Who's Who in Conservation Biology—an Authorship Analysis

Abstract:  As the flagship journal of the field, Conservation Biology represents a multidisciplinary, global constituency of conservation professionals—a constituency composed of more than 5200 authors representing 1500 organizations and 89 countries. Using bibliometric records of research published in Conservation Biology , I evaluated trends in authorship of research papers from 1987 to 2005. Authorship diversified and became increasingly collaborative over time. North Americans now compose one-half of primary authorship, down from 75% in the 1990s, and European primary authors contribute a quarter of the journal's contributed research. Forty-five countries were represented in volume 19 of the journal. The top three most-cited authors are Australian. The percentage of single-authored papers declined from 57% in 1987 to 18% in 2005. Collectively, academic institutions contribute the most research to Conservation Biology , although a government agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, was the single most-productive organization. The maturing of conservation biology as a discipline, the complex geographic and multidisciplinary nature of conservation questions, and the increased ease of communication in a technologically connected world contribute to the increasingly diverse and collaborative Conservation Biology authorship.     

Conservation Biology and Real-World Conservation

Abstract:  In the 20 years since Conservation Biology was launched with the aim of disseminating scientific knowledge to help conserve biodiversity and the natural world, our discipline has hugely influenced the practice of conservation. But we have had less impact outside the profession itself, and we have not transformed that practice into an enterprise large enough to achieve our conservation goals. As we look to the next 20 years, we need to become more relevant and important to the societies in which we live. To do so, the discipline of conservation biology must generate answers even when full scientific knowledge is lacking, structure scientific research around polices and debates that influence what we value as conservationists, go beyond the certitude of the biological sciences into the more contextual debates of the social sciences, engage scientifically with human-dominated landscapes, and address the question of how conservation can contribute to the improvement of human livelihoods and the quality of human life.     

Speaking across boundaries to explore the potential for interdisciplinarity in ecosystem services knowledge production

Conservation is likely to be most successful if it draws on knowledge from across the natural and social sciences. The ecosystem services concept has been called a boundary object in that it facilitates development of such interdisciplinary knowledge because it offers a common platform for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners. However, a question that remains is to what extent the interdisciplinary knowledge needed is provided by disciplinary diversity within the field. We asked where is knowledge on ecosystem services produced, how interdisciplinary is this knowledge, and which disciplines facilitate the greatest disciplinary integration? We defined interdisciplinarity as the extent to which published research draws on knowledge that crosses disciplinary borders and used citations as a quantitative indicator of communication among disciplines, based on journal classification. We used disciplinary diversity, richness, and heterocitation as measures of interdisciplinarity and betweenness centrality as a measure of disciplinary integration. Our data set contained 22,153 publications on ecosystem services, published from 1983 to 2018. We found that ecosystem services research matured; average yearly output growth was 33.8%, more than the 8–9% growth in scientific output across all fields. Over time, the network clustering coefficient, measuring connectedness of individual disciplines, rose from 0.388 to 0.727, suggesting increased density in the network of citations. Researchers in the field published more articles (3566 in 2018 alone) across more disciplines (77 unique disciplines in 2018). However, this growth was not mirrored by an increase in the diversity (stable at 0.7–0.9) or richness (averaging 0.35 unique disciplines per citation) of citation patterns. Heterocitation scores, or out-of-group citations, for arts, humanities, social sciences, and law ranged from 56% to 64%, which was lower than we expected, although this may serve to protect the integrity of social science disciplines and attract broader engagement from within. Ultimately, a small number of productive disciplines are central to supporting disciplinary integration. However, opportunities exist for conservation practice to draw on a broader field of research, to realize the potential that the diverse body of knowledge of interdisciplinary work offers.     

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.     

Recently Received Books

For over 16 years, Conservation Biology has been the voice of our global community of conservation biologists. Now, the Society of Conservation Biology and the Editorial Office of Conservation Biology need to hear YOUR voice!
To make the journal as relevant as possible, we invite you to participate in an anonymous online survey for our Conservation Biology readers, authors and reviewers. This survey is the first of its kind for Conservation Biology — your feedback is extremely valuable!
To participate, simply go to www.conservationbiology.org/journalsurvey
We hope to hear from you soon!
Society for Conservation BiologyThe Editorial Office of Conservation Biology     

Gaining Traction: Retreading the Wheels of Marine Conservation

Abstract:  A number of international treaties address the conservation of marine resources. The declining state of the world's oceans suggests that these treaties are not succeeding and could use improvement. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is increasingly embracing the conservation of marine species. We examine the evolution of marine species protection under CITES and illuminate some of the mechanisms used and challenges faced in implementing CITES protection. We found that clarification is needed on when and where CITES applies and how CITES should work with other treaties and institutions. The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) can contribute to increased effectiveness of CITES for marine conservation. Foremost, the SCB community could foster dialogue on creating a broad vision of how CITES should apply to marine species and how it can synergistically interact with other important marine-conservation treaties and institutions. More specific contributions could focus on defining listing criteria for marine species, improving the science behind the nondetriment finding, and offering technical guidance on species proposals. A future role for SCB could be to contribute to the enhanced effectiveness of other marine conservation agreements such as the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the International Whaling Commission, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea .     

