Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Novel Decisions and Conservative Frames

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Governing the Anthropocene

Abstract

The idea of novel ecosystems has prompted debate about how to approach biodiversity conservation in the Anthropocene, particularly in highly modified ecosystems. After providing an outline of what novel ecosystems are, it argues that they are not a niche problem confined to certain geographic regions, but a global challenge that requires context-specific debate and discussions. The key debates about novel ecosystems and governance provide the basis for exploring a case study in a highly modified agricultural landscape in Australia. This example illustrates how narratives about what biodiversity conservation means are dynamic and can shift when faced with challenging social, economic, and ecological conditions, which can create the right conditions for transforming governance, but this can be impeded if broader governance systems remain stagnant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Except perhaps Antarctica if one excludes ecosystems indirectly modified by anthropogenic climate change.

  2. 2.

    Whether a species is ‘native’ is also not always clear-cut, and depends on the timescales discussed. In Australia the dingo, for example, was only recently accepted by many as a native species after 4000 years but even this is still contested.

  3. 3.

    Invasion science is used here to encompass invasion ecology and invasion biology (Richardson and Ricciardi 2013).

References

  • Australian Government (2010) ‘Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania — a nationally threatened ecological community Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Policy Statement 3.18’. Canberra, ACT: Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backstrom, A. C. et al. (2018) ‘Grappling with the social dimensions of novel ecosystems’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(2), pp. 109–117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, E. M. et al. (2016) ‘Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1309.

  • Biermann, F. et al. (2016) ‘Down to Earth: Contextualizing the Anthropocene’, Global Environmental Change. Elsevier Ltd, 39, pp. 341–350. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, R., Peterson, G. D. and Rocha, J. C. (2018) ‘The regime shifts database: A framework for analyzing regime shifts in social-ecological systems’, Ecology and Society. Resilience Alliance, 23(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10264-230309.

  • Bullock, J. M. et al. (2011) ‘Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: Conflicts and opportunities’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Trends Ecol Evol, 26(10), pp. 541–549. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.06.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capon, S. J. et al. (2015) ‘Regime shifts, thresholds and multiple stable states in freshwater ecosystems; a critical appraisal of the evidence’, Science of the Total Environment. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.045.

  • Carr, B. et al. (2017) ‘CAPitalising on conservation knowledge: Using Conservation Action Planning, Healthy Country Planning and the Open Standards in Australia’, Ecological Management & Restoration. Blackwell Publishing, 18(3), pp. 176–189. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin, F. S. and Starfield, A. M. (1997) ‘Time lags and novel ecosystems in response to transient climatic change in arctic Alaska’, Climatic Change. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 35(4), pp. 449–461. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005337705025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Y. D. (2007) ‘Restoration ecology to the future: A call for new paradigm’, Restoration Ecology. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00224.x.

  • Clement, S. (2015) Institutions, Misfits, and Biodiversity Conservation. Murdoch University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, S., Moore, Susan A, et al. (2015a) ‘Understanding and designing fit-for-purpose institutions for conserving biodiversity in the Australian Alps’. Hobart: Landscapes and Policy Hub. Available at: http://www.lifeatlarge.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/653506/Alps-Institutional-Analysis.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, S., Moore, Susan A., et al. (2015b) ‘Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity’, Policy Sciences, 48(4), pp. 463–489. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9222-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, S. et al. (2017) ‘Fit-for-Purpose Institutions? An Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation in the Agricultural Landscape of the Tasmanian Midlands, Australia’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. Routledge, 19(2), pp. 133–155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1162708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, S., Moore, S. A. and Lockwood, M. (2015) ‘Authority, responsibility and process in Australian biodiversity policy’, Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 32(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, S. and Standish, R. J. (2018) ‘Novel ecosystems: Governance and conservation in the age of the Anthropocene’, Journal of Environmental Management, 208, pp. 36–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clewell, A. F. and Aronson, J. (2013) Ecological restoration: Principles, values, and structure of an emerging profession: Second edition. doi: https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-59726-323-8.

  • CMP (2020) Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, Version 4.0. Available at: www.conservationmeasures.org.

  • Cole, D. N. and Yung, L. (2010) ‘Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness in an Era of Rapid Environmental Change’, in. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colloff, M. J., Martín-López, B., et al. (2017) ‘An integrative research framework for enabling transformative adaptation’, Environmental Science & Policy, 68, pp. 87–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.007.

