, a virtuous socio-
can be accomplished without benefitting native species (Bullock et al., ecological cycle that produces benefits for biodiversity.
2011). Given that people and nature are inextricably linked in socio-
ecological systems, how should conservationists consider the relationship 2. Assertions
between social and ecological objectives when planning their work?
Morrison (2015) presented a heuristic framework for characterizing Five assertions concerning the focus and role of conservationists
a socio-ecological system that conservation planners can use to develop underpin the framework. The first is that biodiversity has value and
biodiversity conservation is an important societal value. Accordingly,
⁎ The Nature Conservancy, 201 Mission St., 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA. the framework sets protection of biodiversity as the ultimate objective.
E-mail address: [email protected]. The value may be based on known or potential ecosystem services that

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.022
0006-3207/© 2016 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
10 S.A. Morrison / Biological Conservation 195 (2016) 9–16

negotiation might best be a good faith effort to establish trust, under-

stand the interests of others, and seek mutually beneficial solutions
(e.g., Gleason et al., 2013). Creative solutions may emerge by engaging
stakeholders not only in problem solving but also in the identification
of the problems themselves (Scarlett, 2013). However, clarity of objec-
tive is critical in achieving such integrative outcomes, and conceding too
early in the negotiation process may reduce the exploration of options
and the likelihood of arriving at a “win–win” (Trötschel et al., 2011).
The framework herein (Fig. 1) can provide a helpful construct for
conservationists engaging in such negotiation: the ultimate objective
is maximizing biodiversity conservation; the effort to identify and
establish virtuous cycles is the arena of principled negotiation where
alignment and tradeoffs with other societal values are evaluated,
compromises are made, and optimized solutions are developed.
Fourth, conservationists – and more specifically, conservation
organizations – have a distinct and essential role in the socio-ecological
system: to represent the needs of nonhuman species. Other actors in
the system usually well represent their own. As they do, some may advo-
cate for particular elements of biodiversity (e.g., fishers for desired fish
Fig. 1. A virtuous cycle framework for durable biodiversity conservation (adapted from species, water users for upstream forest protection); conservationists
Morrison, 2015). Key components of the heuristic include an intervention (a) aimed to might seize upon those synergies as potential partnerships. The unique
improve the ability of a place (center box) to support biodiversity (N), represented by the
link (b) between place and N. Improved conditions in place are also valued by specific
role of conservationists, however, is to keep watch on the needs of the
people (P), represented by the link (c) from places to P. Those people are then mobilized full suite of biodiversity, and motivate a sufficient segment of society to
to change policy or practices so as to improve places – represented by the link (d) between help meet them. This is not to say that conservationists should not strive
P and place – to create a virtuous cycle that sustains benefits to P and N through time. to improve human well-being, where possible; the more people that can
benefit from biodiversity protection, the better. Rather, it is to recognize
biodiversity provides, or its inherent existence value based on moral or that conservation priorities and strategies, and so biodiversity outcomes,
spiritual grounds (see Vucetich et al., 2015). To some, intrinsic values of would be different if human well-being were the ultimate outcome, or
nature are considered a human value and so a cultural service for the if biodiversity and human well-being were considered co-equal (Chan
people who value it in that way (see Reyers et al., 2012). The framework et al., 2006). Under the framework discussed here, when conservationists
does not require resolution of such debate. For those who do not consid- ally with stakeholders representing other interests and work in partner-
er biodiversity to have intrinsic value, the argument for nevertheless ship to advance ‘co-equal goals’, those allied interests would be accounted
protecting the full suite of biodiversity is that it is unclear how one for in the virtuous cycle component of the framework (see Section 3), as a
would determine which subset of diversity should not be protected, means to advance toward the broader, ultimate objective of biodiversity
given that our understanding of the relationship of biodiversity to conservation.
ecosystem services is often poorly understood (Díaz et al., 2006). The fifth assertion is that given the interconnectedness of socio-
Protecting only the species that happen to be currently valued by the ecological systems, conservationists must better account for the societal
public risks basing conservation decisions on ignorance or arrogance, implications of conservation actions, especially as they affect disadvan-
and foreclosing opportunities for future generations to value nature taged populations. This is not to assert that conservationists should
differently. In other words, it is prudent to protect what has or someday necessarily be responsible for mitigating all societal impacts of those
may have value to humans. actions; that would be a standard that few, if any, other advocates in
The second assertion is that conservation cannot be contingent upon the system are expected to meet. Rather, it is to acknowledge that
the general public valuing biodiversity, per se. Society has many understanding the linkages between people and their environment is
competing priorities and even when there are relationships between critical for developing effective strategy. Conservation planners need
those other priorities and biodiversity, they often are not generally ap- to anticipate and address in their strategies how conservation can
preciated (Novacek, 2008). Hopefully over time support for biodiversity both positively and negatively affect people. Though the conservationist's
conservation will increase, and conservationists should be striving to role is to advocate for nature, accountability for understanding effects on
expand that constituency of support. In the meantime, it is today's humans is nonetheless paramount, whether based on ethical or wholly
conservationist who carries the mantle of valuing diversity, and being pragmatic grounds. Creating populations disenfranchised by conservation
resourceful and creative in making sure its needs are accommodated. efforts can set back conservation over the long if not near term. In
Fortunately, conservation often can advance by aligning with and leverag- contrast, conservation that helps to solve problems for people can build
ing the interests of others. Fishers, for example, do not need to care about much needed constituency and a more resilient socio-ecological system.
the full diversity of marine life in order to support marine reserves; their Engaging stakeholders in conservation problem solving can help ensure
interests may be more narrowly focused on whether those reserves that the myriad social dimensions of a conservation outcome are
improve their catch. Conservation depends on sufficient constituencies considered in the planning phase.
of people valuing enough of the elements of biodiversity and acting to
protect them, and those protections aggregating to encompass the species 3. A virtuous cycle framework
that represent the full suite of biodiversity.
