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.     

Mitigation translocation as a management tool

Mitigation translocation is a subgroup of conservation translocation, categorized by a crisis-responsive time frame and the immediate goal of relocating individuals threatened with death. However, the relative successes of conservation translocations with longer time frames and broader metapopulation- and ecosystem-level considerations have been used to justify the continued implementation of mitigation translocations without adequate post hoc monitoring to confirm their effectiveness as a conservation tool. Mitigation translocations now outnumber other conservation translocations, and understanding the effectiveness of mitigation translocations is critical given limited global conservation funding especially if the mitigation translocations undermine biodiversity conservation by failing to save individuals. We assessed the effectiveness of mitigation translocations by conducting a quantitative review of the global literature. A total of 59 mitigation translocations were reviewed for their adherence to the adaptive scientific approach expected of other conservation translocations and for the testing of management options to continue improving techniques for the future. We found that mitigation translocations have not achieved their potential as an effective applied science. Most translocations focused predominantly on population establishment- and persistence-level questions, as is often seen in translocations more broadly, and less on metapopulation and ecosystem outcomes. Questions regarding the long-term impacts to the recipient ecosystem (12% of articles) and the carrying capacity of translocation sites (24% of articles) were addressed least often, despite these factors being more likely to influence ultimate success. Less than half (47%) of studies included comparison of different management techniques to facilitate practitioners selecting the most effective management actions for the future. To align mitigation translocations with the relative success of other conservation translocations, it is critical that future mitigation translocations conform to an established experimental approach to improve their effectiveness. Effective mitigation translocations will require significantly greater investment of time, expertise, and resources in the future.     

Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting

A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well‐established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill‐defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations. Seis Errores Comunes en la Definición de Prioridades de Conservación     

How decisions about fitting species distribution models affect conservation outcomes

Species distribution models (SDMs) are increasingly used in conservation and land-use planning as inputs to describe biodiversity patterns. These models can be built in different ways, and decisions about data preparation, selection of predictor variables, model fitting, and evaluation all alter the resulting predictions. Commonly, the true distribution of species is unknown and independent data to verify which SDM variant to choose are lacking. Such model uncertainty is of concern to planners. We analyzed how 11 routine decisions about model complexity, predictors, bias treatment, and setting thresholds for predicted values altered conservation priority patterns across 25 species. Models were created with MaxEnt and run through Zonation to determine the priority rank of sites. Although all SDM variants performed well (area under the curve >0.7), they produced spatially different predictions for species and different conservation priority solutions. Priorities were most strongly altered by decisions to not address bias or to apply binary thresholds to predicted values; on average 40% and 35%, respectively, of all grid cells received an opposite priority ranking. Forcing high model complexity altered conservation solutions less than forcing simplicity (14% and 24% of cells with opposite rank values, respectively). Use of fewer species records to build models or choosing alternative bias treatments had intermediate effects (25% and 23%, respectively). Depending on modeling choices, priority areas overlapped as little as 10–20% with the baseline solution, affecting top and bottom priorities differently. Our results demonstrate the extent of model-based uncertainty and quantify the relative impacts of SDM building decisions. When it is uncertain what the best SDM approach and conservation plan is, solving uncertainty or considering alterative options is most important for those decisions that change plans the most.     

Effect of risk aversion on prioritizing conservation projects

Conservation outcomes are uncertain. Agencies making decisions about what threat mitigation actions to take to save which species frequently face the dilemma of whether to invest in actions with high probability of success and guaranteed benefits or to choose projects with a greater risk of failure that might provide higher benefits if they succeed. The answer to this dilemma lies in the decision maker's aversion to risk—their unwillingness to accept uncertain outcomes. Little guidance exists on how risk preferences affect conservation investment priorities. Using a prioritization approach based on cost effectiveness, we compared 2 approaches: a conservative probability threshold approach that excludes investment in projects with a risk of management failure greater than a fixed level, and a variance‐discounting heuristic used in economics that explicitly accounts for risk tolerance and the probabilities of management success and failure. We applied both approaches to prioritizing projects for 700 of New Zealand's threatened species across 8303 management actions. Both decision makers’ risk tolerance and our choice of approach to dealing with risk preferences drove the prioritization solution (i.e., the species selected for management). Use of a probability threshold minimized uncertainty, but more expensive projects were selected than with variance discounting, which maximized expected benefits by selecting the management of species with higher extinction risk and higher conservation value. Explicitly incorporating risk preferences within the decision making process reduced the number of species expected to be safe from extinction because lower risk tolerance resulted in more species being excluded from management, but the approach allowed decision makers to choose a level of acceptable risk that fit with their ability to accommodate failure. We argue for transparency in risk tolerance and recommend that decision makers accept risk in an adaptive management framework to maximize benefits and avoid potential extinctions due to inefficient allocation of limited resources. El Efecto de la Aversión de Riesgo sobre la Priorización de Proyectos de Conservación     

