Building Dialogue on Complex Conservation Issues in a Conference Setting

Dialogue about complex science and society issues is important for contemporary conservation agendas. Conferences provide an appropriate space for such dialogue, but despite its recognized worth, best practices for facilitating active dialogue are still being explored. Face‐to‐face (FTF) and computer‐mediated communication (CMC) are two approaches to facilitating dialogue that have different strengths. We assessed the use of these approaches to create dialogue on cultural perspectives of conservation and biodiversity at a national ecology conference. In particular, we aimed to evaluate their potential to enhance dialogue through their integrated application. We used an interactive blog to generate CMC on participant‐sourced issues and to prime subsequent discussion in an FTF conference workshop. The quantity and quality of both CMC and FTF discussion indicated that both approaches were effective in building dialogue. Prior to the conference the blog averaged 126 views per day, and 44 different authors contributed a total of 127 comments. Twenty‐five participants subsequently participated in active FTF discussion during a 3‐h workshop. Postconference surveys confirmed that CMC had developed participants’ thinking and deepened FTF dialogue; 88% indicated specifically that CMC helped facilitate the FTF discussion. A further 83% of respondents concluded that preliminary blog discussion would be useful for facilitating dialogue at future conferences. Construcción del Diálogo sobre Problemas Complejos de Conservación en un Escenario de Conferencia     

Transforming conservation science and practice for a postnormal world

We examine issues to consider when reframing conservation science and practice in the context of global change. New framings of the links between ecosystems and society are emerging that are changing peoples’ values and expectations of nature, resulting in plural perspectives on conservation. Reframing conservation for global change can thus be regarded as a stage in the evolving relationship between people and nature rather than some recent trend. New models of how conservation links with transformative adaptation include how decision contexts for conservation can be reframed and integrated with an adaptation pathways approach to create new options for global‐change‐ready conservation. New relationships for conservation science and governance include coproduction of knowledge that supports social learning. New processes for implementing adaptation for conservation outcomes include deliberate practices used to develop new strategies, shift world views, work with conflict, address power and intergenerational equity in decisions, and build consciousness and creativity that empower agents to act. We argue that reframing conservation for global change requires scientists and practitioners to implement approaches unconstrained by discipline and sectoral boundaries, geopolitical polarities, or technical problematization. We consider a stronger focus on inclusive creation of knowledge and the interaction of this knowledge with societal values and rules is likely to result in conservation science and practice that meets the challenges of a postnormal world.     

Acknowledging Conservation Trade‐Offs and Embracing Complexity

Abstract: There is a growing recognition that conservation often entails trade‐offs. A focus on trade‐offs can open the way to more complete consideration of the variety of positive and negative effects associated with conservation initiatives. In analyzing and working through conservation trade‐offs, however, it is important to embrace the complexities inherent in the social context of conservation. In particular, it is important to recognize that the consequences of conservation activities are experienced, perceived, and understood differently from different perspectives, and that these perspectives are embedded in social systems and preexisting power relations. We illustrate the role of trade‐offs in conservation and the complexities involved in understanding them with recent debates surrounding REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), a global conservation policy designed to create incentives to reduce tropical deforestation. Often portrayed in terms of the multiple benefits it may provide: poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, and climate‐change mitigation; REDD may involve substantial trade‐offs. The gains of REDD may be associated with a reduction in incentives for industrialized countries to decrease carbon emissions; relocation of deforestation to places unaffected by REDD; increased inequality in places where people who make their livelihood from forests have insecure land tenure; loss of biological and cultural diversity that does not directly align with REDD measurement schemes; and erosion of community‐based means of protecting forests. We believe it is important to acknowledge the potential trade‐offs involved in conservation initiatives such as REDD and to examine these trade‐offs in an open and integrative way that includes a variety of tools, methods, and points of view.     