Third, conservation is a negotiated outcome, because it will preclude The framework highlights relationships between people, places, and
uses of resources other people may desire. Species have specific needs biodiversity that should be considered when planning a conservation
that must be accommodated if conservation is to succeed, and in most intervention (Fig. 1).‘Place’ is central in the model because ultimately
cases, that accommodation requires concessions from people. The conservation actions must affect places to benefit biodiversity in situ.
negotiation to meet those needs, however, is not always adversarial. ‘Place’ may include not only wild areas but also very human-dominated
Conservation at times may be a consensus decision between parties — habitats (e.g., urban areas, intensive agriculture) where conservationists
a “win–win” scenario. Indeed, because cooperative solutions may might focus on enhancing their compatibility for priority species
produce better and more durable conservation outcomes, conservation (Rosenzweig, 2003). Places provide (or, in the case of altered ecosystems,
 S.A. Morrison / Biological Conservation 195 (2016) 9–16 11

could provide) habitat, or support (or could support) ecological processes 3). Moreover, because conservation is a negotiated outcome, some
that contribute to overall conservation goals; hence the link from place to virtuous cycles may have quid pro quo dependencies with other cycles
biodiversity. Places also support processes or provide habitat for species (e.g., Fig. 4). Multiple cycles, for example, may be required to secure a
that provide services or other benefits of interest to people; thus the needed change in place: a theory of change to restore a forest might
linkage from place to people. aim to influence an agency to reform its management policy; to achieve
The framework depicts biodiversity conservation as the ultimate that influence, conservationists may need to mobilize two distinct groups
objective, and does not require diversity per se to feedback as a benefit of people, each valuing different aspects of the intended conservation out-
for people (i.e., there is no link depicted from biodiversity to places or come (e.g., those who would benefit from jobs in restoration forestry, and
people in Fig. 1). As discussed earlier, this accommodates the interests downstream water users that would benefit from improved water secu-
of adherents of both intrinsic and instrumental values of nature, assum- rity). Alternatively, multiple cycles may be needed to secure different out-
ing precautionary principles apply (because even if some elements of comes that are needed to advance the broader objective: a change in
biodiversity are not valued today they may be in the future). There are timber harvest practices may conserve some elements of forest biodiver-
also practical reasons why this planning framework accounts for biodi- sity, but to conserve others a new protected area may be required; each
versity as distinct from the values people derive from the biosphere. strategy may require engaging different focal people.
First is a recognition that meeting the needs of the full suite of biodiver- The framework applies to designing theories of change at any scale,
sity requires explicit focus in planning. Secondly, it removes the onus on local to global — for specific places as well as for broad strategies that
conservationists to demonstrate the value of that full suite to people, apply to multiple places or types of places. Moreover, the virtuous
which (for instrumental purpose) is often poorly understood (Díaz cycle established in one place may be a model that can be replicated
et al., 2006). Thirdly, and most importantly, the framework does not elsewhere, which could amplify the impact of a given intervention
aim to account for general relationships in the socio-ecological system. (Morrison, 2015). For example, a planning team may engage a conser-
Rather, it aims to identify specific elements of biodiversity (e.g., an vation issue in a particular place knowing that the issue also affects
ecosystem service) or the consequences of actions to conserve them other places, and could build into their strategy a mechanism to transfer
(e.g., job creation, resolution of conflict) that are valued by the people knowledge to others who might replicate a similar change in policy or
who are integral to the theory of change (see Section 4). In the frame- practice. Indeed, the team may consider that broader context and
work, those valued elements are accounted for as attributes of place. opportunity from the onset, and select the place to engage the conserva-
To illustrate, consider a region that supports a forest ecosystem. tion issue based on the likelihood that a successful demonstration in
Although a variety of people interact with the forest biodiversity in that place would be influential in advancing a larger outcome. In this
myriad ways, involvement of a specific group of people – e.g., bushmeat light, the places of engagement are not only important for delivering
hunters – may be needed to achieve a desired conservation outcome. local conservation outcomes but also a component of a broader theory
In the framework, the value of bushmeat as a food or income source of change to drive systemic change.
would be considered a flow from place to those people; actions of
bushmeat hunters to help sustain the species they value would be 4. Designing a theory of change
accounted for in the link from people to place; and, the contribution
of management of the bushmeat species to the conservation of the Below, I outline the core components of a conservation theory of
overall forest community would be accounted for in the link from change, introduced as framing questions (Fig. 2). In practice, the compo-
place to ‘nature’. The focus of the planning process is to identify the nents need not be developed in the sequence presented here. Conserva-
interests of specific people that can be leveraged to motivate action tion planners will likely find it helpful to iterate through the different
that will ensure that the place from which they derive value from components as they draft and refine their theory of change. What is
conservation will continue to deliver that value. critical is that in the end, the three nodes and three links of the frame-
The framework's foundational feature is a virtuous cycle between work (Fig. 1) are articulated and as robust as possible. In using the
people and places. A self-reinforcing feedback is created when people
act to affect places in a way that will secure the continued accrual of
conservation-based benefits from place. The cycle is designed also to
drive broader biodiversity outcomes, i.e., the link from place to ‘nature’.
