Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence

Sustaining wildlife populations, which provide both ecosystem services and disservices, represents a worldwide conservation challenge. The ecosystem services and Ostrom's social–ecological systems frameworks have been adopted across natural and social sciences to characterize benefits from nature. Despite their generalizability, individually they do not include explicit tools for addressing the sustainable management of many wildlife populations. For instance, Ostrom's framework does not specifically address competing perspectives on wildlife, whereas the ecosystem services framework provides a limited representation of the social and governance context wherein such competing perspectives are embedded. We developed a unified social–ecological framework of ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS) that advances both frameworks by explicitly acknowledging the importance of competing wildlife perspectives embedded in the social and governance contexts. The SEEDS framework emulates the hierarchical structure of Ostrom's social–ecological systems, but adds subsystems reflecting heterogeneous stakeholder views and experiences of wildlife-based services and disservices. To facilitate operationalizing SEEDS and further broader analyses across human–wildlife systems, we devised a list of variables to describe SEEDS subsystems, such as types and level of services and disservices, cost and benefit sharing, and social participation of stakeholders. Steps to implement SEEDS involve engaging local communities and stakeholders to define the subsystems, analyze interactions and outcomes, and identify leverage points and actions to remedy unwanted outcomes. These steps connect SEEDS with other existing approaches in social–ecological research and can guide analyses across systems or within individual systems to provide new insights and management options for sustainable human–wildlife coexistence.     

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy‐influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.     

Hunting Down the Chimera of Multiple Disciplinarity in Conservation Science

The consensus is that both ecological and social factors are essential dimensions of conservation research and practice. However, much of the literature on multiple disciplinary collaboration focuses on the difficulties of undertaking it. This review of the challenges of conducting multiple disciplinary collaboration offers a framework for thinking about the diversity and complexity of this endeavor. We focused on conceptual challenges, of which 5 main categories emerged: methodological challenges, value judgments, theories of knowledge, disciplinary prejudices, and interdisciplinary communication. The major problems identified in these areas have proved remarkably persistent in the literature surveyed (c.1960–2012). Reasons for these failures to learn from past experience include the pressure to produce positive outcomes and gloss over disagreements, the ephemeral nature of many such projects and resulting lack of institutional memory, and the apparent complexity and incoherence of the endeavor. We suggest that multiple disciplinary collaboration requires conceptual integration among carefully selected multiple disciplinary team members united in investigating a shared problem or question. We outline a 9‐point sequence of steps for setting up a successful multiple disciplinary project. This encompasses points on recruitment, involving stakeholders, developing research questions, negotiating power dynamics and hidden values and conceptual differences, explaining and choosing appropriate methods, developing a shared language, facilitating on‐going communications, and discussing data integration and project outcomes. Although numerous solutions to the challenges of multiple disciplinary research have been proposed, lessons learned are often lost when projects end or experienced individuals move on. We urge multiple disciplinary teams to capture the challenges recognized, and solutions proposed, by their researchers while projects are in process. A database of well‐documented case studies would showcase theories and methods from a variety of disciplines and their interactions, enable better comparative study and evaluation, and provide a useful resource for developing future projects and training multiple disciplinary researchers. Cazando la Quimera de la Multidisciplina en la Ciencia de la Conservación     

Difference in the net value of ecological services between natural and artificial forests in China