From conference abstract to publication in the conservation science literature

Every 2 years, the conservation community comes together at The Society for Conservation Biology's International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB) to share new developments in conservation science and practice. Publication of findings presented at conferences in scientific journals adds to the permanent record and helps increase the potential impact of the work presented. However, quantitative research on publication rates for meetings relevant to conservation is lacking. For the 25th ICCB, (Auckland, New Zealand in 2011), we examined study publication rates and presenter demographics, recorded titles, number of authors, presenter affiliations, gender, country of the study region, publication status, and elapsed time between presentation and publication. Of the 980 contributions (782 talks and 198 posters), 587 (60%) were published as peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters. Mean time to publication was 13.7 months for all presentation abstracts and 21.3 months excluding abstracts with corresponding articles that were published before the meeting. The gender breakdown of presenters was almost even (53% male, 47% female), but representation of the countries where the presenting authors were based was skewed. The political units with the most contributions were by far the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Presenters based in 16 different English-speaking countries made up 74% of the total sample, but this did not influence the likelihood of their abstract leading to a publication. Examination of conference presenters and publication of their presentations is useful to identify biases and potential challenges that need to be addressed to make conference communications permanent and increase their reach beyond conference attendees.     

Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management‐relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence‐based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research‐focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary‐spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge–action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making. Logrando que la Ciencia de la Conservación Trasponga la Frontera Conocimiento‐Acción     

Successes and Challenges from Formation to Implementation of Eleven Broad‐Extent Conservation Programs

Integration of conservation partnerships across geographic, biological, and administrative boundaries is increasingly relevant because drivers of change, such as climate shifts, transcend these boundaries. We explored successes and challenges of established conservation programs that span multiple watersheds and consider both social and ecological concerns. We asked representatives from a diverse set of 11 broad‐extent conservation partnerships in 29 countries 17 questions that pertained to launching and maintaining partnerships for broad‐extent conservation, specifying ultimate management objectives, and implementation and learning. Partnerships invested more funds in implementing conservation actions than any other aspect of conservation, and a program's context (geographic extent, United States vs. other countries, developed vs. developing nation) appeared to substantially affect program approach. Despite early successes of these organizations and benefits of broad‐extent conservation, specific challenges related to uncertainties in scaling up information and to coordination in the face of diverse partner governance structures, conflicting objectives, and vast uncertainties regarding future system dynamics hindered long‐term success, as demonstrated by the focal organizations. Engaging stakeholders, developing conservation measures, and implementing adaptive management were dominant challenges. To inform future research on broad‐extent conservation, we considered several challenges when we developed detailed questions, such as what qualities of broad‐extent partnerships ensure they complement, integrate, and strengthen, rather than replace, local conservation efforts and which adaptive management processes yield actionable conservation strategies that account explicitly for dynamics and uncertainties regarding multiscale governance, environmental conditions, and knowledge of the system? Éxitos y Retos de la Formación a la Implementación de Once Programas de Conservación de Amplio Alcance     

Research priorities for conservation and natural resource management in Oceania's small‐island developing states

For conservation science to effectively inform management, research must focus on creating the scientific knowledge required to solve conservation problems. We identified research questions that, if answered, would increase the effectiveness of conservation and natural resource management practice and policy in Oceania's small‐island developing states. We asked conservation professionals from academia, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations across the region to propose such questions and then identify which were of high priority in an online survey. We compared the high‐priority questions with research questions identified globally and for other regions. Of 270 questions proposed by respondents, 38 were considered high priority, including: What are the highest priority areas for conservation in the face of increasing resource demand and climate change? How should marine protected areas be networked to account for connectivity and climate change? What are the most effective fisheries management policies that contribute to sustainable coral reef fisheries? High‐priority questions related to the particular challenges of undertaking conservation on small‐island developing states and the need for a research agenda that is responsive to the sociocultural context of Oceania. Research priorities for Oceania relative to elsewhere were broadly similar but differed in specific issues relevant to particular conservation contexts. These differences emphasize the importance of involving local practitioners in the identification of research priorities. Priorities were reasonably well aligned among sectoral groups. Only a few questions were widely considered answered, which may indicate a smaller‐than‐expected knowledge‐action gap. We believe these questions can be used to strengthen research collaborations between scientists and practitioners working to further conservation and natural resource management in this region.     

