Fishing‐gear restrictions and biomass gains for coral reef fishes in marine protected areas

Considerable empirical evidence supports recovery of reef fish populations with fishery closures. In countries where full exclusion of people from fishing may be perceived as inequitable, fishing‐gear restrictions on nonselective and destructive gears may offer socially relevant management alternatives to build recovery of fish biomass. Even so, few researchers have statistically compared the responses of tropical reef fisheries to alternative management strategies. We tested for the effects of fishery closures and fishing gear restrictions on tropical reef fish biomass at the community and family level. We conducted 1,396 underwater surveys at 617 unique sites across a spatial hierarchy within 22 global marine ecoregions that represented 5 realms. We compared total biomass across local fish assemblages and among 20 families of reef fishes inside marine protected areas (MPAs) with different fishing restrictions: no‐take, hook‐and‐line fishing only, several fishing gears allowed, and sites open to all fishing gears. We included a further category representing remote sites, where fishing pressure is low. As expected, full fishery closures, (i.e., no‐take zones) most benefited community‐ and family‐level fish biomass in comparison with restrictions on fishing gears and openly fished sites. Although biomass responses to fishery closures were highly variable across families, some fishery targets (e.g., Carcharhinidae and Lutjanidae) responded positively to multiple restrictions on fishing gears (i.e., where gears other than hook and line were not permitted). Remoteness also positively affected the response of community‐level fish biomass and many fish families. Our findings provide strong support for the role of fishing restrictions in building recovery of fish biomass and indicate important interactions among fishing‐gear types that affect biomass of a diverse set of reef fish families.     

Equity trade‐offs in conservation decision making

Conservation decisions increasingly involve multiple environmental and social objectives, which result in complex decision contexts with high potential for trade‐offs. Improving social equity is one such objective that is often considered an enabler of successful outcomes and a virtuous ideal in itself. Despite its idealized importance in conservation policy, social equity is often highly simplified or ill‐defined and is applied uncritically. What constitutes equitable outcomes and processes is highly normative and subject to ethical deliberation. Different ethical frameworks may lead to different conceptions of equity through alternative perspectives of what is good or right. This can lead to different and potentially conflicting equity objectives in practice. We promote a more transparent, nuanced, and pluralistic conceptualization of equity in conservation decision making that particularly recognizes where multidimensional equity objectives may conflict. To help identify and mitigate ethical conflicts and avoid cases of good intentions producing bad outcomes, we encourage a more analytical incorporation of equity into conservation decision making particularly during mechanistic integration of equity objectives. We recommend that in conservation planning motivations and objectives for equity be made explicit within the problem context, methods used to incorporate equity objectives be applied with respect to stated objectives, and, should objectives dictate, evaluation of equity outcomes and adaptation of strategies be employed during policy implementation.     

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.     

Value Plurality among Conservation Professionals

Abstract: Debate on the values that underpin conservation science is rarely based on empirical analysis of the values conservation professionals actually hold. We used Q methodology to investigate the values held by international conservation professionals who attended the annual Student Conference in Conservation Science at the University of Cambridge (U.K.) in 2008 and 2009. The methodology offers a quantitative means of examining human subjectivity. It differs from standard opinion surveys in that individual respondents record the way they feel about statements relative to other statements, which forces them to focus their attention on the issues they believe are most important. The analysis extracts the diverse viewpoints of the respondents, and factor analysis is used to reduce the viewpoints to a smaller set of factors that reflect shared ways of thinking. The junior conservation professionals attending the conference did not share a unifying set of core values; rather, they held a complex series of ideas and a plurality of opinions about conservation and how it should be pursued. This diversity of values empirically challenges recent proposals for conservation professionals to unite behind a single philosophy. Attempts to forge an artificial consensus may be counterproductive to the overall goals conservation professionals are pursuing.     