Different aspects of conservation may be valued by different people;
those distinct interests would be accounted for as separate links
between place and those corresponding people. The more elements of
the focal biodiversity that can be linked to specific people, the more
can be incorporated directly into a virtuous cycle. And, in general, the
more and the stronger the socio-ecological positive feedbacks, the
reduced reliance of biodiversity on the continued direct input of
resources by conservationists.
The conservation intervention usually aims to mobilize people to
create the positive feedback from people to places. Mechanisms to
secure that feedback include institutionalizing changes in policy or
practices, such as by establishing conservation-compatible regulations,
markets, or cultural norms. Incorporating protection of resources into
economic sectors and development policies ‘mainstreams’ the conser-
vation outcome (Cowling et al., 2008) and helps secures durable,
Fig. 2. Framing questions for planning a theory of change. Questions include: Which
systemic change. I illustrate with case studies (Figs. 3 and 4) that specific elements of biodiversity are the focus of the conservation engagement and what
retrospectively apply the framework to theories of change in two do they need?; Where are the places that need to be protected or enhanced to meet those
quite different socio-ecological systems. needs?; Who are the people that need to be engaged to effect that change?; Why is the
If individual virtuous cycles are insufficient to achieve the biodiversity proposed conservation or the intervention relevant to them?; and, What are those people
needed to do in order to change policy or practices to create a positive feedback, and that
conservation goals for a place, conservationists may need to establish also would support the desired biodiversity outcomes through time? The planning team
multiple cycles that reinforce or complement one another, and that would then identify how conservationists should intervene in the socio-ecological system
perhaps operate at multiple societal (e.g., jurisdictional) scales (e.g., Fig. to activate the virtuous cycle(s) needed to produce the biodiversity outcome.
12 S.A. Morrison / Biological Conservation 195 (2016) 9–16

diagram, planners would be expressing their assumptions of relationships or other direct management could provide habitat features otherwise
in the socio-ecological system that the conservation intervention will aim scarce. That consideration can lead to the identification of places that
to affect. Being explicit about such assumptions, and the evidence they are currently have diminished biodiversity but through restoration have po-
based on, facilitates both the development and evaluation of strategy tential to contribute better to overall conservation goals (Rosenzweig,
(Weiss, 1995). Given the complexity of socio-ecological systems, this 2003). In those degraded or more human-dominated places, the priority
conservation planning requires not just ecological sciences, but a variety biodiversity elements may be those species reliant on having their habitat
of disciplines that may include economics, marketing, social and political needs met in that particular place, in contrast perhaps to human com-
sciences, as well as traditional knowledge. The planning team referred to mensal species or generalists that may be adequately protected by habitat
henceforth should strive to comprise or involve the diversity of expertise elsewhere. For example, a priority conservation focus in intensively devel-
needed to define the bounds and understand the attributes and dynamics oped floodplain agricultural areas may be providing habitat for migratory
of the socio-ecological system to be engaged. birds (Stralberg et al., 2011).
Similarly, conservation teams need to determine how best to set
4.1. Which biodiversity elements are the conservation focus and what do local management goals in the context of global change. The impacts
they need? of climate change, human population growth, invasive species and
other anthropogenic factors on species' ranges and status (Hobbs
The framework calls on the planning team to decide which subset of et al., 2013) challenge conservationists to assess how their individual
biodiversity is the focus of the proposed conservation engagement. That efforts will combine with those of others to advance the ultimate objec-
subset will help to determine the boundaries of the socio-ecological tive of protection of biodiversity on Earth. For example, it may be appro-
system, which is represented by the whole of Fig. 1 (see Section 4.3). priate for some teams to manage for historical assemblages of species
Protection of the full suite of biodiversity on Earth is the ultimate objec- whereas others may be needed to manage for conditions still only antic-
tive, and some conservation strategies (e.g., international trade policies) ipated. And when considering climate change, it is essential to consider
may seek to advance conservation at that scale, and therefore define its impacts not only on nature but on the broader socio-ecological
the socio-ecological system as global. More often, however, a more system, as human responses also will directly and indirectly affect bio-
local (e.g., a watershed) or system-specific subset of the whole diversity (Watson and Segan, 2013). Because this framework is focused
(e.g., tropical forests, migratory birds) will be the conservation focus. on guiding conservation strategy development, its focus on climate
Characterizing threats to that focal diversity and the drivers of those resiliency is as an ecological outcome, with societal resiliency being an
threats is necessary at this stage, because much of the theory of change important – indeed, necessary – means to that end. Fortunately, conser-
will focus on influencing those drivers (Section 4.3). There are a variety vation can play an important role in enhancing resiliency of the overall
of ways to define and map biodiversity, and assess its condition and system (Jones et al., 2012); specific elements of biodiversity that do so
threats to it, in order to prioritize conservation investments (Groves, (e.g., wetlands that protect coastal communities from storm surge)
2003); users of the framework can select among those. would be accounted for in the link from places to people.