Five approaches to producing actionable science in conservation

The knowledge produced by conservation scientists must be actionable in order to address urgent conservation challenges. To understand the process of creating actionable science, we interviewed 71 conservation scientists who had participated in 1 of 3 fellowship programs focused on training scientists to become agents of change. Using a grounded theory approach, we identified 16 activities that these researchers employed to make their scientific products more actionable. Some activities were more common than others and, arguably, more foundational. We organized these activities into 3 nested categories (motivations, strategies, and tactics). Using a co-occurrence matrix, we found that most activities were positively correlated. These correlations allowed us to identify 5 approaches, framed as profiles, to actionable science: the discloser, focused on open access; the educator, focused on science communication; the networker, focused on user needs and building relationships; the collaborator, focused on boundary spanning; and the pluralist, focused on knowledge coproduction resulting in valuable outcomes for all parties. These profiles build on one another in a hierarchy determined by their complexity and level of engagement, their potential to support actionable science, and their proximity to ideal coproduction with knowledge users. Our results provide clear guidance for conservation scientists to generate actionable science to address the global biodiversity conservation challenge.     

Geographic bias in citation rates of conservation research

We investigated whether the impact of conservation science is greater for research conducted in countries with more pressing conservation problems. We quantified research impact for 231 countries based on 2 citation metrics (mean cites per paper and h index) and fitted models predicting research impact based on number of threatened bird and mammal species (as a measure of conservation importance of a country) and a range of demographic variables. Citation rates of conservation research increased as a country's conservation need increased and as human population, quality of governance, and wealth increased. Even after accounting for these factors, citation rates among regions and countries within regions varied significantly. The conservation research community needs to consider ways to begin addressing the entrenched disadvantages some countries have when it comes to initiating projects and producing high‐quality research.     

Conservation Planning as a Transdisciplinary Process

Abstract: Despite substantial growth in the field of conservation planning, the speed and success with which conservation plans are converted into conservation action remains limited. This gap between science and action extends beyond conservation planning into many other applied sciences and has been linked to complexity of current societal problems, compartmentalization of knowledge and management sectors, and limited collaboration between scientists and decision makers. Transdisciplinary approaches have been proposed as a possible way to address these challenges and to bridge the gap between science and action. These approaches move beyond the bridging of disciplines to an approach in which science becomes a social process resolving problems through the participation and mutual learning of stakeholders. We explored the principles of transdisciplinarity, in light of our experiences as conservation‐planning researchers working in South Africa, to better understand what is required to make conservation planning transdisciplinary and therefore more effective. Using the transdisciplinary hierarchy of knowledge (empirical, pragmatic, normative, and purposive), we found that conservation planning has succeeded in integrating many empirical disciplines into the pragmatic stakeholder‐engaged process of strategy development and implementation. Nevertheless, challenges remain in engagement of the social sciences and in understanding the social context of implementation. Farther up this knowledge hierarchy, at the normative and purposive levels, we found that a lack of integrated land‐use planning and policies (normative) and the dominant effect of national values (purposive) that prioritize growth and development limit the effectiveness and relevance of conservation plans. The transdisciplinary hierarchy of knowledge highlighted that we need to move beyond bridging the empirical and pragmatic disciplines into the complex normative world of laws, policies, and planning and become engaged in the purposive processes of decision making, behavior change, and value transfer. Although there are indications of progress in this direction, working at the normative and purposive levels requires time, leadership, resources, skills that are absent in conservation training and practice, and new forms of recognition in systems of scientific reward and funding.     

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.     