Contribution of Systematic Reviews to Management Decisions

Systematic reviews comprehensively summarize evidence about the effectiveness of conservation interventions. We investigated the contribution to management decisions made by this growing body of literature. We identified 43 systematic reviews of conservation evidence, 23 of which drew some concrete conclusions relevant to management. Most reviews addressed conservation interventions relevant to policy decisions; only 35% considered practical on‐the‐ground management interventions. The majority of reviews covered only a small fraction of the geographic and taxonomic breadth they aimed to address (median = 13% of relevant countries and 16% of relevant taxa). The likelihood that reviews contained at least some implications for management tended to increase as geographic coverage increased and to decline as taxonomic breadth increased. These results suggest the breadth of a systematic review requires careful consideration. Reviews identified a mean of 312 relevant primary studies but excluded 88% of these because of deficiencies in design or a failure to meet other inclusion criteria. Reviews summarized on average 284 data sets and 112 years of research activity, yet the likelihood that their results had at least some implications for management did not increase as the amount of primary research summarized increased. In some cases, conclusions were elusive despite the inclusion of hundreds of data sets and years of cumulative research activity. Systematic reviews are an important part of the conservation decision making tool kit, although we believe the benefits of systematic reviews could be significantly enhanced by increasing the number of reviews focused on questions of direct relevance to on‐the‐ground managers; defining a more focused geographic and taxonomic breadth that better reflects available data; including a broader range of evidence types; and appraising the cost‐effectiveness of interventions. Contribuciones de las Revisiones Sistemáticas a las Decisiones de Manejo     

Devising Appropriate Policies and Instruments in Support of Private Conservation Areas: Lessons Learned from the Klein Karoo,South Africa

Abstract: The amount of privately conserved land is increasing worldwide. The potential of these areas to contribute to the global conservation of biodiversity is significant, given that statutory protected areas alone will not suffice. Nevertheless, there is still inadequate support for private conservation areas, and further research on appropriate, flexible, and generally applicable incentive measures is necessary. We conducted 25 semistructured interviews with the owners of private conservation areas in the Little Karoo, South Africa, to examine landowner opinions of existing conservation policies and their relationships with the local conservation authority. We also assessed landowner preferences regarding conservation incentive measures. Landowners doubted the conservation authority's capacity to implement its stewardship program and were also discouraged by the bureaucracy of the program. The conservation authority was often viewed negatively, except where landowners had experienced personal contact from conservation staff or where strong social capital had formed among landowners. Landowners did not desire financial rewards for their conservation efforts, but sought recognition of their stewardship role and greater involvement from the conservation authority through personal contact. We conclude that conservation policies for private lands could benefit from the provision of extension services to landowners, promotion of formation of groups of landowners and other stakeholders, and public acknowledgment of the contributions private conservation areas make.     

Countering resistance to protected‐area extension

The establishment of protected areas is a critical strategy for conserving biodiversity. Key policy directives like the Aichi targets seek to expand protected areas to 17% of Earth's land surface, with calls by some conservation biologists for much more. However, in places such as the United States, Germany, and Australia, attempts to increase protected areas are meeting strong resistance from communities, industry groups, and governments. We examined case studies of such resistance in Victoria, Australia, Bavaria, Germany, and Florida, United States. We considered 4 ways to tackle this problem. First, broaden the case for protected areas beyond nature conservation to include economic, human health, and other benefits, and translate these into a persuasive business case for protected areas. Second, better communicate the conservation values of protected areas. This should include highlighting how many species, communities, and ecosystems have been conserved by protected areas and the counterfactual (i.e., what would have been lost without protected area establishment). Third, consider zoning of activities to ensure the maintenance of effective management. Finally, remind citizens to think about conservation when they vote, including holding politicians accountable for their environmental promises. Without tackling resistance to expanding the protected estate, it will be impossible to reach conservation targets, and this will undermine attempts to stem the global extinction crisis.     

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.     