In a world dominated by human uses, it is important to consider not In sum, analyses for this component of the framework would specify
only current ranges of species, but also their potential ranges if restoration which elements of biodiversity are the priority of the conservation

Fig. 3. A theory of change for restoring coral reef ecosystems in Palau using community-based fisheries management: a case study. Palau encompasses coral reef ecosystems of high biodiversity
conservation value. Overfishing is among the major stressors threatening the reef. Declining fisheries also threaten food security, livelihoods, and culture. Sustainable management of fish stocks
is hampered by open access, regulated at the national level; traditionally, fisheries management was instituted at village level through controlled rights-based access. Over recent years, conser-
vation planners and scientists have engaged community leaders and fishers to collaboratively identify strategies to secure some desired socio-ecological outcomes (E. McCloud, The Nature Con-
servancy, pers. comm.). Their theory of change is that fisheries can recover and thereafter be managed sustainably by reinvigorating local, rights-based fishery principles, increasing knowledge
on the status of fish stocks, providing incentives to improve management, and strengthening governance systems. Multiple virtuous cycles, operating at multiple societal scales, are required to
secure the desired conservation outcome, and the framework can be used to capture the team's thinking and assumptions. The team assumed that fishers (who, in Fig. 2) who benefit econom-
ically and culturally from a healthy reef ecosystem (why) would in turn be willing to collect stock assessment data to inform management and – if suitable alternative livelihoods were available –
temporarily reduce harvesting of stocks needing to recover (what). The team also assumed that fishers who participated in stock assessments would organize into fishing cooperatives (who),
which could benefit from having greater control over fishing grounds/reef areas and the seafood supply (why), and could create incentives for sustainable management of the resource (what).
Finally, local leaders and national officials would provide a supportive regulatory and policy environment (what) to help ensure economic vitality and the fulfillment of regional and international
agreements (why), such as the Micronesia Challenge and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Potential interventions (how) by conservation organizations to actualize these virtuous cy-
cles include facilitating the science and outreach related to stock assessments; providing training and subsidies for the development of alternative livelihoods; supporting the development of
markets for sustainable seafood; and, supporting effective outreach, governance, and enforcement systems. Successful practices and policies in Palau could potentially serve as models elsewhere
in the Pacific.
 S.A. Morrison / Biological Conservation 195 (2016) 9–16 13

Fig. 4. A theory of change for establishing a protected area network in southern California, U.S.A. using regional conservation planning: a case study. Socio-ecological problems can create
enabling conditions for developing innovative conservation solutions, such as policy that helps transform threats to biodiversity into drivers of conservation. For example, in the 1990s conflict
between conservation and development in coastal southern California created an imminent socio-ecological “train wreck” (Atwood and Noss, 1994). High levels of species diversity and
endemism were threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation due to residential housing development. An obstacle to establishing the needed network of protected areas was the high cost
of undeveloped real estate. Meanwhile, the conflict between development and conservation resulted in potentially costly uncertainty in the development permitting process and potentially
untenable political pressure on important environmental laws (e.g., the U.S. Endangered Species Act). An integrative, negotiated, “win–win” solution followed from the recognition that a sci-
ence-based map of areas in the region most important for meeting biodiversity protection goals, coupled to regulatory, market-based and other implementing mechanisms that could steer
development projects away from those places, and direct public, private, and mitigation offset conservation funding to them, would provide myriad benefits to key stakeholders. Multiple con-
stituencies needed to be engaged and virtuous cycles established to execute this theory of change. Planners assumed that developers (who, in Fig. 2) would embrace a plan that facilitated their
compliance with environmental laws and reduced regulatory uncertainty in the permitting process (why), and in exchange, they would contribute to an offset scheme to mitigate environmental
impacts by protecting priority habitats (what). For land use permitting agencies (who), such a plan would improve attainment of mandates of environmental protections (why); in exchange
they could offer a more streamlined, ‘no surprises’ permitting process and co-investment in habitat protection (what). (Note the quid pro quo, dependent complementarity of the two previous
virtuous cycles.) For area residents and business leaders (who), it was assumed the resulting protected areas would provide co-benefits (e.g., outdoor recreation, watershed protection) that
enhance quality of life in the region (why), so they in turn would support tax measures (what) to fund implementation of the reserve network. Finally, elected officials (who) would see economic
and other measures of success (why), and so prioritize public funding for the program and support enabling policy (what). Conservation organizations could intervene to advance this theory of
change (how) by: supporting the development of needed local, state, and federal policy; quantifying and promoting co-benefits of conservation to focal people; sponsoring public funding cam-
paigns to support implementation of the plan; and, acquiring key parcels. Indicators of a successful outcome would be protection of important habitats areas, viability of focal species, and reliable
funding to support conservation management. A local success could serve as a model of improved performance of endangered species regulations, which through replication could increase the
conservation return on investment beyond just southern California.

engagement and what that biodiversity needs in order to persist. In corporation. Perhaps by working in those places, and by creating models
other words, in this step the planning team defines the problem for of policy or practice that can be replicated elsewhere, the conservation
nature that needs to be solved. impact could extend well beyond those places (Morrison, 2015). In
this scenario, the selection of place may best be informed by who
4.2. Where does biodiversity need to be protected or the conditions for it (Section 4.3) is needed to be engaged in order to have the broader
enhanced? impact on conservation. For example, if the strategy is to change the pol-
icy or practices of a governmental agency's flood management practices,
Based on maps of where biodiversity is or could be (assuming it might be most strategic to work in a watershed where there is an
restoration or climate adaptation), the planning team selects the place opportunity to engage the agency on one of its current projects, even
or types of places to address the problem facing nature. Depending on if that is not the most important watershed from a biodiversity perspec-
the likely intervention – which may be determined, for example, by the tive. In such cases, however, it is incumbent on the planning team to
preferred strategies of the conservation organization – the focus may be design a credible theory of change articulating how engagement in the
a particular place, or a type of place (e.g., a community-based strategy place with less direct biodiversity conservation value will ultimately
may prioritize a specific landscape whereas a policy strategy might be advance broader conservation goals. In sum, analyses for this compo-
aimed at a particular type of land use.) nent of the framework would elucidate where conservation needs to
When identifying places to advance conservation, planners may occur and what needs to happen there to achieve the biodiversity
prioritize places that offer the greatest potential direct conservation outcome, and that may include leveraged as well as local outcomes.