Training Conservation Biologists in Human Interaction Skills

Questionnaires were sent to 298 graduate programs in conservation biology and other areas of the biological and agricultural sciences and to 702 public and private organizations that employ, or might employ, conservation biologists. The focus of the questionnaires was on the need for training conservation biologists in human interaction skills (e.g., interpersonal communication, leadership, group decision making). Respondents were asked to indicate the current availability of such training at their institutions or organizations. Questionnaires were returned by 28.5% of the graduate programs and 21.1% of the conservation organizations. A majority of both groups of respondents indicated a high need for training in the following seven areas: written and oral communication; explaining science and values of biodiversity to the lay public; group decision making; interpersonal skills; group planning; leadership; and advocacy. Despite the high level of perceived training need, relatively few academic institutions and even fewer conservation organizations offer or require courses in human interaction skills (with the exceptions of written and oral communication and foreign languages). Sixty-four percent of the graduate faculty respondents and 78% of the employer organization respondents indicated that human interaction skills are equally important or more important to the work of conservation biologists than science knowledge and skill. We suggest that follow-up research should be conducted to delineate further the need for human interaction skills training and to assess the relationship between specific human interactions skills and conservation outcomes. We also recommend that a curriculum on human interaction should be designed and developed for conservation biologists, perhaps through a cooperative effort of interested faculty and employers facilitated by the Society for Conservation Biology and conservation organizations.     

Priorities for Improving the Scientific Foundation of Conservation Policy in North America

Abstract:  The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) can enhance conservation of biodiversity in North America by increasing its engagement in public policy. Toward this end, the North America Section of SCB is establishing partnerships with other professional organizations in order to speak more powerfully to decision makers and taking other actions—such as increasing interaction with chapters—geared to engage members more substantively in science-policy issues. Additionally, the section is developing a North American Biodiversity Blueprint, which spans the continental United States and Canada and is informed by natural and social science. This blueprint is intended to clarify the policy challenges for protecting continental biodiversity, to foster bilateral collaboration to resolve common problems, and to suggest rational alternative policies and practices that are more likely than current practices to sustain North America's natural heritage. Conservation scientists and practitioners can play a key role by drawing policy makers' attention to ultimate, as well as proximate, causes of biodiversity decline and to the ecological and economic consequences of not addressing these threats.     

Relationship between conservation biology and ecology shown through machine reading of 32,000 articles

Conservation biology was founded on the idea that efforts to save nature depend on a scientific understanding of how it works. It sought to apply ecological principles to conservation problems. We investigated whether the relationship between these fields has changed over time through machine reading the full texts of 32,000 research articles published in 16 ecology and conservation biology journals. We examined changes in research topics in both fields and how the fields have evolved from 2000 to 2014. As conservation biology matured, its focus shifted from ecology to social and political aspects of conservation. The 2 fields diverged and now occupy distinct niches in modern science. We hypothesize this pattern resulted from increasing recognition that social, economic, and political factors are critical for successful conservation and possibly from rising skepticism about the relevance of contemporary ecological theory to practical conservation.     

Planning for Long, Wide Conservation Corridors on Private Lands in the Oak Ridges Moraine, Ontario, Canada

Abstract:  We explored the role of conservation biology in the planning of a natural-heritage system that includes long, wide conservation corridors situated primarily on private lands, and established to connect natural core areas in the Oak Ridges Moraine of Ontario, Canada. We based our review on government documents, semi-structured interviews with participants involved in this land-use planning process, and our involvement with the issue from 1990 through 2002. Conservation biology had a major influence on the outcome of the land-use planning process for this moraine. The landform was identified as an area of value by the environmental movement within the context of a number of ongoing government studies that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Conservation biologists and planners in government, the environmental movement, and the private sector carried out work related to conservation biology, including inventories and the development and application of criteria for the delineation of core areas and conservation corridors. Once the political timing was favorable (2001–2002), decision makers linked the science of conservation biology to planning policies and law in Ontario. The Oak Ridges Moraine land-use planning process was precedent setting in Canada, and possibly internationally. To our knowledge this is the first time long, wide conservation corridors on private lands were regulated through land-use-planning legislation and led to restrictions on urban development and aggregate resource extraction.     