  • Côté, I. M. (2017) ‘Chapter 10 – Blurred Lines: What’s a Non-native Species in the Anthropocene Ocean?’, in Levin, P. S. and Poe, M. R. B. T.-C. for the A. O. (eds). Academic Press, pp. 207–224. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00010-6.

  • Davis, M. A. et al. (2011) ‘Don’t judge species on their origins’, Nature. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/474153a.

  • Dornelas, M. et al. (2014) ‘Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss’, Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 344(6181), pp. 296–299. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DPIPWE (2019) Protected areas on private land program. Hobart, TAS: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. Available at: http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/DRAR-7T8VB6?open (Accessed: 21 June 2020).

  • Dunlop, M. et al. (2012) The implications of climate change for biodiversity conservation and the National Reserve System: final synthesis, A report prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Canberra, ACT. Available at: https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/FullTextFiles/923912.pdf.

  • Ellis, E. C. (2013) ‘Sustaining biodiversity and people in the world’s anthropogenic biomes’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, pp. 368–372. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.002.

  • Ellis, E. C., Antill, E. C. and Kreft, H. (2012) ‘All is not loss: Plant biodiversity in the Anthropocene’, PLoS ONE. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030535.

  • European Commission (2020) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/index_en.htm (Accessed: 13 June 2020).

  • Evers, C. R. et al. (2018) ‘The ecosystem services and biodiversity of novel ecosystems: A literature review’, Global Ecology and Conservation. Elsevier B.V., p. e00362. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.e00362.

  • Frank, D. M. (2019) ‘Disagreement or denialism? ‘Invasive species denialism’ and ethical disagreement in science’, Synthese. Springer Netherlands. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02259-w.

  • Frawley, J. and McCalman, I. (2014) Rethinking Invasion Ecologies from the Environmental Humanities, Rethinking Invasion Ecologies from the Environmental Humanities. Edited by J. Frawley and I. McCalman. Oxon: Earthscan. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315879642.

  • Gann, G. D. et al. (2019) ‘International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition’, Restoration Ecology, 27(S1), pp. S1–S46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035.

  • Gbedomon, R. C., Salako, V. K. and Schlaepfer, M. A. (2020) ‘Diverse views among scientists on non-native species’, NeoBiota, 54, pp. 49–69. doi: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.54.38741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonthier, D. J. et al. (2014) ‘Biodiversity conservation in agriculture requires a multi-scale approach’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1791), p. 20141358. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1358.

  • Graham, N. A. J. et al. (2014) ‘Coral reefs as novel ecosystems: embracing new futures’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 7, pp. 9–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.023.

  • Grose, M. J. (2014) ‘Gaps and futures in working between ecology and design for constructed ecologies’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 132(0), pp. 69–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.011.

  • Gurevitch, J. and Padilla, D. K. (2004) ‘Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions?’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(9), pp. 470–474. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, B. S. et al. (2008) ‘A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems’, Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 319(5865), pp. 948–952. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. M. B. et al. (2015) ‘Noah’s Ark conservation will not preserve threatened ecological communities under climate change’, PLoS ONE, 10(4), p. e0124014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124014.

  • Hawke, A. (2009) ‘The Australian Environment Act: Final Report of Independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ’. Canberra: Department of the Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Head, L. (2016) Hope and grief in the Anthropocene: Re-conceptualising human-nature relations, Hope and Grief in the Anthropocene: Re-Conceptualising Human-Nature Relations. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, V. et al. (2014) ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services, neoliberalisation, and the hybrid governance of land management in Australia’, Journal of Rural Studies, 36(0), pp. 463–474. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.10.003.

  • Higgs, E. (2003) Nature by design: people, natural process, and ecological restoration. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, E. (2017) ‘Novel and designed ecosystems’, Restoration Ecology, 25(1), pp. 8–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, R. J. et al. (2006) ‘Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order’, Global Ecology and Biogeography. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 15(1), pp. 1–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00212.x.