Practical actions for applied systematic conservation planning

Systematic conservation planning is intended to inform spatially explicit decision making. Doing so requires that it be integrated into complex regulatory and governance processes, and there are limited instances where this has been achieved effectively. South Africa is a global leader in the application of conservation plans, the outputs of which are widely used for spatial planning and decision making in many spheres of government. We aimed to determine how conservation planning in the country progressed from theory to implementation, and to identify practical actions that enabled this transition, by assessing temporal trends in the characteristics of conservation plans (1990–2017, n = 94). Since 2010 conservation planning has entered an operational period characterized by government leadership of plans, administrative rather than ecological planning domains, decreasing size of planning units, increasing emphasis on end-user products, and scheduled revision of plans. Key actions that enabled this progression include transitioning leadership of plans from scientists to practitioners, building capacity within implementing agencies, creating opportunities to integrate plans in legislative processes, establishing a strong community of practice, adopting implementation-focused methods, and balancing standardization with innovation. Learning from this model will allow other countries, particularly those with a similar megadiverse, developing context, to operationalize conservation planning into spatial planning and decision making.     

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.     

Priorities for global felid conservation

Conservation resources are limited, necessitating prioritization of species and locations for action. Most prioritization approaches are based solely on biologically relevant characteristics of taxa or areas and ignore geopolitical realities. Doing so risks a poor return on conservation investment due to nonbiological factors, such as economic or political instability. We considered felids, a taxon which attracts intense conservation attention, to demonstrate a new approach that incorporates both intrinsic species traits and geopolitical characteristics of countries. We developed conservation priority scores for wild felids based on their International Union for Conservation of Nature status, body mass, habitat, range within protected area, evolutionary distinctiveness, and conservation umbrella potential. We used published data on governance, economics and welfare, human population pressures, and conservation policy to assign conservation‐likelihood scores to 142 felid‐hosting countries. We identified 71 countries as high priorities (above median) for felid conservation. These countries collectively encompassed all 36 felid species and supported an average of 96% of each species’ range. Of these countries, 60.6% had below‐average conservation‐likelihood scores, which indicated these countries are relatively risky conservation investments. Governance was the most common factor limiting conservation likelihood. It was the major contributor to below‐median likelihood scores for 62.5% of the 32 felid species occurring in lower‐likelihood countries. Governance was followed by economics for which scores were below median for 25% of these species. An average of 58% of species’ ranges occurred in 43 higher‐priority lower‐likelihood countries. Human population pressure was second to governance as a limiting factor when accounting for percentage of species’ ranges in each country. As conservation likelihood decreases, it will be increasingly important to identify relevant geopolitical limitations and tailor conservation strategies accordingly. Our analysis provides an objective framework for biodiversity conservation action planning. Our results highlight not only which species most urgently require conservation action and which countries should be prioritized for such action, but also the diverse constraints which must be overcome to maximize long‐term success.     

Conservation and Adaptation to Climate Change

Abstract: The need to adapt to climate change has become increasingly apparent, and many believe the practice of biodiversity conservation will need to alter to face this challenge. Conservation organizations are eager to determine how they should adapt their practices to climate change. This involves asking the fundamental question of what adaptation to climate change means. Most studies on climate change and conservation, if they consider adaptation at all, assume it is equivalent to the ability of species to adapt naturally to climate change as stated in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Adaptation, however, can refer to an array of activities that range from natural adaptation, at one end of the spectrum, to sustainability science in coupled human and natural systems at the other. Most conservation organizations deal with complex systems in which adaptation to climate change involves making decisions on priorities for biodiversity conservation in the face of dynamic risks and involving the public in these decisions. Discursive methods such as analytic deliberation are useful for integrating scientific knowledge with public perceptions and values, particularly when large uncertainties and risks are involved. The use of scenarios in conservation planning is a useful way to build shared understanding at the science–policy interface. Similarly, boundary organizations—organizations or institutions that bridge different scales or mediate the relationship between science and policy—could prove useful for managing the transdisciplinary nature of adaptation to climate change, providing communication and brokerage services and helping to build adaptive capacity. The fact that some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are active across the areas of science, policy, and practice makes them well placed to fulfill this role in integrated assessments of biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate change.     