The value of virtual conferencing for ecology and conservation

The objectives of conservation science and dissemination of its research create a paradox: Conservation is about preserving the environment, yet scientists spread this message at conferences with heavy carbon footprints. Ecology and conservation science depend on global knowledge exchange—getting the best science to the places it is most needed. However, conference attendance from developed countries typically outweighs that from developing countries that are biodiversity and conservation hotspots. If any branch of science should be trying to maximize participation while minimizing carbon emissions, it is conservation. Virtual conferencing is common in other disciplines, such as education and humanities, but it is surprisingly underused in ecology and conservation. Adopting virtual conferencing entails a number of challenges, including logistics and unified acceptance, which we argue can be overcome through planning and technology. We examined 4 conference models: a pure‐virtual model and 3 hybrid hub‐and‐node models, where hubs stream content to local nodes. These models collectively aim to mitigate the logistical and administrative challenges of global knowledge transfer. Embracing virtual conferencing addresses 2 essential prerequisites of modern conferences: lowering carbon emissions and increasing accessibility for remote, time‐ and resource‐poor researchers, particularly those from developing countries.     

Conservation Science and Forest Service Policy for Roadless Areas

Abstract:  Questions persist regarding whether the science of conservation biology can successfully affect environmental decision making. One of the most prominent fields of intersection between conservation science and environmental policy is public-lands debates in the United States. I reviewed the role of conservation science in the roadless-area policies of the U.S. Forest Service. Since 1971, the Forest Service has systematically evaluated roadless areas on national forests three times, most recently during the Clinton administration's Roadless Area Conservation Review (1998–2000) ( U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2000b ). Drawing on the agency's environmental impact statements and supporting documents and the internal records of conservation organizations, I examined the changing goals, methodology, and outcome of roadless-area advocacy and policy. Since the 1970s, conservation science has successfully informed public and administrative concern for roadless-area protection. Conservation science has transformed public discourse regarding roadless areas and has changed the scope and rationale of national conservation organizations' goals for roadless-area policy from protecting some to protecting all remaining national forest roadless areas. The Forest Service has increasingly drawn on the lessons of conservation biology to justify its methodology and its administrative recommendations to protect roadless areas. The 2000 Roadless Area Conservation Review resulted in a recommendation to protect all remaining national forest roadless areas, up from 22% of roadless areas in the first roadless review. Despite the scientific merits of recent roadless-area advocacy and policy, however, such initiatives have faced political difficulties. The emphasis on large-scale, top-down, national approaches to conservation policy has rendered such policies politically problematic.     

A Science for Survival: Values and Conservation Biology

Practice of conservation biology that does not actively and continuously question the values that shape it is self-defeating: Conservation biology is inescapably normative. Advocacy for the preservation of biodiversity is part of the scientific practice of conservation biology. If the editorial policy of or the publications in Conservation Biology direct the discipline toward an "objective, value-free" approach, then they do not educate and transform society but rather narrow the focus to the "object of knowledge" (be this species, gene pools, landscapes, or ecosystems). To pretend that the acquisition of "positive knowledge" alone will avert mass extinctions is misguided. Conservation biologists should reflect on the constitutive values (especially contextual, but also methodological and bias) underlying their research programs and policy recommendations. Such reflection is itself an inherent element of scientific objectivity and takes into account the social nature of scientific knowledge. Without openly acknowledging such a perspective, conservation biology could become merely a subdiscipline of biology, intellectually and functionally sterile and incapable of averting an anthropogenic mass extinction.     

Michael Soulé (1936–2020) on spirituality,ethics, and conservation biology

Michael Soulé is best known for his scientific contributions and central role in founding the Society for Conservation Biology and its flagship journal. Less well known are his childhood experiences, his affinity for Zen Buddhism and Arne Naess’ deep ecology philosophy, and his contributions as an environmental activist to efforts to protect biodiversity and rewild ecosystems. Also less well known is the extent to which he was an interdisciplinary environmental studies scholar, struggling to understand what promotes and hinders proenvironmental behaviors. In this regard, his life and that of many other conservation scientists provide important clues, but no easy answers. By attempting to integrate the humanities, with its quest for a meaningful and fulfilling human existence, with naturalistic nature spirituality and ecocentric values, as well as the social and natural sciences, Soulé sought to solve the riddle as to why human beings seemed unable to understand, slow, and halt negative anthropogenic environmental change. He thus modeled what interdisciplinary environmental studies is at its best. Those advocating the conservation of biological diversity have much to learn from Michael Soulé, not only from his scientific findings but also from his way of seeing, the questions he asked, and his love of the living world.     