return on investment (e.g., Myers et al., 2000). However, biological
considerations are only some of the inputs needed to make a strategic 4.3. Who needs to be engaged?
decision; factors such as partners, funding, and opportunity are also
important (Knight et al., 2010). An additional consideration in the selec- Conservation is fundamentally an effort to change the way humans
tion of places may be whether action in a particular place could help interact with nature (Schultz, 2011), so the framework focuses on
advance a broader theory of change. There may be places to engage an identifying people whose behavior is needed to change or whose action
issue that may not be the highest priority places for biodiversity in is required to drive needed change, as well as people who may be
their own right, but could be strategic priorities if they provide an op- affected – positively and negatively – by the proposed conservation.
portunity to influence key actors, such as an agency or a transnational These are not people in the abstract, but specific individuals, groups,
14 S.A. Morrison / Biological Conservation 195 (2016) 9–16

or entities that directly or indirectly drive socio-economic dynamics part of and product of business as usual. The means by which this
that affect the ability of places to sustain the focal biodiversity. They, feedback is created include policy reform, improved corporate practices,
in concert with the biodiversity, comprise the socio-ecological system creation of market-based incentives such as product certification
that will be engaged through the intervention (i.e., Fig. 1). People may programs, and adaptation of cultural norms. The focus on the need for
range from those who benefit from the provisioning of ecosystem creating or reinforcing this linkage is perhaps the most important compo-
services from a place, to those who will not be supportive of the nent of this framework. Underinvesting in it can make conservation gains
proposed conservation. People that would be disadvantaged by conser- more difficult to attain, and render any gains attained vulnerable over the
vation may become a focal population in the overall strategy, in part longer term. With it, conservationists can advance systemic change. Policy
because it might be necessary to address their needs in order to create and market analyses are tools that can help planners identify mechanisms
the virtuous cycle and conservation outcome. A key role for conserva- for institutionalizing this feedback to place (Miteva et al., 2012; Bryan,
tionists may be to illuminate the connections of conservation issues to 2013).
people who may not even be aware they are stakeholders in the issue.
For example, an explicit consideration of potential climate change 4.6. What outcomes for nature are expected?
impacts may reveal populations that could or should be engaged,
e.g., people or livelihoods that may be displaced by climate impacts, or Places must contribute to meeting the ultimate objective of
people who may benefit from nature-based solutions to problems biodiversity conservation for the theory of change to be complete.
related to climate change. In the framework, outcome is depicted as a process – a linkage from
Generally, the more people that are engaged and supportive, the place to nature – rather than an end state (Fig. 2), because conservation
more durable the conservation outcome. To hone a more precise inter- is never “done”. The aim is to establish socio-ecological conditions that
vention, however, it is important to identify people who must be enable biodiversity to persist. It would be insufficient, for example, to
engaged versus those who would be nice to have engaged, lest limited develop a theory of change that resulted in the creation of a protected
conservation resources be diffused. Although it may be desirable to area, but did not include mechanisms to sustain its conservation value
have broad community support for conservation, the entities that over time (such as a virtuous cycle that would generate funding for
control the prospects for conservation may be a much smaller group. ongoing management). Analyses for this component of the framework
A variety of methods (e.g., situation analysis; Margoluis and Salafsky, include identification of indicators for assessing effectiveness of the
1998) can help teams conduct the analysis for this component of the strategy in delivering the desired outcomes (e.g., Margoluis et al., 2009).
framework, aimed at identifying interested and affected people in the
system, and the problems for people for which nature conservation 4.7. How should conservationists engage the system?
could offer a solution, or which need to be solved in order to address
the problem facing nature. Having identified the focal people and what they are needed to do,
the planning team needs to identify what interventions will motivate
4.4. Why should they engage? them to do it. Interventions will likely consist of multiple strategies
and phases. Although probably most interventions will focus on engag-
Planning a theory of change requires identifying benefits from con- ing people (e.g., organizing coalitions, supporting legislation) the frame-
servation that could flow to the people needed to create a conservation work illustrates the intervention as a lightning bolt touching down in
outcome and that could motivate them to act. Depicted as the linkage place (Fig. 1) because conservation strategies ultimately need to affect
between place and people, this component of the framework seeks to places to benefit wild nature.
identify what interests of the focal people align with conservation. In planning an intervention, it may be helpful for teams to identify
Why should members of a local community or an industry or a politician obstacles to the functioning of the virtuous cycle needing to be
support a conservation effort? What is the value proposition, or the established or fortified, and to develop plans to overcome those obsta-
business case for conservation? “What's in it for them?” Perhaps they cles. Some barriers may be material, e.g., a lack of funding, effective
could benefit from an ecosystem service, or a branding opportunity to regulation, or knowledge about how to manage an ecosystem to meet
distinguish their products as wildlife friendly. Perhaps they, as con- socio-ecological goals. Other obstacles will be more social, posed by
sumers, want to know their purchases are conservation compatible. the actions or inactions of focal people. For example, a potentially influ-
Note that the benefit or interest may not be nature per se: for example, ential group of people might benefit from the proposed conservation
a transportation agency may support building wildlife crossing but they are generally unaware of the extent they are stakeholders;
structures not because they reduce habitat fragmentation but because the intervention may therefore aim to develop evidence of that benefit,
they reduce wildlife–vehicle collisions and so improve driver safety. and to communicate it to the group so they become part of a coalition
The outcome of this component of the framework is a clear understand- empowered with information to advance needed change. Other focal
ing of why the conservation action or outcome should be relevant to the people may have interests opposed to the proposed conservation, so
people needed to act. Methods for elucidating this linkage include the planning team may need to develop specific strategies to address
mapping of ecosystem services and beneficiaries (Bagstad et al., their concerns or provide alternate pathways for conservation to
2014), value chain analysis (Scherr and McNeely, 2008), and engaging proceed. For example, if there was political pressure on an elected
affected people in problem solving (Scarlett, 2013). official to repeal important environmental regulation, conservationists
may need to mobilize a separate constituency – one that also would
4.5. What are they needed to do? be influential with that official – in support of the regulation; in this
case, both the needed constituency and the official would likely be
It is not enough to deliver benefits of conservation to people and for included as focal people in the theory of change, and the planning
people to understand the relevance of conservation to their well-being: team would focus on how to establish the corresponding affirmative
they are needed to act. This component of the theory of change – the feedbacks.
feedback from people to places – is focused on identifying ways the Critical for mobilizing focal people to change policy or practice is an
focal people are needed to help change practices or policy in order to understanding of their motivations and constraints, and what would be
ensure that places sustain both what is relevant to them and the persuasive to them. Motivations run the gamut: a desire, perhaps, to
connected biodiversity outcomes. The aim is to create a virtuous cycle preserve traditional livelihoods, or enhance social license to operate, or
that will be the engine for continued accrual of the benefits to both avoid lawsuits, or protect a sacred landscape, or stay elected. Based on
people and nature, by mainstreaming conservation so it becomes a an understanding of interests of focal people, strategic communications
 S.A. Morrison / Biological Conservation 195 (2016) 9–16 15

plans and (formal or informal) advocacy campaigns can be designed to not consolidated let alone prominent. In contrast, this framework aims
build momentum toward the needed social change (e.g., Figs. 3 and 4). to help teams characterize socio-ecological systems in a succinct, intui-
A variety of tools and disciplines can help planning teams develop the tive, and integrative construct, so they can efficiently isolate the essen-
strategy and tactics of an intervention, e.g., results chains (Margoluis tial components of their strategy to effect systemic change.
et al., 2009), behavioral economics (e.g., Martín-López et al., 2007) and The framework's clear focus on biodiversity conservation as the
social marketing (e.g., Jenks et al., 2010). ultimate objective is especially important considering that most, if not
In their planning, teams also should identify barriers to scaling up all, conservation outcomes involve tradeoffs between other societal
the impact of their engagement, because some interventions can be values (McShane et al., 2011). Clarity about means and ends, between
designed to advance conservation at multiple scales. For example, a objectives and strategies, is essential as conservationists navigate such
conservation engagement may be focused on improving farming negotiations. The allocation of scarce conservation resources must be
practices in order to restore a degraded watershed; by concurrently based on the relative conservation return on investment of different
engaging agencies or organizations that have broader interests and strategies (Wilson et al., 2007). Especially as conservationists necessarily
influence, conservationists may be able to bridge the local strategy experiment with nontraditional approaches to conservation (Kareiva
and outcome to broader efforts and impacts. One model of designing et al., 2012), and focus on places with less current and potential biodiver-
interventions for leverage is to consider the place-based engagement sity conservation value (e.g., urban areas; Parker, 2015), they must defend
to be a demonstration of a solution to a problem that likely affects the logic of and supporting evidence for those investments vis-à-vis how
people and nature elsewhere. In such cases, knowledge transfer and they will contribute to broader biodiversity conservation goals. It may
strategic partnerships can foster the replication of that solution by well be that focusing on such strategies and places – even those with
other actors, amplifying the conservation impact (Morrison, 2015). relatively marginal direct biodiversity benefit – is an imperative for
Alternatively, a strategy may be to create – e.g., through policy or conservation success over the long term. The framework can help teams
market-based approaches – broad-scale enabling conditions, with a articulate that theory of change, and facilitate critical review as to whether
connected strategy to facilitate uptake by local actors. The framework it does indeed represent the highest and best use of today's limited funds.
encourages the planning team to be deliberate in ensuring such lever- To that end, the framework would benefit from systematic methods to
age is developed and exercised. quantify the strength and sufficiency of its feedbacks, as that would
improve estimation of the durability of the outcomes from a proposed
5. Operationalizing the framework intervention, and support objective comparison of the tradeoffs and
opportunity costs inherent in conservation.