  • Hobbs, R. J. (2013) ‘Grieving for the Past and Hoping for the Future: Balancing Polarizing Perspectives in Conservation and Restoration’, Restoration Ecology, 21(2), pp. 145–148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, R. J. et al. (2014) ‘Managing the whole landscape: Historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(10), pp. 557–564. doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/130300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, R. J. (2016) ‘Degraded or just different? Perceptions and value judgements in restoration decisions’, Restoration Ecology, 24(2), pp. 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, R. J. (2017) ‘Novel ecosystems: Can’t we just pretend they’re not there?’, in Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma, pp. 45–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198808978.003.0007.

  • Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E. and Harris, J. A. (2009) ‘Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(11), pp. 599–605. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, Richard J., Higgs, E. S. and Hall, C. M. (2013a) ‘Defining Novel Ecosystems’, in Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New Ecological World Order. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118354186.ch6.

  • Hobbs, Richard J, Higgs, E. S. and Hall, C. M. (2013b) ‘Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order’. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. xi, 368 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E. S.and Hall, C. M. (2017). ‘Expanding the portfolio: Conserving nature’s masterpieces in a changing world’, BioScience, 67(6), pp. 568–575. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix043.

  • Huggett, A. J. (2005) ‘The concept and utility of ‘ecological thresholds’ in biodiversity conservation’, Biological Conservation, 124(3), pp. 301–310. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.037.

  • Iftekhar, M. S., Tisdell, J. G. and Sprod, D. (2013) A review of conservation project selection criteria in the Midlands Biodiversity Hotspot Tender, Tasmania: sensitivity to project duration and auction budget. University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPBES (2019) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Edited by and H. T. N. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz. Bonn, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva, P., Marvier, M. and Lalasz, R. (2012) ‘Conservation in the Anthropocene Beyond Solitude and Fragility’, The breakthrough Institute - Conservation in the Anthropocene.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kattan, G. H., Aronson, J. and Murcia, C. (2016) ‘Does the novel ecosystem concept provide a framework for practical applications and a path forward? A reply to Miller and Bestelmeyer’, Restoration Ecology. Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 24(6), pp. 714–716. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, J. B. and Bridle, K. L. (2007) ‘People, sheep and nature conservation: the Tasmanian experience’. Collingwood, Vic. : CSIRO Publishing, pp. xiii, 250 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kueffer, C. and Kaiser-Bunbury, C. N. (2014) ‘Reconciling conflicting perspectives for biodiversity conservation in the Anthropocene’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Ecological Society of America, 12(2), pp. 131–137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/120201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kueffer, C. and Kull, C. A. (2017) ‘Non-native Species and the Aesthetics of Nature’, in Vilà, M. and Hulme, P. E. (eds) Impact of Biological Invasions on Ecosystem Services. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 311–324. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45121-3_20.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Landscapes and Policy Hub (2016) Life at Large. Available at: http://www.lifeatlarge.edu.au/ (Accessed: 1 April 2020).

  • Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R. and Leca, B. (2009) Institutional Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Likens, G. E. and Lindenmayer, D. B. (2012) ‘Integrating approaches leads to more effective conservation of biodiversity’, Biodiversity and Conservation. Springer Netherlands, 21(13), pp. 3323–3341. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0364-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, E. and King, E. G. (2018) ‘Novel ecosystems: A bridging concept for the consilience of cultural landscape conservation and ecological restoration’, Landscape and Urban Planning. Elsevier, 177(February), pp. 148–159. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.04.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris, E. (2009) ‘Ragamuffin earth’, Nature. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/460450a.

  • Marris, E. (2011) Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World. Bloomsbury, NY, USA: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. et al. (2009) ‘Structured decision making as a conceptual framework to identify thresholds for conservation and management’, Ecological Applications, 19(5), pp. 1079–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. A. et al. (2015) ‘Improving policy efficiency and effectiveness to save more species: A case study of the megadiverse country Australia’, Biological Conservation, 182(0), pp. 102–108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.030.

  • McGill, B. J. et al. (2015) ‘Fifteen forms of biodiversity trend in the Anthropocene’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Elsevier Ltd, 30(2), pp. 104–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, M. L. and Lockwood, J. L. (1999) ‘Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction’, Trends in ecology & evolution. Elsevier, 14(11), pp. 450–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. R. and Bestelmeyer, B. T. (2017) ‘What the novel ecosystem concept provides: a reply to Kattan et al’, Restoration Ecology. Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 25(4), pp. 488–490. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milton, S. J. (2003) ‘‘Emerging ecosystems’-a washing-stone for ecologists, economists and sociologists?’, South African Journal of Science, 99, pp. 404–406. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/mab/cooperation/scope/ (Accessed: 10 June 2020).