National Red Listing Beyond the 2010 Target

Abstract: Following creation of the 2010 Biodiversity Target under the Convention on Biological Diversity and adoption of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, information on status and trends of biodiversity at the national level has become increasingly important to both science and policy. National red lists (NRLs) of threatened species may provide suitable data for reporting on progress toward these goals and for informing national conservation priority setting. This information will also become increasingly important for developing species‐ and ecosystem‐based strategies for climate change adaptation. We conducted a thorough global review of NRLs in 109 countries and analyzed gaps in NRL coverage in terms of geography and taxonomy to determine priority regions and taxonomic groups for further investment. We then examined correlations between the NRL data set and gross domestic product (GDP) and vertebrate species richness. The largest geographic gap was in Oceania, followed by middle Africa, the Caribbean, and western Africa, whereas the largest taxonomic gaps were for invertebrates, fungi, and lichens. The comprehensiveness of NRL coverage within a given country was positively correlated with GDP and negatively correlated with total vertebrate richness and threatened vertebrate richness. This supports the assertion that regions with the greatest and most vulnerable biodiversity receive the least conservation attention and indicates that financial resources may be an integral limitation. To improve coverage of NRLs, we propose a combination of projects that target underrepresented taxa or regions and projects that provide the means for countries to create or update NRLs on their own. We recommend improvements in knowledge transfer within and across regions as a priority for future investment.     

Enhancing the Engagement of U.S. Private Foundations with Conservation Science

Abstract: Funding for conservation is limited, and its investment for maximum conservation gain can likely be enhanced through the application of relevant science. Many donor institutions support and use science to pursue conservation goals, but their activities remain relatively unfamiliar to the conservation‐science community. We examined the priorities and practices of U.S.‐based private foundations that support biodiversity conservation. We surveyed 50 donor members of the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity (CGBD) to address three questions: (1) What support do CGBD members provide for conservation science? (2) How do CGBD members use conservation science in their grant making and strategic thinking? (3) How do CGBD members obtain information about conservation science? The 38 donor institutions that responded to the survey made $340 million in grants for conservation in 2005, including $62 million for conservation science. Individual foundations varied substantially in the proportion of conservation funds allocated to science. Foundations also varied in the ways and degree to which they used conservation science to guide their grant making. Respondents found it “somewhat difficult” to stay informed about conservation science relevant to their work, reporting that they accessed conservation science information mainly through their grantees. Many funders reported concerns about the strategic utility of funding conservation science to achieve conservation gains. To increase investment by private foundations in conservation science, funders, researchers, and conservation practitioners need to jointly identify when and how new scientific knowledge will lower barriers to conservation gains. We envision an evolving relationship between funders and conservation scientists that emphasizes primary research and synthesis motivated by (1) applicability, (2) human‐ecosystem interactions, (3) active engagement among scientists and decision makers, and (4) broader communication of relevant scientific information.     

A view of the global conservation job market and how to succeed in it

The high demand for conservation work is creating a need for conservation‐focused training of scientists. Although many people with postsecondary degrees in biology are finding careers outside academia, many programs and mentors continue to prepare students to follow‐in‐the‐footsteps of their professors. Unfortunately, information regarding how to prepare for today's conservation‐based job market is limited in detail and scope. This problem is complicated by the differing needs of conservation organizations in both economically developed and developing regions worldwide. To help scientists identify the tools needed for conservation positions worldwide, we reviewed the current global conservation job market and identified skills required for success in careers in academia, government, nonprofit, and for‐profit organizations. We also interviewed conservation professionals across all conservation sectors. Positions in nonprofit organizations were the most abundant, whereas academic jobs were only 10% of the current job market. The most common skills required across sectors were a strong disciplinary background, followed by analytical and technical skills. Academic positions differed the most from other types of positions in that they emphasized teaching as a top skill. Nonacademic jobs emphasized the need for excellent written and oral communication, as well as project‐management experience. Furthermore, we found distinct differences across job locations. Positions in developing countries emphasized language and interpersonal skills, whereas positions in countries with advanced economies focused on publication history and technical skills. Our results were corroborated by the conservation professionals we interviewed. Based on our results, we compiled a nondefinitive list of conservation‐based training programs that are likely to provide training for the current job market. Using the results of this study, scientists may be better able to tailor their training to maximize success in the conservation job market. Similarly, institutions can apply this information to create educational programs that produce graduates primed for long‐term success.     

