To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The paper explores ethical dimensions of biodiversity as planetary boundary. It first characterizes the term ‘biodiversity’ as a concept that is situated in the borderland between biology, ethics, and politics and has factual, evaluative, and normative dimensions. Then, it presents critique that has been made of biodiversity as planetary boundary and how this has been addressed. The main section focuses on the different values of biodiversity that are insufficiently reflected in the planetary boundary approach. Besides its instrumental value for humanity’s safe operating space, the diversity of living beings also has intrinsic and relational value. With regard to a unifying concept of ‘humanity’ that disregards relevant disparities between different people, the paper argues for a more inclusive perspective that recognizes and takes into account the manifold ways in which humans live from, with, in, and as nature.
Mobilising indigenous and local knowledge systems has the potential to make their critical knowledge about landscapes and biodiversity meaningful as evidence in conservation and governance. Collaborative approaches to conservation must be equitable and just to be effective in the long term. The Multiple Evidence Base (MEB) is an inclusive approach to combining diverse sources of evidence. We review uptake of the MEB approach and its application in science and policy–practice processes and present three cases using this approach. These demonstrate synergies between indigenous and local knowledge and conservation science and how cross-fertilisation leads to stronger partnerships and better outcomes. However, this depends on recognition of the complementarity and respect for the integrity of diverse knowledge systems. The cases also illustrate ways to create conditions for dialogue and navigating power inequalities and cultural differences in knowledge partnerships. Ultimately, the MEB approach contributes to a conceptual mindshift to mobilise all useful knowledge for maintaining the life-supporting ecosystems on Earth.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.