  • Mitchell, M. et al. (2014) ‘Incorporating governance influences into social-ecological system models: a case study involving biodiversity conservation’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Routledge, pp. 1–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.967387.

  • Mitchell, M., Lockwood, M., Moore, S. A. and Clement, S. (2016) ‘Building systems-based scenario narratives for novel biodiversity futures in an agricultural landscape’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 145. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.09.003.

  • Mitchell, M., Lockwood, M., Moore, S. A., Clement, S., et al. (2016) ‘Using scenario planning to assess governance reforms for enhancing biodiversity outcomes’, Land Use Policy, 50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.020.

  • Mitchell, M. et al. (2017) ‘Biodiversity on the brink: Evaluating a transdisciplinary research collaboration’, Journal for Nature Conservation, 40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.08.002.

  • Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A. and Dacin, M. T. (2012) ‘Collective Social Entrepreneurship: Collaboratively Shaping Social Good’, Journal of business ethics, 111(3), pp. 375–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montoya, J. M., Donohue, I. and Pimm, S. L. (2018) ‘Planetary Boundaries for Biodiversity: Implausible Science, Pernicious Policies’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 33(2), pp. 71–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, S. A. et al. (2009) ‘Diversity in Current Ecological Thinking: Implications for Environmental Management’, Environmental Management. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 43(1), pp. 17–27. Available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/206561551?accountid=12629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, N. B. et al. (2014) ‘Novel ecosystems in the Anthropocene: A revision of the novel ecosystem concept for pragmatic applications’, Ecology and Society. Resilience Alliance, 19(2), p. 12. doi: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06192-190212.

  • Muradian, R. (2001) Ecological thresholds: a survey, Ecological Economics. Available at: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon (Accessed: 10 June 2020).

  • Murcia, C. et al. (2014) ‘A critique of the ‘novel ecosystem’ concept’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(10), pp. 548–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naeem, S. and Wright, J. P. (2003) ‘Disentangling biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: deriving solutions to a seemingly insurmountable problem’, Ecology letters. Wiley Online Library, 6(6), pp. 567–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum, E. P. (1969) ‘The strategy of ecosystem development’, Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 164(3877), pp. 262–270. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.164.3877.262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odum, H. T. (1988) ‘Self-Organization, Transformity, and Information’, Science, 242(4882), pp. 1132 LP – 1139. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.242.4882.1132.

  • Pandolfi, J. M. and Lovelock, C. E. (2014) ‘Novelty trumps loss in global biodiversity’, Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 266–267. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1252963.

  • Pasari, J. R. et al. (2013) ‘Several scales of biodiversity affect ecosystem multifunctionality’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(25), pp. 10219–10222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltzer, D. A. et al. (2015) ‘Commercial forests: Native advantage’, Science. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.349.6253.1176-a.

  • Perring, M. P. and Ellis, E. C. (2013) ‘The Extent of Novel Ecosystems: Long in Time and Broad in Space’, in Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New Ecological World Order. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118354186.ch8.

  • Perring, M. P., Standish, R. J. and Hobbs, R. J. (2013) ‘Incorporating novelty and novel ecosystems into restoration planning and practice in the 21st century’, Ecological Processes. Springer Verlag, pp. 1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-18.

  • Possingham, H. P., Bode, M. and Klein, C. J. (2015) ‘Optimal Conservation Outcomes Require Both Restoration and Protection’, PLoS Biology. Public Library of Science, 13(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002052.

  • Radeloff, V. C. et al. (2015) ‘The rise of novelty in ecosystems’, Ecological Applications, 25(8), pp. 2051–2068. doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1781.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W. (2014) Language and communication, Language and Communication. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315836027.

  • Richardson, D. M. and Ricciardi, A. (2013) ‘Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field guide’, Diversity and Distributions. Wiley Online Library, 19(12), pp. 1461–1467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickards, L. et al. (2014) ‘The problem of fit: scenario planning and climate change adaptation in the public sector’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(4), pp. 641–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, M. R. V. et al. (2015) ‘Designer Ecosystems: Incorporating Design Approaches into Applied Ecology’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Annual Reviews, 40(1), pp. 419–443. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-121012-100957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotherham, I. D. (2017) Recombinant ecology-a hybrid future? Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozzi, R. et al. (2018) ‘From Biocultural Homogenization to Biocultural Conservation: A Conceptual Framework to Reorient Society Toward Sustainability of Life’, in. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7_1.