Some Guiding Concepts for Conservation Biology

Abstract: The search for generalities in ecology has often been thwarted by contingency and ecological complexity that limit the development of predictive rules. We present a set of concepts that we believe succinctly expresses some of the fundamental ideas in conservation biology. (1) Successful conservation management requires explicit goals and objectives. (2) The overall goal of biodiversity management will usually be to maintain or restore biodiversity, not to maximize species richness. (3) A holistic approach is needed to solve conservation problems. (4) Diverse approaches to management can provide diverse environmental conditions and mitigate risk. (5) Using nature's template is important for guiding conservation management, but it is not a panacea. (6) Focusing on causes not symptoms enhances efficacy and efficiency of conservation actions. (7) Every species and ecosystem is unique, to some degree. (8) Threshold responses are important but not ubiquitous. (9) Multiple stressors often exert critical effects on species and ecosystems. (10) Human values are variable and dynamic and significantly shape conservation efforts. We believe most conservation biologists will broadly agree these concepts are important. That said, an important part of the maturation of conservation biology as a discipline is constructive debate about additional or alternative concepts to those we have proposed here. Therefore, we have established a web‐based, online process for further discussion of the concepts outlined in this paper and developing additional ones.     

Using a social–ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans

One of the key determinants of success in biodiversity conservation is how well conservation planning decisions account for the social system in which actions are to be implemented. Understanding elements of how the social and ecological systems interact can help identify opportunities for implementation. Utilizing data from a large‐scale conservation initiative in southwestern of Australia, we explored how a social–ecological system framework can be applied to identify how social and ecological factors interact to influence the opportunities for conservation. Using data from semistructured interviews, an online survey, and publicly available data, we developed a conceptual model of the social–ecological system associated with the conservation of the Fitz‐Stirling region. We used this model to identify the relevant variables (remnants of vegetation, stakeholder presence, collaboration between stakeholders, and their scale of management) that affect the implementation of conservation actions in the region. We combined measures for these variables to ascertain how areas associated with different levels of ecological importance coincided with areas associated with different levels of stakeholder presence, stakeholder collaboration, and scales of management. We identified areas that could benefit from different implementation strategies, from those suitable for immediate conservation action to areas requiring implementation over the long term to increase on‐the‐ground capacity and identify mechanisms to incentivize implementation. The application of a social–ecological framework can help conservation planners and practitioners facilitate the integration of ecological and social data to inform the translation of priorities for action into implementation strategies that account for the complexities of conservation problems in a focused way.     

A Landholder‐Based Approach to the Design of Private‐Land Conservation Programs

Abstract: Many ecosystems exist primarily, or solely, on privately owned (freehold) or managed (leasehold) land. In rural and semirural areas, local and regional government agencies are commonly responsible for encouraging landholders to conserve native vegetation and species on these private properties. Yet these agencies often lack the capacity to design and implement conservation programs tailored to rural and semirural landholdings and instead offer one program to all landholders. Landholders may elect not to participate because the program is irrelevant to their property or personal needs; consequently, vegetation–retention objectives may not be achieved. We differentiated landholders in Queensland, Australia, according to whether they derived income from the land (production landholders) or not (nonproduction landholders). We compared these two groups to identify similarities and differences that may inform the use of policy instruments (e.g., voluntary, economic, and regulatory) in conservation program design. We interviewed 45 landholders participating in three different conservation agreement programs (price‐based rate [property tax] rebate; market‐based tender; and voluntary, permanent covenant). Production landholders were more likely to participate in short‐term programs that offered large financial incentives that applied to <25% of their property. Nonproduction landholders were more likely to participate in long‐term programs that were voluntary or offered small financial incentives that applied to >75% of their property. These results may be explained by significant differences in the personal circumstances of production and nonproduction landholders (income, education, health) and differences in their norms (beliefs about how an individual is expected to act) and attitudes. Knowledge of these differences may allow for development of conservation programs that better meet the needs of landholders and thus increase participation in conservation programs and retention of native vegetation.