**10. Role of science, policymakers, and practice**

Visualization of a pluralistic approach to biodiversity conservation requires profound reflexivity by every social activist toward identifying the normative positions propagate their own justifications of the biodiversity concept, as well as the values of another player, leading to an perceptive of the various causes why humankind care it, and what is its importance. Many anthropologists, bureaucrats, and environmentalists need to recognize the reality of a kind of opinion, together with those of traditionally criticized people whose livelihood mostly depends on mother nature, to come up with equitable conservation intercessions. Such social approaches could be constructed, but the main root cause of the matter would still lie in the perceptive of what the community really wants to capture into decision making the diversity of interventions on what needs to be governed; what the objectives of conservation should be, and what alternate options present for perspectives to achieve such objectives. For conservationists and practitioners to take on these challenges, the first step is to come to up with the reality that present ways of working have created problems. Hence, it is imperative to reflect on not just due to the paucity of success of conservation perspectives in lessening biodiversity losses but also needs to reflect their harmful consequences for social justice.

Due attention should be disposed of by which ways the conception and information used in these approaches are adept in preserving, converting, and mitigating the pessimistic outcomes. Improvements in the current conventional conserving paradigm that overlook the wider picture are eventually bound to fail. It should be accepted that many communities, particularly those which are rightly reliant on bio-diversity may not value the ecosystem in the ways shown in the management movements, dominant discourses and approaches, and that the conservation of fascinating species is frequently an expansion of the destructive lifestyles of more wealthy societies. Many questions that must be addressed keeping in view the human and nature associations that accounts for peoples needs and desires includes: (1) what design of biodiversities are required in order to achieve set objectives viz., obtain esthetic satisfaction, maintain ecosystem processes, deliver good ecosystem benefits, and meeting an ethical imperative in respect to other species? (2) what may be the trade-offs among these nature-related goals, and among them and other interests like welfare and poverty improvement, social equality or democracy and are there any ways to ascribe expenses and powers fairly and curtail these trade-offs?, and (3) what micro- and macro-level drawbacks, such as a political one, would make it hard toward attaining specified outcomes with its socio-ecological associated trade-offs? These questions could be managed as pluralistic perceptions, keeping in mind the amount of

#### **Figure 3.**

*An outline for a pluralistic view of biodiversity in* **s***cience, policy and practice. Arrows show the desire for growing connections among science, policy, and practice to tackle the plurality of the living world, given people multiple world views, ethics, and information systems (source: [56]).*

#### *Biodiversity Conservation of Western Himalayas: A Pluralistic Approach DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107075*

plurality and what views are officially measured is a complicated political issue. Based on all the above-mentioned arguments, we suggest different means to move conservation science, policy and practice forward, while fostering a pluralistic concept of biodiversity as a meeting point (**Figure 3**). First we emphasize conservation science. By precisely equating biodiversity with living nature, instead of treating biodiversity as one possible framing of living nature mostly conceived, conservancy skill risk omitted the spirit of a plural outlook on biodiversity as well as cut-off scientific values and layman applications. It indicates that the difficulty in the formulation should not start with the ecological level, and then addresses the social aspects or the other way around. Conservationist desires to adept a comparative lens [57] that is sensitive to how the ecological and the socio-cultural constantly conspire with each other and helps to develop a more affluent set of definitions, matrices and procedures to know human–nature relations and practices and formulate proper responses and policy interventions.

Secondly, conservationists understand the requirements to expand from a predominant focus on pristine ecospheres to incorporate what is habitually called distressed ecological community, it is important also to acknowledge that almost all ecospheres are adapted by humans to some extent [58]. Awareness in respect of ecosystems should itself appear through a process of co-production with particular liberty for traditionally marginalized groups, likewise, this will advance both the robustness and authenticity of the knowledge created. Thirdly, environmentalist needs to acquire a multiple causal approaches to perceptive biodiversity change, categorize who affects and benefited from the spoiling of nature and unpack how, when, and why assured values and people's interests may or may not take into conservation policy and practice. This requires not only collaboration among diverse disciplines but also some cohesion in their descriptive capacities. One approach to facilitate this may be, to support much more region-based research. Even though the diminishing trend of biodiversity is a worldwide challenge, the shape it takes, the welfare that defines it, and the mixture of processes that form it are environmentspecific, and so are the solutions. Fourth, we as a scientific community, should be more irresponsible about our own concealed principles and normative positions about the environment [45, 59]. This will raise the question about how we define the research and what morals and presumptions are integrated or mistreated in attaining research goals, whose returns the resulting knowledge serves, whose voices might not be heard, and whose needs might not be met by the research process [60]. To support this indication, we must identify and find out the non-mainstream ways of understanding. However, what is essential is a dedication to diversity, directness to debate, and additional humility and answerability to all those who are directly or indirectly influenced by systematic research. As regards to conservation practices, it is suggested that the conservation groups should acknowledge that there is no fixed generic 'we' in conservation nor an exclusively obvious 'what'; its therefore necessary to differentiate that the conservation practices and envisage results have to be calculated upon and ultimately discussed, given wrong trade-offs stemming from conservation action. How to accomplish conservations should finally depend on what people need and consider authentic and satisfactory. This will need the conservation movement to reflect about socially procedures for making conservation decisions [47]. Despite technocratic projects, which are introduced in a top to the down manner, practices need to be guided by procedural ethics that is committed to openness, learning and adaptation [59]. Finally, what are the results of pluralistic thinking for biodiversity policy? As long as policymakers see only urban people as the voice

of conservation and uncritically accept their particular understanding, and ethics about bio-diversity, as the only ones that are official, they will mainly depend on a narrower set of policy approaches, for example, those depend on conserving certain areas while turning a blind eye to the destruction of the rest of living surroundings in the name of economic growth. Although, if a new concept of conservation science captures the multiple objectives and values of biodiversity, brings together a broader set of nature-concerned societies, and questions the structure that forms the nature vs. human wellbeing disagreements, this would ultimately result in mainstreaming nature concern into policies across the sectors by legislative. In conclusion, what anthropologists, conservationists, and governmental organizations name biodiversity may be demonstrated and can be used in different manners, all of them should be significantly relevant and legitimate. It's the need of the hour that one should be more responsive toward this extent of values and their suggestions, such as analysis of the wide causes following the damage of the natural environment. This should be united with conservation policies and practices that encourage impartial decision-making, clearly considering the harmony of social justice when carrying out conservation actions.