  • Sayre, N. F. (2005) Working Wilderness: The Malpai Borderlands Group and the Future of the Western Range. Tucson: Rio Nuevo Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlaepfer, M. A. (2017) ‘Introduced species are not always the enemy of conservation’, Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma, pp. 39–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198808978.003.0006.

  • Schlaepfer, M. A. (2018) ‘Do non-native species contribute to biodiversity?’, PLoS Biology, 16(4), pp. 1–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schläppy, M. L. and Hobbs, R. J. (2019) ‘A triage framework for managing novel, hybrid, and designed marine ecosystems’, Global Change Biology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25(10), pp. 3215–3223. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2014) Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Montreal, Canada. doi: https://doi.org/10.2143/KAR.25.0.504988.

  • Seddon, N. et al. (2016) ‘Biodiversity in the Anthropocene: Prospects and policy’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1844), pp. 1–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2094.

  • Selge, S., Fischer, A. and van der Wal, R. (2011) ‘Public and professional views on invasive non-native species – A qualitative social scientific investigation’, Biological Conservation. Elsevier Ltd, 144(12), pp. 3089–3097. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff, D. (2011) ‘Non-natives: 141 scientists object’, Nature. Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved., 475(7354), p. 36. doi: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7354/abs/475036a.html#supplementary-information.

  • Simberloff, D. (2015) ‘Non-native invasive species and novel ecosystems’, F1000prime reports, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff, D., Murcia, C. and Aronson, J. (2015) ‘‘Novel ecosystems’ are a Trojan horse for conservation’, Ensia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standish, R. et al. (2013) ‘Concerns about novel ecosystems’, in Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E. S., and Hall, C. M. (eds) Novel ecosystems : intervening in the new ecological world order. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 296–309.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Standish, R. J. et al. (2014) ‘Resilience in ecology: Abstraction, distraction, or where the action is?’, Biological Conservation, 177(0), pp. 43–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.008.

  • Steffen, W. et al. (2009) Australia’s Biodiversity and Climate Change. Canberra, ACT: CSIRO Publishing. Available at: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liverpool/detail.action?docID=542595.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Svenning, J.-C. (2018) ‘Proactive conservation and restoration of botanical diversity in the Anthropocene’s ‘rambunctious garden’’, American Journal of Botany. Wiley-Blackwell, 105(6), pp. 963–966. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.1117.

  • Tennent, R. and Lockie, S. (2013) ‘Vale Landcare: the rise and decline of community-based natural resource management in rural Australia’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Taylor & Francis, 56(4), pp. 572–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. D. (2013) ‘The Anthropocene could raise biological diversity’, Nature News, 502(7469), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. D. (2017) Inheritors of the Earth. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. D. (2020) ‘The development of Anthropocene biotas’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1794). doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0113.

  • Thomas, C. D. and Palmer, G. (2015) ‘Non-native plants add to the British flora without negative consequences for native diversity’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423995112.

  • Truitt, A. M. et al. (2015) ‘What is Novel About Novel Ecosystems: Managing Change in an Ever-Changing World’, Environmental Management, 55, pp. 1217–1226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, A. et al. (2013) ‘Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. National Academy of Sciences, 110(29), pp. 12144–12148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221370110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N., Marshall, A. and Morgan, J. (2015) Land of Sweeping Plains: Managing and Restoring the Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia. CSIRO PUBLISHING (EBL-Schweitzer). Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zu5hCAAAQBAJ.

  • Woinarski, J. C. Z., Burbidge, A. A. and Harrison, P. L. (2015) ‘Ongoing unraveling of a continental fauna: Decline and extinction of Australian mammals since European settlement’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(15), pp. 4531–4540. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417301112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yung, L. et al. (2013) ‘Engaging the public in novel ecosystems’, in Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E., and Hall, C. (eds) Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New Ecological World Order. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 247–256.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Planning, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Sarah Clement

Authors
  1. Sarah Clement
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Clement .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Clement, S. (2021). Novel Decisions and Conservative Frames. In: Governing the Anthropocene . Palgrave Studies in Environmental Policy and Regulation . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60350-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation