Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation

Benjamin S. Halpern, Carissa J. Klein, Christopher J. Brown, Maria Beger, Hedley S. Grantham, Sangeeta Mangubhai, Mary Ruckelshaus, Vivitskaia J. Tulloch, Matt Watts, Crow White, and Hugh P. Possingham
  1. aNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA 93101;
  2. bCenter for Marine Assessment and Planning, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106;
  3. cAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, and
  4. dGlobal Change Institute, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
  5. eScience and Knowledge, Conservation International, Arlington, VA 22202;
  6. fIndonesia Marine Program, The Nature Conservancy, Sanur, Bali 80228, Indonesia;
  7. gNatural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; and
  8. hBren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS first published March 25, 2013; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217689110
Benjamin S. Halpern
aNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA 93101;
bCenter for Marine Assessment and Planning, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: halpern@nceas.ucsb.edu c.klein@uq.edu.au
Carissa J. Klein
cAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: halpern@nceas.ucsb.edu c.klein@uq.edu.au
Christopher J. Brown
dGlobal Change Institute, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria Beger
cAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hedley S. Grantham
cAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, and
eScience and Knowledge, Conservation International, Arlington, VA 22202;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sangeeta Mangubhai
fIndonesia Marine Program, The Nature Conservancy, Sanur, Bali 80228, Indonesia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mary Ruckelshaus
gNatural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vivitskaia J. Tulloch
cAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matt Watts
cAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Crow White
hBren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hugh P. Possingham
cAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Richard M. Cowling, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, and approved January 7, 2013 (received for review October 11, 2012)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Triple–bottom-line outcomes from resource management and conservation, where conservation goals and equity in social outcomes are maximized while overall costs are minimized, remain a highly sought-after ideal. However, despite widespread recognition of the importance that equitable distribution of benefits or costs across society can play in conservation success, little formal theory exists for how to explicitly incorporate equity into conservation planning and prioritization. Here, we develop that theory and implement it for three very different case studies in California (United States), Raja Ampat (Indonesia), and the wider Coral Triangle region (Southeast Asia). We show that equity tends to trade off nonlinearly with the potential to achieve conservation objectives, such that similar conservation outcomes can be possible with greater equity, to a point. However, these case studies also produce a range of trade-off typologies between equity and conservation, depending on how one defines and measures social equity, including direct (linear) and no trade-off. Important gaps remain in our understanding, most notably how equity influences probability of conservation success, in turn affecting the actual ability to achieve conservation objectives. Results here provide an important foundation for moving the science and practice of conservation planning—and broader spatial planning in general—toward more consistently achieving efficient, equitable, and effective outcomes.

  • marine protected areas
  • environmental justice
  • marine spatial planning
  • ecosystem-based management
  • social-ecological systems

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: halpern{at}nceas.ucsb.edu or c.klein{at}uq.edu.au.
  • Author contributions: B.S.H., C.J.K., C.J.B., M.B., H.S.G., M.R., V.J.T., C.W., and H.P.P. designed research; B.S.H., C.J.K., and C.J.B. performed research; B.S.H., C.J.K., C.J.B., and M.W. analyzed data; and B.S.H., C.J.K., C.J.B., M.B., H.S.G., S.M., M.R., V.J.T., C.W., and H.P.P. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1217689110/-/DCSupplemental.

Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.

Next
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Trade-offs and triple–bottom-line solutions
Benjamin S. Halpern, Carissa J. Klein, Christopher J. Brown, Maria Beger, Hedley S. Grantham, Sangeeta Mangubhai, Mary Ruckelshaus, Vivitskaia J. Tulloch, Matt Watts, Crow White, Hugh P. Possingham
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Mar 2013, 201217689; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1217689110

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Trade-offs and triple–bottom-line solutions
Benjamin S. Halpern, Carissa J. Klein, Christopher J. Brown, Maria Beger, Hedley S. Grantham, Sangeeta Mangubhai, Mary Ruckelshaus, Vivitskaia J. Tulloch, Matt Watts, Crow White, Hugh P. Possingham
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Mar 2013, 201217689; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1217689110
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 118 (14)
Current Issue

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Smoke emanates from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant a few days after tsunami damage
Core Concept: Muography offers a new way to see inside a multitude of objects
Muons penetrate much further than X-rays, they do essentially zero damage, and they are provided for free by the cosmos.
Image credit: Science Source/Digital Globe.
Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Venus flytrap captures a fly.
Journal Club: Venus flytrap mechanism could shed light on how plants sense touch
One protein seems to play a key role in touch sensitivity for flytraps and other meat-eating plants.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Kuttelvaserova Stuchelova.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Horse fossil
Mounted horseback riding in ancient China
A study uncovers early evidence of equestrianism in ancient China.
Image credit: Jian Ma.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490