As planning teams develop their theory of change, they will likely How one plans a strategy need not be how one markets it. Indeed, the
find it helpful to iterate through the different components of the heuris- framework – being foremost a planning tool – may not be the most
tic, rather than proceed through them in linear order. For example, effective communications tool to engage general audiences about the
while planning (or, adaptively implementing) an intervention, a plan- importance of biodiversity or conservation. However, the framework
ning team may refine their idea for how to influence a desired change probably would facilitate communication with one key population
in policy, and that may spur a reassessment of who to include among perhaps most conservation theories of change rely on: the conservation
their focal people. Indeed, the framework has multiple entry points. donor. Potential investors would likely appreciate a clearly diagrammed
Some planning teams might look first at potential institutional mecha- theory of change. By applying the framework, planning teams
nisms – market-based tools like product certification, or an opportunity would be developing and illustrating a hypothesis for engaging the
to advance a policy initiative – which would be represented in the feed- socio-ecological system that – hopefully – will be seen as credible,
back from people to place; teams would then explore how to use that compelling, and relevant to those seeking to have conservation impact
approach to create or augment the other linkages in the framework. through their giving. Especially appealing might be the assumption of
Likewise, they may look first at potential ecosystems services and the virtuous cycles that over time may reduce the dependence of biodiversity
beneficiaries of them (i.e., the link from place to people) and then on ongoing direct investment by conservation philanthropists. In this
evaluate how strategies aimed at bolstering the provisioning of those application, the conservation donor would effectively fuel the lightning
services could also improve habitat for priority species. The framework bolt of Fig. 1.
also can be useful for planning projects that have human well-being,
versus biodiversity conservation, as their primary objective. Projects 6. Concluding remarks
by entities ranging from development agencies to corporations to agri-
cultural extension programs that are aimed at advancing development As conservationists have come to a fuller understanding of the scale
goals, promoting green economies, or implementing sustainability and complexity of the socio-ecological system they need to engage (Liu
plans could serve as a basis for a virtuous cycle; such efforts should be et al., 2007), conservation planning has become ever more sophisticated
examined for their potential to also deliver biodiversity conservation and rigorous (Groves and Game, 2015). Amid that complexity, it is often
co-benefits. Regardless of where in the framework the planning team difficult to elucidate the key constituents and relationships in the
initiates the analysis, however, the complete theory of change requires system that must be engaged to advance a conservation outcome. This
a clearly articulated biodiversity return, and a durable virtuous cycle framework transcribes the socio-ecological system into a simple
that maintains that return. depiction of the core components of a conservation theory of change,
Many tools now standard in systematic conservation planning (see one based on the need to mobilize people to change policies and
Open Standards; http://cmp-openstandards.org/) can provide the practices that affect the ability of places to sustain biodiversity. Those
analytical and science inputs needed for the different components of core components are the same whether the aim is to restore an artisanal
the framework (Fig. 2). The framework, in turn, provides context for fishery or to launch a global protected area campaign (e.g., Locke, 2014).
their application that teams may find helpful for focusing their planning People protect what they value. But, as this framework highlights,
effort. Most general conservation planning heuristics are oriented to people valuing biodiversity need not be a prerequisite to achieving
project management, offering variations of the adaptive management needed conservation outcomes. Conservation can be an important
process (e.g., set goals, develop strategies, take action, measure results) means to address pressing challenges for people (WHO, 2005). And
or tactical diagrams of pathways to achieve a desired future condition many efforts to improve human well-being offer tremendous potential
(e.g., logic models linking inputs and actions to outputs and outcomes). synergies with biodiversity protection. Conservationists need to be
If the core components of a theory of change as described herein are driven to find such opportunities, and bridge the real and perceived
developed when implementing those frameworks, that information is disconnects between people and nature in the socio-ecological system.
16 S.A. Morrison / Biological Conservation 195 (2016) 9–16

Closing those loops requires demonstrating and translating the relevance Knight, A.T., Cowling, R.M., Difford, M., Campbell, B.M., 2010. Mapping human and social
dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on
of conservation into terms that matter to the people needing to act, and private land. Conserv. Biol. 24 (5), 1348–1358.
being as creative in negotiation as one is focused on objective. Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., et al., 2007. Complexity of coupled
It is imperative that those whom society assumes and relies on to human and natural systems. Science 317 (5844), 1513–1516.
Locke, H., 2014. Nature needs half: a necessary and hopeful new agenda for protected areas
be most vigilant and vocal for the needs of biodiversity – conservation in North America and around the world. George Wright Forum 31 (3), 359–371.
organizations – retain that as their overarching purpose. If they are Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N., 1998. Measures of Success: Designing, Managing, and Monitoring
not effective in that role, we risk protecting only the biodiversity that Conservation and Development Projects. Island Press, Washington DC.
Margoluis, R., Stem, C., Salafsky, N., Brown, M., 2009. Using conceptual models as a planning
is the arbitrary bycatch of resource management designed to provide di- and evaluation tool in conservation. Eval. Program Plan. 32 (2), 138–147.
rect benefit to people. The more effective they are, the more likely future Martín-López, B., Montes, C., Benayas, J., 2007. The non-economic motives behind the
generations will accrue the incalculable benefits of a diverse world. willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 139 (1), 67–82.
McShane, T.O., Hirsch, P.D., Trung, T.C., Songorwa, A.N., Kinzig, A., et al., 2011. Hard choices:
Using this framework, conservationists can better perform their indis-
making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol.
pensable role of challenging society to ensure the plants and animals Conserv. 144 (3), 966–972.
that represent the diversity of life on Earth persist – and Miteva, D.A., Pattanayak, S.K., Ferraro, P.J., 2012. Evaluation of biodiversity policy
demonstrating to society how together we can rise to that challenge. instruments: what works and what doesn't? Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 28 (1), 69–92.