Understanding the effects of different social data on selecting priority conservation areas

Conservation success is contingent on assessing social and environmental factors so that cost‐effective implementation of strategies and actions can be placed in a broad social–ecological context. Until now, the focus has been on how to include spatially explicit social data in conservation planning, whereas the value of different kinds of social data has received limited attention. In a regional systematic conservation planning case study in Australia, we examined the spatial concurrence of a range of spatially explicit social values and land‐use preferences collected using a public participation geographic information system and biological data. We used Zonation to integrate the social data with the biological data in a series of spatial‐prioritization scenarios to determine the effect of the different types of social data on spatial prioritization compared with biological data alone. The type of social data (i.e., conservation opportunities or constraints) significantly affected spatial prioritization outcomes. The integration of social values and land‐use preferences under different scenarios was highly variable and generated spatial prioritizations 1.2–51% different from those based on biological data alone. The inclusion of conservation‐compatible values and preferences added relatively few new areas to conservation priorities, whereas including noncompatible economic values and development preferences as costs significantly changed conservation priority areas (48.2% and 47.4%, respectively). Based on our results, a multifaceted conservation prioritization approach that combines spatially explicit social data with biological data can help conservation planners identify the type of social data to collect for more effective and feasible conservation actions.     

Reallocating budgets among ongoing and emerging conservation projects

Conserving biodiversity and combating ecological hazards require cost-effective allocation of limited resources among potential management projects. Project priorities, however, can change over time as underlying social-ecological systems progress, novel priorities emerge, and management capabilities evolve. Thus, reallocation of ongoing investments in response to shifting priorities could improve management outcomes and address urgent demands, especially when additional funding is not available immediately. Resource reallocation, however, could incur transaction costs, require additional monitoring and reassessment, and be constrained by ongoing project commitments. Such complexities may prevent managers from considering potentially beneficial reallocation strategies, reducing long-term effectiveness. We propose an iterative project prioritization approach, based on marginal return-on-investment estimation and portfolio optimization, that guides resource reallocation among ongoing and new projects. Using simulation experiments in 2 case studies, we explored how this approach can improve efficacy under varying reallocation constraints, frequencies, costs, and rates of project portfolio change. Periodic budget reallocation could enhance the management of stochastically emerging invasive weeds in Australia and thus reduce the overall risk by up to 50% compared with a static budget. Reallocation frequency and the rate of new weed incursion synergistically increased the conservation gains achieved by allowing unconstrained reallocation. Conversely, budget reallocation would not improve the International Union for Conservation of Nature conservation status of threatened Australian birds due to slow rates of transition among conservation states; extinction risk could increase if portfolio reassessment is costly. Although other project prioritization studies may recommend periodic reassessment and reallocation, our findings revealed conditions when reallocation is valuable and demonstrated a structured approach that can help conservation agencies schedule and implement iterative budget-allocation decisions cost-effectively.     

Priority areas for conservation of and research focused on terrestrial vertebrates

Effective conservation policies require comprehensive knowledge of biodiversity. However, knowledge shortfalls still remain, hindering possibilities to improve decision making and built such policies. During the last 2 decades, conservationists have made great efforts to allocate resources as efficiently as possible but have rarely considered the idea that if research investments are also strategically allocated, it would likely fill knowledge gaps while simultaneously improving conservation actions. Therefore, prioritizing areas where both conservation and research actions could be conducted becomes a critical endeavor that can further maximize return on investment. We used Zonation, a conservation planning tool and geographical distributions of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles to suggest and compare priority areas for conservation and research of terrestrial vertebrates worldwide. We also evaluated the degree of human disturbance in both types of priority areas by describing the value of the human footprint index within such areas. The spatial concordance between priority conservation and research areas was low: 0.36% of the world's land area. In these areas, we found it would be possible to protect almost half of the currently threatened species and to gather information on nearly 42% of data-deficient (DD) species. We also found that 6199 protected areas worldwide are located in such places, although only 35% of them have strict conservation purposes. Areas of consensus between conservation and research areas represent an opportunity for simultaneously conserving and acquiring knowledge of threatened and DD species of vertebrates. Although the picture is not the most encouraging, joint conservation and research efforts are possible and should be fostered to save vertebrate species from our own ignorance and extinction.     

Prioritizing species conservation programs based on IUCN Green Status and estimates of cost-sharing potential

Over 1 million species around the world are at risk of extinction, and conservation organizations have to decide where to invest their limited resources. Cost-effectiveness can be increased by leveraging funding opportunities and increasing collaborative partnerships to achieve shared conservation goals. We devised a structured decision-making framework to prioritize species’ conservation programs based on a cost–benefit analysis that takes collaborative opportunities into account in an examination of national and global conservation return on investment. Conservation benefit is determined by modifying the novel International Union for the Conservation of Nature Green Status for Species to provide an efficient, high-level measure that is comparable among species, even with limited information and time constraints. We applied this prioritization approach to the Wilder Institute/Calgary Zoo, Canada, a nonprofit organization seeking to increase the number of species it assists with conservation translocations. We sought to identify and prioritize additional species’ programs for which conservation translocation expertise and actions could make the most impact. Estimating the likelihood of cost-sharing potential enabled total program cost to be distinguished from costs specific to the organization. Comparing a benefit-to-cost ratio on different geographic scales allowed decision makers to weigh alternative options for investing in new species’ programs in a transparent and effective manner. Our innovative analysis aligns with general conservation planning frameworks and can be adapted for any organization.     

Effects of climate and land-cover change on the conservation status of gibbons

Species shift their distribution in response to climate and land-cover change, which may result in a spatial mismatch between currently protected areas (PAs) and priority conservation areas (PCAs). We examined the effects of climate and land-cover change on potential range of gibbons and sought to identify PCAs that would conserve them effectively. We collected global gibbon occurrence points and modeled (ecological niche model) their current and potential 2050s ranges under climate-change and different land-cover-change scenarios. We examined change in range and PA coverage between the current and future ranges of each gibbon species. We applied spatial conservation prioritization to identify the top 30% PCAs for each species. We then determined how much of the PCAs are conserved in each country within the global range of gibbons. On average, 31% (SD 22) of each species’ current range was covered in PAs. PA coverage of the current range of 9 species was <30%. Nine species lost on average 46% (SD 29) of their potential range due to climate change. Under climate-change with an optimistic land-cover-change scenario (B1), 12 species lost 39% (SD 28) of their range. In a pessimistic land-cover-change scenario (A2), 15 species lost 36% (SD 28) of their range. Five species lost significantly more range under the A2 scenario than the B1 scenario (p = 0.01, SD 0.01), suggesting that gibbons will benefit from effective management of land cover. PA coverage of future range was <30% for 11 species. On average, 32% (SD 25) of PCAs were covered by PAs. Indonesia contained more species and PCAs and thus has the greatest responsibility for gibbon conservation. Indonesia, India, and Myanmar need to expand their PAs to fulfill their responsibility to gibbon conservation. Our results provide a baseline for global gibbon conservation, particularly for countries lacking gibbon research capacity.     

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 counterfactual approach to measure the impact of wet grassland conservation on U.K. breeding bird populations

Wet grassland populations of wading birds in the United Kingdom have declined severely since 1990. To help mitigate these declines, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has restored and managed lowland wet grassland nature reserves to benefit these and other species. However, the impact of these reserves on bird population trends has not been evaluated experimentally due to a lack of control populations. We compared population trends from 1994 to 2018 among 5 bird species of conservation concern that breed on these nature reserves with counterfactual trends created from matched breeding bird survey observations. We compared reserve trends with 3 different counterfactuals based on different scenarios of how reserve populations could have developed in the absence of conservation. Effects of conservation interventions were positive for all 4 targeted wading bird species: Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Redshank (Tringa totanus), Curlew (Numenius arquata), and Snipe (Gallinago gallinago). There was no positive effect of conservation interventions on reserves for the passerine, Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava). Our approach using monitoring data to produce valid counterfactual controls is a broadly applicable method allowing large-scale evaluation of conservation impact.     

Effects of human demand on conservation planning for biodiversity and ecosystem services

Safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity is critical to achieving sustainable development. To date, ecosystem services quantification has focused on the biophysical supply of services with less emphasis on human beneficiaries (i.e., demand). Only when both occur do ecosystems benefit people, but demand may shift ecosystem service priorities toward human-dominated landscapes that support less biodiversity. We quantified how accounting for demand affects the efficiency of conservation in capturing both human benefits and biodiversity by comparing conservation priorities identified with and without accounting for demand. We mapped supply and benefit for 3 ecosystem services (flood mitigation, crop pollination, and nature-based recreation) by adapting existing ecosystem service models to include and exclude factors representing human demand. We then identified conservation priorities for each with the conservation planning program Marxan. Particularly for flood mitigation and crop pollination, supply served as a poor proxy for benefit because demand changed the spatial distribution of ecosystem service provision. Including demand when jointly targeting biodiversity and ecosystem service increased the efficiency of conservation efforts targeting ecosystem services without reducing biodiversity outcomes. Our results highlight the importance of incorporating demand when quantifying ecosystem services for conservation planning.     

Evaluating approaches for scaling-up community-based marine-protected areas into socially equitable and ecologically representative networks

Marine-protected areas (MPAs) are vital to marine conservation, but their coverage and distribution is insufficient to address declines in global biodiversity and fisheries. In response, many countries have committed through the Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve 10% of the marine environment through ecologically representative and equitably managed MPAs by 2020. The rush to fulfill this commitment has raised concerns on how increasing MPA coverage will affect other elements of Target 11, including representation and equity. We examined a Philippines case study to assess and compare 3 MPA planning approaches for biodiversity representation and equitable distribution of costs to small-scale fishers. In the opportunistic approach, MPAs were identified and supported by coastal communities. The donor-assisted approach used local knowledge to select MPAs through a national-scale and donor-assisted conservation project. The systematic conservation planning approach identified MPA locations with the spatial prioritization software Marxan with Zones to achieve biodiversity objectives with minimal costs to fishers. We collected spatial data on biodiversity and fisheries features and performed a gap analysis to evaluate MPAs derived from different approaches. We assessed representation based on the proportion of biodiversity features conserved in MPAs and distribution equity by the distribution of opportunity costs (fishing areas lost in MPAs) among fisher stakeholder groups. The opportunistic approach did not ineffectively represent biodiversity and resulted in inequitable costs to fishers. The donor-assisted approach affected fishers disproportionately but provided near-optimal regional representation. Only the systematic approach achieved all representation targets with minimal and equitable costs to fishers. Our results demonstrate the utility of systematic conservation planning to address key elements of Target 11 and highlight opportunities (e.g., integration of local and scientific knowledge can address representation and equity concerns) and pitfalls (e.g., insufficient stakeholder considerations can exacerbate social inequalities) for planning MPAs in similar contexts.     

Predicting Risk of Habitat Conversion in Native Temperate Grasslands

Abstract: Native grasslands that support diverse populations of birds are being converted to cropland at an increasing rate in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America. Although limited funding is currently available to mitigate losses, accurate predictions of probability of conversion would increase the efficiency of conservation measures. We studied conversion of native grassland to cropland in the Missouri Coteau region of North and South Dakota (U.S.A.) during 1989–2003. We estimated the probability of conversion of native grassland to cropland with satellite imagery and logistic regression models that predicted risk of conversion and by comparing the overlap between areas of high biological value and areas most vulnerable to conversion. Annualized probability of conversion was 0.004, and 36,540 ha of native grassland were converted to cropland during the period of our study. Our predictive models fit the data and correctly predicted 70% of observed conversions of grassland. Probability of conversion varied spatially and was correlated with landscape features like amount of surrounding grassland, slope, and soil productivity. Tracts of high biological value were not always at high risk of conversion. We concluded the most biologically valuable areas that are most vulnerable to conversion should be prioritized for conservation. This approach can be applied broadly to other systems and offers great utility for implementing conservation in areas with spatially variable biological value and probability of conversion.     

Balancing making a difference with making a living in the conservation sector

Goals play important roles in people's lives because they focus attention, mobilize effort, and sustain motivation. Understanding conservationists’ satisfaction with goal progress may provide insights into real-world environmental trends and flag risks to their well-being and motivation. We asked 2694 conservationists working globally how satisfied they were with progress toward goals important to them. We then explored how this satisfaction varied among groups, including demographic and occupational. Finally, we looked at respondents' experiences associated with goal-progress satisfaction. Many (94.0%) indicated that making a meaningful contribution to conservation was an important goal for them, and over half were satisfied or very satisfied in this area (52.5%). However, respondents were generally dissatisfied with progress on collective conservation goals (e.g., stopping species loss). Some groups were more likely to report dissatisfaction than others. For instance, those in conservation for longer tended to be less satisfied with collective goal progress (log odds –0.21, 95% credibility interval [CI] –0.32 to –0.10), but practitioners reported greater satisfaction (log odds 0.38, 95% CI 0.15–0.60). Likewise, those who were more optimistic in life (log odds 0.24, 95% CI 0.17–0.32), male (log odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.10–0.41), and working in conservation practice (log odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.08–0.43) reported greater satisfaction with individual goal progress. Free-text responses suggested widespread dissatisfaction with livelihood goals, particularly related to job security and adequate compensation. Although contributing to conservation appeared to be a source of satisfaction, slow goal progress in other areas––particularly around making a living––looked to be a source of distress and demotivation. Employers, funders, professional societies, and others should consider ways to help those in the sector make a difference while making a satisfactory living by, for example, prioritizing conservationists′ well-being when allocating funding. This support could include avoiding exploitative practices, fostering supportive work environments, and celebrating positive outcomes.