Conservation Can Cross Political Lines and Grow Our Economy

How Protecting Nature Can Bring Economic Benefits Across Political Divides

Nowadays, it seems like we all need to pick teams in everything in our society. Even more, it seems like if you express concern for a certain issue, it automatically puts you in certain “political” boxes. Some may even say that you are supporting an “agenda.”

National parks were first established in the late 19th century, beginning with the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, championed by conservationists like John Muir and supported by U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant, as a means to preserve natural landscapes and wildlife for public enjoyment and future generations, marking the start of the modern conservation movement.

Therefore, we can say confidently that protected areas, such as national parks and nature reserves, have long been seen as essential for conserving biodiversity. Even further, they have long been seen as a way to enjoy the beauty of nature by people in all sides of the political spectrum. So one may think that we are all interested in protecting them, right?

Unfortunately, even National Parks and protected areas are victims of this “pick a team in the political spectrum” war and are often viewed as obstacles to local economic development, leading to tension between conservationists, policy makers, and local communities. Sometimes there’s division even within local communities.

A recent study led by Dr. Binbin Li from Duke Kunshan University, published in Current Biology, challenges this notion by exploring the relationship between protected areas and economic growth in neighboring communities.

Are protected areas a win-win for people across the political spectrum? Well, the findings suggest that conservation and development can, in fact, go hand in hand more often than previously thought.

The research team analyzed data from 10,143 protected areas worldwide, employing advanced statistical techniques to control for the non-random placement of these areas.

The authors used an approach that is certainly new to me. They used nightlight data from satellite imagery as a proxy for economic growth in the surrounding communities and compared land cover changes inside the protected areas to those in similar, unprotected areas at least 20 kilometers away. This approach allowed them to assess whether protected areas successfully resist human-induced land cover changes while also examining their impact on local economic growth.

The study revealed some promising results to settle this battle. Nearly half of the protected areas showed what the authors termed a “synergy” relationship, where natural land cover was effectively preserved, and local economic growth was not only unharmed but sometimes even enhanced.

Insert my happy dance here!

Specifically, 91% of the protected areas experienced no or less natural land loss than their unprotected counterparts. Additionally, 60% of the neighboring communities saw similar or higher economic growth compared to communities near unprotected areas.

Another happy dance!

These synergy relationships were most common in temperate forests, grasslands, and deserts, particularly in Africa, Europe, and Asia. However, the study also highlighted that the effectiveness of protected areas in balancing conservation and development varied significantly across different biomes, continents, and countries. But, in what way?

Regions like the Amazon and Southeast Asia, known for their high biodiversity and economic challenges, faced greater difficulties in achieving this balance.

As you can imagine, the findings of this study carry significant implications for conservation strategies globally. They suggest that it is possible to design and manage protected areas in a way that both conserves biodiversity and supports local economic development. “There’s long been uncertainty about the economic tradeoffs,” said Dr. Li. “Our findings show achieving both aims is more common than we previously expected. But that balance depends on socioeconomic conditions near a protected area.”

One key takeaway is that smaller protected areas located closer to cities and markets are more likely to achieve synergy. This challenges the conventional wisdom that larger protected areas are inherently better for conservation. Maybe we should rethink our assumptions once more.

Dr. Li noted, “Bigger isn’t necessarily better.” In fact, large protected areas in developing regions often struggled to balance conservation and economic growth, particularly when they lacked sufficient funding and infrastructure.

The study also underscores the importance of considering local socioeconomic conditions when planning and managing protected areas. This may surprise some, but the presence of roads and access to markets were found to be crucial factors in determining whether a protected area could successfully balance conservation with local development. This is particularly relevant for biodiverse regions in developing countries, where the stakes are high for both economic development and biodiversity conservation.

Co-author Dr. Stuart Pimm emphasized the broader context of these findings, stating, “Conservation does not happen in a silo. We must consider local development alongside biodiversity conservation to know where and how to protect areas to benefit both the environment and humans.”

Ultimately, the study suggests that the future of conservation lies in finding more win-win scenarios where the needs of nature and people are met simultaneously. If people’s and their families’ needs are met, they are more likely to care about the environment. This approach will be especially critical in the most biodiverse regions, where both economic development and biodiversity are at risk.

The expansion of protected areas under global initiatives, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, will need to prioritize not just the quantity of protected land but also the quality of management and its integration with local development goals.

By doing so, we can work towards a world where conservation and development do not conflict but instead reinforce each other, benefiting both nature and communities.

A world where there’s something that everyone, independently of political affiliation, can agree with: that protecting the Earth’s biodiversity is worth it. It may even save us.