Knowledge co‐production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans

Knowledge co‐production and boundary work offer planners a new frame for critically designing a social process that fosters collaborative implementation of resulting plans. Knowledge co‐production involves stakeholders from diverse knowledge systems working iteratively toward common vision and action. Boundary work is a means of creating permeable knowledge boundaries that satisfy the needs of multiple social groups while guarding the functional integrity of contributing knowledge systems. Resulting products are boundary objects of mutual interest that maintain coherence across all knowledge boundaries. We examined how knowledge co‐production and boundary work can bridge the gap between planning and implementation and promote cross‐sectoral cooperation. We applied these concepts to well‐established stages in regional conservation planning within a national scale conservation planning project aimed at identifying areas for conserving rivers and wetlands of South Africa and developing an institutional environment for promoting their conservation. Knowledge co‐production occurred iteratively over 4 years in interactive stake‐holder workshops that included co‐development of national freshwater conservation goals and spatial data on freshwater biodiversity and local conservation feasibility; translation of goals into quantitative inputs that were used in Marxan to select draft priority conservation areas; review of draft priority areas; and packaging of resulting map products into an atlas and implementation manual to promote application of the priority area maps in 37 different decision‐making contexts. Knowledge co‐production stimulated dialogue and negotiation and built capacity for multi‐scale implementation beyond the project. The resulting maps and information integrated diverse knowledge types of over 450 stakeholders and represented >1000 years of collective experience. The maps provided a consistent national source of information on priority conservation areas for rivers and wetlands and have been applied in 25 of the 37 use contexts since their launch just over 3 years ago. When framed as a knowledge co‐production process supported by boundary work, regional conservation plans can be developed into valuable boundary objects that offer a tangible tool for multi‐agency cooperation around conservation. Our work provides practical guidance for promoting uptake of conservation science and contributes to an evidence base on how conservation efforts can be improved.     

Enhancement of conservation knowledge through increased access to botanical information

Herbarium specimens are increasingly recognized as an important resource for conservation science and virtual herbaria are making specimens freely available to a wider range of users than ever before. Few virtual herbaria are designed with conservation use as a primary driver. Exceptionally, Brazil's Reflora Virtual Herbarium (RVH) was created to increase knowledge and conservation of the Brazilian flora. The RVH is closely integrated with the Flora of Brazil 2020 platform on which Brazil's new national Flora is under construction. Both resources are accessible via the Reflora home page and thousands of users move seamlessly between these Reflora resources. To understand how the Reflora resources are currently used and their impact on conservation science, we conducted a literature review and an online survey. We searched for publications of studies in which Reflora resources were used and publications resulting from Brazilian researchers who were part of Reflora's research and mobility program. The survey contained multiple choice questions and questions that required a written response. We targeted Reflora webpage visitors with the survey to capture a wider range of Reflora users than the literature review. Reflora resources were used for a variety of conservation-relevant purposes. Half the 806 scientific publications in which Reflora was cited and 81% of the 1069 survey respondents accessing Reflora resources mentioned conservation-relevant research outputs. Most conservation-relevant uses of the Reflora resources in scientific publications were research rather than implementation focused. The survey of Reflora users showed conservation uses and impacts of virtual herbaria were more numerous and diverse than the uses captured in the literature review. Virtual herbaria are vital resources for conservation science, but they must document use and impacts more comprehensively to ensure sustainability.     

Place‐based and data‐rich citizen science as a precursor for conservation action

Environmental education strategies have customarily placed substantial focus on enhancing ecological knowledge and literacy with the hope that, upon discovering relevant facts and concepts, participants will be better equipped to process and dissect environmental issues and, therefore, make more informed decisions. The assumption is that informed citizens will become active citizens––enthusiastically lobbying for, and participating in, conservation‐oriented action. We surveyed and interviewed and used performance data from 432 participants in the Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST), a scientifically rigorous citizen science program, to explore measurable change in and links between understanding and action. We found that participation in rigorous citizen science was associated with significant increases in participant knowledge and skills; a greater connection to place and, secondarily, to community; and an increasing awareness of the relative impact of anthropogenic activities on local ecosystems specifically through increasing scientific understanding of the ecosystem and factors affecting it. Our results suggest that a place‐based, data‐rich experience linked explicitly to local, regional, and global issues can lead to measurable change in individual and collective action, expressed in our case study principally through participation in citizen science and community action and communication of program results to personal acquaintances and elected officials. We propose the following tenets of conservation literacy based on emergent themes and the connections between them explicit in our data: place‐based learning creates personal meaning making; individual experience nested within collective (i.e., program‐wide) experience facilitates an understanding of the ecosystem process and function at local and regional scales; and science‐based meaning making creates informed concern (i.e., the ability to discern both natural and anthropogenic forcing), which allows individuals to develop a personalized prioritization schema and engage in conservation action.     