Land degradation is a global problem that seriously threatens human society. However, in China and elsewhere, ecological restoration still largely relies on a traditional approach that focuses only on ecological factors and ignores socioeconomic factors. To improve the effectiveness of ecological restoration and maximize its economic and ecological benefits, a more efficient approach is needed that provides support for policy development and land management and thereby promotes environmental conservation. We devised a framework for assessing the value of ecosystem services that remain after subtracting costs, such as the opportunity costs, costs of forest protection, and costs for the people who are affected by the program; that is, the net value of ecosystem services (NVES). To understand the difference between the value of a resource and the net value of the ecosystem service it provides, we used data on VES, timber sales, and afforestation costs from China's massive national afforestation programs to calculate the net value of forest ecosystem services in China. Accounting for the abovementioned costs revealed an NVES of ¥6.1 × 10¹² for forests in 2014, which was 35.9% less than the value calculated without accounting for costs. As a result, the NVES associated with afforestation was 55.9% less than the NVES of natural forests. In some regions, NVES was negative because of the huge costs of human-made plantations, high evapotranspiration rates (thus, high water opportunity costs), and low forest survival rates. To maximize the ecological benefits of conservation, it is necessary to account for as many costs as possible so that management decisions can be based on NVES, thereby helping managers choose projects that maximize both economic and ecological benefits.     

Effects of land use,cover, and protection on stream and riparian ecosystem services and biodiversity

Protected areas are an important part of broader landscapes that are often used to preserve biodiversity or natural features. Some argue that protected areas may also help ensure provision of ecosystem services. However, the effect of protection on ecosystem services and whether protection affects the provision of ecosystem services is known only for a few services in a few types of landscapes. We sought to fill this gap by investigating the effect of watershed protection status and land use and land cover on biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. We compared the ecosystem services provided in and around streams in 4 watershed types: International Union for Conservation of Nature category II protected forests, unprotected forests, unprotected forests with recent timber harvesting, and unprotected areas with agriculture. We surveyed 28 streams distributed across these watershed types in Quebec, Canada, to quantify provisioning of clean water, carbon storage, recreation, wild foods, habitat quality, and terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity richness and abundance. The quantity and quality of ecosystem services and biodiversity were generally higher in sites with intact forest—whether protected or not—relative to those embedded in production landscapes with forestry or agriculture. Clean-water provision, carbon storage, habitat quality, and tree diversity were significantly higher in and around streams surrounded by forest. Recreation, wild foods, and aquatic biodiversity did not vary among watershed types. Although some services can be provided by both protected and unprotected areas, protection status may help secure the continued supply of services sensitive to changes in land use or land cover. Our findings provide needed information about the ecosystem service and biodiversity trade-offs and synergies that result from developing a watershed or from protecting it.     

Generation of Priority Research Questions to Inform Conservation Policy and Management at a National Level

Abstract: Integrating knowledge from across the natural and social sciences is necessary to effectively address societal tradeoffs between human use of biological diversity and its preservation. Collaborative processes can change the ways decision makers think about scientific evidence, enhance levels of mutual trust and credibility, and advance the conservation policy discourse. Canada has responsibility for a large fraction of some major ecosystems, such as boreal forests, Arctic tundra, wetlands, and temperate and Arctic oceans. Stressors to biological diversity within these ecosystems arise from activities of the country's resource‐based economy, as well as external drivers of environmental change. Effective management is complicated by incongruence between ecological and political boundaries and conflicting perspectives on social and economic goals. Many knowledge gaps about stressors and their management might be reduced through targeted, timely research. We identify 40 questions that, if addressed or answered, would advance research that has a high probability of supporting development of effective policies and management strategies for species, ecosystems, and ecological processes in Canada. A total of 396 candidate questions drawn from natural and social science disciplines were contributed by individuals with diverse organizational affiliations. These were collaboratively winnowed to 40 by our team of collaborators. The questions emphasize understanding ecosystems, the effects and mitigation of climate change, coordinating governance and management efforts across multiple jurisdictions, and examining relations between conservation policy and the social and economic well‐being of Aboriginal peoples. The questions we identified provide potential links between evidence from the conservation sciences and formulation of policies for conservation and resource management. Our collaborative process of communication and engagement between scientists and decision makers for generating and prioritizing research questions at a national level could be a model for similar efforts beyond Canada.     

How expert insight into alpine peatland conservation complements global scientific evidence

Experts can provide valuable information to fill knowledge gaps in published research on management effectiveness, particularly for threatened ecosystems, for which there is often limited evidence and the need for prompt intervention to ensure their persistence. One such ecosystem, alpine peatland, is threatened by climate change and other pressures, provides vital ecosystem services, and supports unique biodiversity. In a workshop, we gathered and synthesized into an accessible format information from experts on interventions used, threat context, and intervention effectiveness for Australian alpine peatland and used this knowledge to evaluate local relevance of the global literature for this threatened ecosystem. Experts identified 15 interventions used to conserve Australian peatlands, most of which enhanced or restored peatland condition and effectively addressed diverse threats. Experts’ perspectives and global studies were strongly aligned, suggesting that research on peatland management may be broadly relevant across contexts, despite the distinct characteristics of Australian systems. Our workshop-based expert elicitation approach provided insights into current management practices unavailable in the literature.     

Patterns of Citations of Open Access and Non‐Open Access Conservation Biology Journal Papers and Book Chapters

Abstract: Open access (OA) publishing, whereby authors, their institutions, or their granting bodies pay or provide a repository through which peer‐reviewed work is available online for free, is championed as a model to increase the number of citations per paper and disseminate results widely, especially to researchers in developing countries. We compared the number of citations of OA and non‐OA papers in six journals and four books published since 2000 to test whether OA increases number of citations overall and increases citations made by authors in developing countries. After controlling for type of paper (e.g., review or research paper), length of paper, authors’ citation profiles, number of authors per paper, and whether the author or the publisher released the paper in OA, OA had no statistically significant influence on the overall number of citations per journal paper. Journal papers were cited more frequently if the authors had published highly cited papers previously, were members of large teams of authors, or published relatively long papers, but papers were not cited more frequently if they were published in an OA source. Nevertheless, author‐archived OA book chapters accrued up to eight times more citations than chapters in the same book that were not available through OA, perhaps because there is no online abstracting service for book chapters. There was also little evidence that journal papers or book chapters published in OA received more citations from authors in developing countries relative to those journal papers or book chapters not published in OA. For scholarly publications in conservation biology, only book chapters had an OA citation advantage, and OA did not increase the number of citations papers or chapters received from authors in developing countries.     

Global trends in research output by zoos and aquariums

Zoos and aquaria, often regarded as preservation-cum-entertainment enterprises, are also actors in the effort to curb the biodiversity crisis: raising awareness, supporting conservation, and conducting research. We assessed trends in zoo and aquaria research topics and study organisms over time worldwide. For the zoos and aquaria registered in the Species360's Zoological Information Management System and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, we compiled metadata on their research published in the peer-reviewed literature indexed in Scopus and carried out a keyword frequency analysis. The production of scientific papers by zoos increased at a much faster rate than the average accrual of scientific papers in the literature. Evolution of research themes ran parallel to that of biological sciences (e.g., development of molecular genetics or increased awareness about conservation). The focus of 48.5% of zoo-led research was on vertebrates, of which mammal research was 33.7%. Whether zoos are effectively contributing to conservation may still be debatable, but our results highlight their institutional efforts to increase knowledge about the species in their care.     

Benefits of Investing in Ecosystem Restoration

Measures aimed at conservation or restoration of ecosystems are often seen as net‐cost projects by governments and businesses because they are based on incomplete and often faulty cost‐benefit analyses. After screening over 200 studies, we examined the costs (94 studies) and benefits (225 studies) of ecosystem restoration projects that had sufficient reliable data in 9 different biomes ranging from coral reefs to tropical forests. Costs included capital investment and maintenance of the restoration project, and benefits were based on the monetary value of the total bundle of ecosystem services provided by the restored ecosystem. Assuming restoration is always imperfect and benefits attain only 75% of the maximum value of the reference systems over 20 years, we calculated the net present value at the social discount rates of 2% and 8%. We also conducted 2 threshold cum sensitivity analyses. Benefit‐cost ratios ranged from about 0.05:1 (coral reefs and coastal systems, worst‐case scenario) to as much as 35:1 (grasslands, best‐case scenario). Our results provide only partial estimates of benefits at one point in time and reflect the lower limit of the welfare benefits of ecosystem restoration because both scarcity of and demand for ecosystem services is increasing and new benefits of natural ecosystems and biological diversity are being discovered. Nonetheless, when accounting for even the incomplete range of known benefits through the use of static estimates that fail to capture rising values, the majority of the restoration projects we analyzed provided net benefits and should be considered not only as profitable but also as high‐yielding investments. Beneficios de Invertir en la Restauración de Ecosistemas     

Key considerations and challenges in the application of social-network research for environmental decision making

Attempts to better understand the social context in which conservation and environmental decisions are made has led to increased interest in human social networks. To improve the use of social-network analysis in conservation, we reviewed recent studies in the literature in which such methods were applied. In our review, we looked for problems in research design and analysis that limit the utility of network analysis. Nineteen of 55 articles published from January 2016 to June 2019 exhibited at least 1 of the following problems: application of analytical methods inadequate or sensitive to incomplete network data; application of statistical approaches that ignore dependency in the network; or lack of connection between the theoretical base, research question, and choice of analytical techniques. By drawing attention to these specific areas of concern and highlighting research frontiers and challenges, including causality, network dynamics, and new approaches, we responded to calls for increasing the rigorous application of social science in conservation.     

Ökologische, ökonomische und rechtliche umweltbewertung

This article provides information about a Series dealing with Integrated environmental assessment’ (IEA). We describe the development and the structure of a ‘Graduiertenkolleg’ (interdisciplinary course of study) which has been established in two phases at the University of Kiel from 1996–2002. The central terms ‘integration’, ‘environment’, and ‘assessment’ are discussed. Here, we take a special look at the chances and problems of interdisciplinary cooperation and communication (ecosystem research, jurisprudence, economics, social sciences) with regard to the general subject of IEA as a subject of research and schooling. Finally, we give a short review about the articles in the series.     

Meta-analysis of ecosystem services associated with oyster restoration

Restoration of foundation species promises to reverse environmental degradation and return lost ecosystem services, but a lack of standardized evaluation across projects limits understanding of recovery, especially in marine systems. Oyster reefs are restored to reverse massive global declines and reclaim valuable ecosystem services, but the success of these projects has not been systematically and comprehensively quantified. We synthesized data on ecosystem services associated with oyster restoration from 245 pairs of restored and degraded reefs and 136 pairs of restored and reference reefs across 3500 km of U.S. Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coastlines. On average, restoration was associated with a 21-fold increase in oyster production (mean log response ratio = 3.08 [95% confidence interval: 2.58–3.58]), 34–97% enhancement of habitat provisioning (mean community abundance = 0.51 [0.41–0.61], mean richness = 0.29 [0.19–0.39], and mean biomass = 0.69 [0.39–0.99]), 54% more nitrogen removal (mean = 0.43 [0.13–0.73]), and 89–95% greater sediment nutrients (mean = 0.67 [0.27–1.07]) and organic matter (mean = 0.64 [0.44–0.84]) relative to degraded habitats. Moreover, restored reefs matched reference reefs for these ecosystem services. Our results support the continued and expanded use of oyster restoration to enhance ecosystem services of degraded coastal systems and match many functions provided by reference reefs.     

A critical appraisal of population viability analysis

Population viability analysis (PVA) is useful in management of imperiled species. Applications range from research design, threat assessment, and development of management frameworks. Given the importance of PVAs, it is essential that they be rigorous and adhere to widely accepted guidelines; however, the quality of published PVAs is rarely assessed. We evaluated the quality of 160 PVAs of 144 species of birds and mammals published in peer-reviewed journals from 1990 to 2017. We hypothesized that PVA quality would be lower with generic programs than with custom-built programs; be higher for those developed for imperiled species; change over time; and be higher for those published in journals with high impact factors (IFs). Each included study was evaluated based on answers to an evaluation framework containing 32 questions reflecting whether and to what extent the PVA study adhered to published PVA guidelines or contained important PVA components. All measures of PVA quality were generally lower for studies based on generic programs. Conservation status of the species did not affect any measure of PVA quality, but PVAs published in high IF journals were of higher quality. Quality generally declined over time, suggesting the quantitative literacy of PVA practitioners has not increased over time or that PVAs developed by unskilled users are being published in peer-reviewed journals. Only 18.1% of studies were of high quality (score >75%), which is troubling because poor-quality PVAs could misinform conservation decisions. We call for increased scrutiny of PVAs by journal editors and reviewers. Our evaluation framework can be used for this purpose. Because poor-quality PVAs continue to be published, we recommend caution while using PVA results in conservation decision making without thoroughly assessing the PVA quality.     

A Value-Informed Framework for Interdisciplinary Analysis: Application to Recovery Planning for Snake River Salmon

Economic and social variables, in addition to biological variables, are often critical forces in directing recovery planning for threatened and endangered populations. Although including these variables in scientific analyses for recovery planning may be important, there is little agreement on how to integrate the relevant disciplines. The dilemma associated with interdisciplinary collaboration is that, while a diversity of values and perspectives is unavoidable, this diversity stands as a barrier to agreement on an integrative research approach. We describe a general framework for interdisciplinary analysis designed to support recovery planning that does not rely on choosing a single interdisciplinary approach. Rather, it uses value conflicts potentially arising in an interdisciplinary setting to select a diverse set of scientific approaches relevant to a particular conservation effort. We apply this framework to recovery planning for threatened Snake River chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) and examine the implications of conflicts over the acceptability of institutional change, technological solutions, and transferability of recovery effort across groups responsible for the current status of the species.     

Fundamental insights on when social network data are most critical for conservation planning

As declines in biodiversity accelerate, there is an urgent imperative to ensure that every dollar spent on conservation counts toward species protection. Systematic conservation planning is a widely used approach to achieve this, but there is growing concern that it must better integrate the human social dimensions of conservation to be effective. Yet, fundamental insights about when social data are most critical to inform conservation planning decisions are lacking. To address this problem, we derived novel principles to guide strategic investment in social network information for systematic conservation planning. We considered the common conservation problem of identifying which social actors, in a social network, to engage with to incentivize conservation behavior that maximizes the number of species protected. We used simulations of social networks and species distributed across network nodes to identify the optimal state-dependent strategies and the value of social network information. We did this for a range of motif network structures and species distributions and applied the approach to a small-scale fishery in Kenya. The value of social network information depended strongly on both the distribution of species and social network structure. When species distributions were highly nested (i.e., when species-poor sites are subsets of species-rich sites), the value of social network information was almost always low. This suggests that information on how species are distributed across a network is critical for determining whether to invest in collecting social network data. In contrast, the value of social network information was greatest when social networks were highly centralized. Results for the small-scale fishery were consistent with the simulations. Our results suggest that strategic collection of social network data should be prioritized when species distributions are un-nested and when social networks are likely to be centralized.     

Amazonian deforestation and soil biodiversity

Clearance and perturbation of Amazonian forests are one of the greatest threats to tropical biodiversity conservation of our times. A better understanding of how soil communities respond to Amazonian deforestation is crucially needed to inform policy interventions that effectively protect biodiversity and the essential ecosystem services it provides. We assessed the impact of deforestation and ecosystem conversion to arable land on Amazonian soil biodiversity through a meta-analysis. We analyzed 274 pairwise comparisons of soil biodiversity in Amazonian primary forests and sites under different stages of deforestation and land-use conversion: disturbed (wildfire and selective logging) and slash-and-burnt forests, pastures, and cropping systems. Overall, 60% and 51% of responses of soil macrofauna and microbial community attributes (i.e., abundance, biomass, richness, and diversity indexes) to deforestation were negative, respectively. We found few studies on mesofauna (e.g., microarthropods) and microfauna (e.g., protozoa and nematodes), so those groups could not be analyzed. Macrofauna abundance and biomass were more vulnerable to the displacement of forests by pastures than by agricultural fields, whereas microbes showed the opposite pattern. Effects of Amazonian deforestation on macrofauna were more detrimental at sites with mean annual precipitation >1900 mm, and higher losses of microbes occurred in highly acidic soils (pH < 4.5). Limited geographic coverage, omission of meso- and microfauna, and low taxonomic resolution were main factors impairing generalizations from the data set. Few studies assessed the impacts of within-forest disturbance (wildfires and selective logging) on soil species in Amazonia, where logging operations rapidly expand across public lands and more frequent severe dry seasons are increasing the prevalence of wildfires.     

Importance of greater interdisciplinarity and geographic scope when tackling the driving forces behind biological invasions

Invasive non-native species are important drivers of ecosystem change, yet the driving forces of biological invasions themselves are poorly understood. Such information is essential to ensure policies focus on the most relevant drivers, and that future scenarios capture the full range of potential outcomes for invasive non-native species. I carried out a bibliometric analysis of articles published from 2000 to 2020 that address either invasive non-native species or biodiversity and ecosystem services and that also mention 1 or more drivers of ecosystem change. I examined 5 indirect drivers (demographic, economic, governance, sociocultural, and technological) and 6 direct drivers (climate change, invasive non-native species, land-use or sea-use change, natural hazards, pollution, and resource extraction). Using the Web of Science core collection of citation indexes, I undertook searches of article titles and keywords and retrieved 27,462 articles addressing invasive non-native species and 110,087 articles dealing with biodiversity or ecosystem services. Most research to date on biological invasions as well as on biodiversity and ecosystem services has focused on anthropogenic direct drivers of ecosystem change rather than indirect drivers. Yet currently, less than 18% of articles addressing biological invasions examined drivers of ecosystem change, a similar level to that found over 20 years ago for biodiversity or ecosystem services. Knowledge of the drivers of biological invasions is limited, emphasizes tractable drivers over those that require an interdisciplinary approach, and is biased toward developed economies. Drivers generally deemed important for biological invasions, such as governance and resource extraction, accounted for less than 2% of research effort. The absence of a systematic understanding of the forces that drive invasive non-native species and how they interact means that attempts to mitigate or forecast biological invasions are likely to fail. To address biological invasions requires a much better orientation of national and international research on drivers in relation to both their actual importance as well as their policy relevance.     

Safeguarding Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Little Karoo,South Africa

Abstract: Global declines in biodiversity and the widespread degradation of ecosystem services have led to urgent calls to safeguard both. Responses to this urgency include calls to integrate the needs of ecosystem services and biodiversity into the design of conservation interventions. The benefits of such integration are purported to include improvements in the justification and resources available for these interventions. Nevertheless, additional costs and potential trade‐offs remain poorly understood in the design of interventions that seek to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. We sought to investigate the synergies and trade‐offs in safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity in South Africa's Little Karoo. We used data on three ecosystem services—carbon storage, water recharge, and fodder provision—and data on biodiversity to examine several conservation planning scenarios. First, we investigated the amount of each ecosystem service captured incidentally by a conservation plan to meet targets for biodiversity only while minimizing opportunity costs. We then examined the costs of adding targets for ecosystem services into this conservation plan. Finally, we explored trade‐offs between biodiversity and ecosystem service targets at a fixed cost. At least 30% of each ecosystem service was captured incidentally when all of biodiversity targets were met. By including data on ecosystem services, we increased the amount of services captured by at least 20% for all three services without additional costs. When biodiversity targets were reduced by 8%, an extra 40% of fodder provision and water recharge were obtained and 58% of carbon could be captured for the same cost. The opportunity cost (in terms of forgone production) of safeguarding 100% of the biodiversity targets was about US$500 million. Our results showed that with a small decrease in biodiversity target achievement, substantial gains for the conservation of ecosystem services can be achieved within our biodiversity priority areas for no extra cost.