Importance of deepening integration of crime and conservation sciences

Conservation crime is a globally distributed societal problem. Conservation crime science, an emerging interdisciplinary field, has the potential to help address this problem. However, its utility depends on serious reflection on the transposition of crime science approaches to conservation contexts, which may differ in meaningful ways from traditional crime contexts. We considered the breadth of crime science approaches being used in conservation as well as the depth of crime science integration in conservation. We used the case of sea cucumber (Holothuria floridana, Isostichopus badionotus) trafficking in Mexico as an example of why the interdisciplinarity of crime and conservation sciences should be deepened and how integration can help ideate new solutions. We first conducted a review of literature to capture the range of interdisciplinarity applications. We identified 6 crime science approaches being applied to the conservation contexts of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; wildlife and plant crime; and illegal logging. We then compared this knowledge base to the case of illegal sea cucumber fishing in Mexico. We identified 5 challenges in the application of these approaches to conservation contexts: the relative diffusion of harms and victims in conservation crimes; scalar mismatches in crime, authority, and the conservation issue itself; interactions between legal and illegal networks; communities and their authority to define and control crime; and the role of natural science in the rule of law. Considering these 5 factors may enhance the depth of interdisciplinarity between crime and conservation sciences. Nurturing interdisciplinary crime and conservation science will expand innovation and help accelerate successful risk management programs and other policy agendas.     

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

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

On allegations of invasive species denialism

Science denialism retards evidenced-based policy and practice and should be challenged. It has been a particular concern for mitigating global environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change. But allegations of science denialism must also be well founded and evidential or they risk eroding public trust in science and scientists. Recently, 77 published works by scholars, scientists, and science writers were identified as containing invasive species denialism (ISD; i.e., rejection of well-supported facts about invasive species, particularly the global scientific consensus about their negative impacts). We reevaluated 75 of these works but could find no examples of refutation of scientific facts and only 5 articles with text perhaps consistent with one of the 5 characteristics of science denialism. We found, therefore, that allegations of ISD were misplaced. These accusations of science denialism may have arisen because invasion biology defines its subjects—invasive species—based on multiple subjective and normative judgments. Thus, more than other applied sciences its consensus is one of shared values as much as agreed knowledge. Criticisms of invasion biology have largely targeted those subjective and normative judgments and their global imposition, not the knowledge on which the discipline is based. Regrettably, a few invasion biologists have misinterpreted the critique of their values-based consensus as a denial of their science when it is not. To make invasion biology a more robust and widely accepted science and to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and conflicts, invasion biologists could be more accepting of perspectives originating from other disciplines and more open to values-based critique from scholars and scientists outside their field. This recommendation applies to all conservation sciences, especially those addressing global challenges, because these sciences must serve and be relevant to communities with an extraordinary diversity of cultures and values.     

Armageddon Versus Extinction

Note from the Editor : Some readers may feel that topics such as politics and religion are inappropriate for a scientific journal. Our "Conservation in Context" column, however, is intended to cover the entire spectrum of the context within which the science of conservation biology must operate. Thus, we freely and openly explore topics in this column that ordinarily are not addressed in scientific journals, to better understand the real-world constraints and opportunities that define how conservation science is applied in a complex world.     

On nonepistemic values in conservation biology

Conservation biology is a uniquely interdisciplinary science with strong roots in ecology, but it also embraces a value‐laden and mission‐oriented framework. This combination of science and values causes conservation biology to be at the center of critique regarding the discipline's scientific credibility—especially the division between the realms of theory and practice. We identify this dichotomy between seemingly objective (fact‐based) and subjective (value‐laden) practices as the measure‐value dichotomy, whereby measure refers to methods and analyses used in conservation biology (i.e., measuring biodiversity) and value refers to nonepistemic values. We reviewed and evaluated several landmark articles central to the foundation of conservation biology and concepts of biodiversity with respect to their attempts to separate measures and values. We argue that the measure‐value dichotomy is false and that conservation biology can make progress in ways unavailable to other disciplines because its practitioners are tasked with engaging in both the realm of theory and the realm of practice. The entanglement of measures and values is by no means a weakness of conservation biology. Because central concepts such as biodiversity contain both factual and evaluative aspects, conservation biologists can make theoretical progress by examining, reviewing, and forming the values that are an integral part of those concepts. We suggest that values should be included and analyzed with respect to the methods, results, and conclusions of scientific work in conservation biology.