A framework for conservation in a human-dominated world.

Human impacts on the planet are profound (Crutzen 2002), driving losses of biodiversity (Pimm et al. 2014), and ecosystem services (Costanza et al. 2014). Human population growth and climate change exacerbate these strains. Concern that conservation is not keeping pace has fueled debate regarding the effectiveness of traditional conservation strategies and how conservation org– anizations should prioritize human well-being outcomes when allocating limited conservation funds (e.g., Kareiva 2014; Soulé 2014). Perhaps spurred by such concern, and a recognition of the interdependence and inseparability of humans and nature, many large conservation organizations currently describe themselves as focusing on both “people and nature” (Supporting Information). What is often unclear, however, is what that focus means in terms of how nature conservation organizations prioritize human outcomes. Are meeting the needs of people and wild nature coequal objectives? Or, is the primary objective to improve conditions for biodiversity, recognizing the imp– ortance of providing cobenefits to people? Or, is the objective to improve conditions for people, recognizing that conservation can be an important means to that end? Science-based conservation organizations need to clarify which ultimate objective they seek, as each leads to different priorities, strategies, and outcomes (e.g., Chan et al. 2006). Without such clarity, organizations cannot be maximally efficient and effective in meeting their objective— whatever it may be. I propose a framework for characterizing the relationship between people and nature objectives in a conservation strategy, or theory of change (i.e., a hypothesis of how an intervention will lead to a desired future condition) of a conservation organization.