Achieving Open Access to Conservation Science

Conservation science is a crisis discipline in which the results of scientific enquiry must be made available quickly to those implementing management. We assessed the extent to which scientific research published since the year 2000 in 20 conservation science journals is publicly available. Of the 19,207 papers published, 1,667 (8.68%) are freely downloadable from an official repository. Moreover, only 938 papers (4.88%) meet the standard definition of open access in which material can be freely reused providing attribution to the authors is given. This compares poorly with a comparable set of 20 evolutionary biology journals, where 31.93% of papers are freely downloadable and 7.49% are open access. Seventeen of the 20 conservation journals offer an open access option, but fewer than 5% of the papers are available through open access. The cost of accessing the full body of conservation science runs into tens of thousands of dollars per year for institutional subscribers, and many conservation practitioners cannot access pay‐per‐view science through their workplace. However, important initiatives such as Research4Life are making science available to organizations in developing countries. We urge authors of conservation science to pay for open access on a per‐article basis or to choose publication in open access journals, taking care to ensure the license allows reuse for any purpose providing attribution is given. Currently, it would cost $51 million to make all conservation science published since 2000 freely available by paying the open access fees currently levied to authors. Publishers of conservation journals might consider more cost effective models for open access and conservation‐oriented organizations running journals could consider a broader range of options for open access to nonmembers such as sponsorship of open access via membership fees. Obtención de Acceso Abierto a la Ciencia de la Conservación     

Conservation of biodiversity through taxonomy,data publication,and collaborative infrastructures

Taxonomy is the foundation of biodiversity science because it furthers discovery of new species. Globally, there have never been so many people involved in naming species new to science. The number of new marine species described per decade has never been greater. Nevertheless, it is estimated that tens of thousands of marine species, and hundreds of thousands of terrestrial species, are yet to be discovered; many of which may already be in specimen collections. However, naming species is only a first step in documenting knowledge about their biology, biogeography, and ecology. Considering the threats to biodiversity, new knowledge of existing species and discovery of undescribed species and their subsequent study are urgently required. To accelerate this research, we recommend, and cite examples of, more and better communication: use of collaborative online databases; easier access to knowledge and specimens; production of taxonomic revisions and species identification guides; engagement of nonspecialists; and international collaboration. “Data‐sharing” should be abandoned in favor of mandated data publication by the conservation science community. Such a step requires support from peer reviewers, editors, journals, and conservation organizations. Online data publication infrastructures (e.g., Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Ocean Biogeographic Information System) illustrate gaps in biodiversity sampling and may provide common ground for long‐term international collaboration between scientists and conservation organizations.     

Climate change and urban land systems: bridging the gaps between urbanism and land science

ABSTRACT

Land science has generated critical knowledge about how humans modify Earth’s surface and has advanced our understanding of land as a coupled human–environment system. However, to date, most work has been in frontier environments with less attention – both conceptually and empirically – on how urban land systems affect the carbon cycle. Much of what is known about urban areas and the carbon cycle is limited to aggregate levels of activities within urban areas, usually by sector, with little focus on how the spatial configuration of urban land systems affects carbon-emitting activities. Given that urban areas produce about 70% of global energy-related CO₂ emissions, it is crucial to understand the relationship between urban environments, the activities they influence, and the resulting carbon emissions. This paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of how urban land systems affect carbon emissions and vulnerability, and identifies research gaps and opportunities for urban land science to contribute to climate change science, particularly through land architecture. We argue that more attention to urban land science conceptualization, measurement, and analysis would contribute to both fundamental knowledge about urban systems, as well as help identify policies and strategies for mitigation and adaptation to climate change at the urban scale.