Morrison, S.A., 2015. A framework for conservation in a human-dominated world.
Conserv. Biol. 29 (3), 960–964.
Acknowledgments Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Kent, J., 2000. Biodiversity
hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403 (6772), 853–858.
Novacek, M.J., 2008. Engaging the public in biodiversity issues. Proceedings of the National
Thanks to my colleagues in The Nature Conservancy for conservation Academy of Sciences. 105 (S1), 11571–11578.
that helped inspire this framework, and to E. McCloud and four Parker, S.S., 2015. Incorporating critical elements of city distinctiveness into urban
anonymous reviewers for comments that greatly improved this paper. biodiversity conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 24 (3), 683–700.
Reyers, B., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Mooney, H.A., Larigauderie, A., 2012. Finding common
ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 62 (5), 503–507.
References Rosenzweig, M.L., 2003. Win–win Ecology: How the Earth's Species Can Survive in the
Midst of Human Enterprise. Oxford University Press.
Atwood, J.L., Noss, R.F., 1994. Gnatcatchers and development: a “train wreck” avoided? Scarlett, L., 2013. Collaborative adaptive management: challenges and opportunities. Ecol.
Illahee 10 (2), 123–130. Soc. 18 (3), 26.
Bagstad, K.J., Villa, F., Batker, D., Harrison-Cox, J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G.W., 2014. From Scherr, S.J., McNeely, J.A., 2008. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability:
theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol.
ecosystem service assessments. Ecol. Soc. 19 (2), 64. Sci. 363 (1491), 477–494.
Bryan, B.A., 2013. Incentives, land use, and ecosystem services: synthesizing complex Schultz, P.W., 2011. Conservation means behavior. Conserv. Biol. 25 (6), 1080–1083.
linkages. Environ. Sci. Pol. 27, 124–134. Stralberg, D., Cameron, D.R., Reynolds, M.D., Hickey, C.M., Klausmeyer, K., et al., 2011.
Bullock, J.M., Aronson, J., Newton, A.C., Pywell, R.F., Rey-Benayas, J.M., 2011. Restoration of Identifying habitat conservation priorities and gaps for migratory shorebirds and
ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26 waterfowl in California. Biodivers. Conserv. 20 (1), 19–40.
(10), 541–549. Trötschel, R., Hüffmeier, J., Loschelder, D.D., Schwartz, K., Gollwitzer, P.M., 2011. Perspective
Chan, K.M.A., Pringle, R.M., Ranganathan, J., Boggs, C.L., Chan, Y.L., et al., 2007. When taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: when putting
agendas collide: human welfare and biological conservation. Conserv. Biol. 21 (1), oneself into the opponent's shoes helps to walk toward agreements. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
59–68. 101 (4), 771–790.
Chan, K.M.A., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C., Daily, G.C., 2006. Conservation Urban, M.C., 2015. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348 (6234),
planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio. 571–573.
0040379. Vucetich, J.A., Bruskotter, J.T., Nelson, M.P., 2015. Evaluating whether nature's intrinsic
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O'Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., et al., 2008. An operational value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation. Conserv. Biol. 29 (2), 321–332.
model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Watson, J.E.M., Segan, D.B., 2013. Accommodating the human response for realistic adapta-
Sci. 105 (28), 9483–9488. tion planning: response to Gillson et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28 (10), 573–574.
Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin III, F.S., Tilman, D., 2006. Biodiversity loss threatens human Weiss, C., 1995. Nothing as practical as good theory: exploring theory-based evaluation
well-being. PLoS Biol. 4 (8), e277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277. for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In: Connell, J.P.,
Gleason, M., Fox, E., Ashcraft, S., Vasques, J., Whiteman, E., et al., 2013. Designing a et al. (Eds.), New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. The Aspen
network of marine protected areas in California: achievements, costs, lessons learned, Institute, Washington, D.C., pp. 65–92.
and challenges ahead. Ocean Coast. Manag. 74, 90–101. WHO [World Health Organization], 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being vol. 5.
Groves, C.R., Game, E.T., 2015. Conservation Planning: Informed Decisions for a Healthier Island Press, Washington, DC.
Planet. Roberts and Company Publishers, Greenwood Village, Colorado. Wilson, K.A., Underwood, E.C., Morrison, S.A., Klausmeyer, K.R., Murdoch, W.W., et al.,
Groves, C.R., 2003. Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: A Practitioner's Guide to Planning 2007. Conserving biodiversity efficiently: what to do, where, and when. PLoS Biol. 5
for Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC. (9), e223.
Hobbs, R.J., Higgs, E.S., Hall, C.M. (Eds.), 2013. Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New
Ecological World Order. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Hunter, M.L., Redford, K.H., Lindenmayer, D.B., 2014. The complementary niches of Scott A. Morrison⁎
anthropocentric and biocentric conservationists. Conserv. Biol. 28 (3), 641–645. The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA, USA
Jenks, B., Vaughan, P.W., Butler, P.J., 2010. The evolution of Rare Pride: using evaluation E-mail address: [email protected]
to drive adaptive management in a biodiversity conservation organization. Eval.
Program Plan. 33 (2), 186–190.
Jones, H.P., Hole, D.G., Zavaleta, E.S., 2012. Harnessing nature to help people adapt to 15 June 2015
climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2 (7), 504–509.
Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., Lalasz, R., 2012. Conservation in the Anthropocene: beyond
solitude and fragility. Breakthrough J. 2 (http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/
journal/past-issue/issue-2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene).