Typifying conservation practitioners’ views on the role of education

Education is an established tool to enhance human–environment relationships, despite the lack of empirical evidence to support its use. We used theories of change to unpack assumptions about the role of education in conservation. We interviewed practitioners from 15 conservation organizations in Madagascar to typify implicit pathways of change and assess whether emerging pathways echo theoretical advances. Five pathways were drivers of change: increasing knowledge, changing emotional connection and changing traditional cultural practices, fostering leaders, diversifying outcomes, and influencing community and society. These pathways reflect existing sociopsychological theories on learning and behavioral change. Most interviewees’ organizations had a predominant pathway that was often combined with elements from other pathways. Most pathways lacked culturally grounded approaches. Our research reveals assumptions about the role of education in conservation and indicates that organizations had different ideas of how change happens. The diversity of practices reflects the complexity of factors that influence behavior. Whether this diversity is driven by local sociocultural context, interaction with other conservation approaches, or contingencies remains unclear. Yet, typifying the pathways of change and reflecting on them is the first step towards comprehensive evaluation of when and which pathways and interactions to promote.     

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.