Sustainability: a Dissent

Abstract:  Broadly conceived and considered in its many usages, sustainability has grave defects as a planning goal, particularly when used by conservationists: it confuses means and ends; it is vague about what is being sustained and who or what is doing the sustaining; it is uninspiring; it is little more than Pinchot-era conservation (and thus ignores the many lessons learned since then); it need not be linked to land, to the land's functioning, or to any ecological science; it need not include a moral component; it is consistent with the view of humans as all-powerful manipulators of the planet; and, in general, it is such a malleable term that its popularity provides only a facade of consensus. When sustainability is defined broadly to include the full range of economic and social aspirations, it poses the particular risk that ecological and biodiversity concerns will be cast aside in favor of more pressing human wants. Given these many defects, the conservation movement should discard the term in favor of a more alluring goal, attentive to nature and its ecological functioning. A sound goal would incorporate and distill the considerable ecological and moral wisdom accumulated since Pinchot's day while giving conservationists the rhetorical tools needed to defend the land against competing pressures. In our view, conservation would be well served by an updated variant of "land health," Aldo Leopold's ecologically grounded goal from the 1940s. Land health as an independent understanding should set the essential terms of how we live and enjoy the earth, providing the framework within which we pursue our many social and economic aims.     

Assessing the shelf life of cost‐efficient conservation plans for species at risk across gradients of agricultural land use

High costs of land in agricultural regions warrant spatial prioritization approaches to conservation that explicitly consider land prices to produce protected‐area networks that accomplish targets efficiently. However, land‐use changes in such regions and delays between plan design and implementation may render optimized plans obsolete before implementation occurs. To measure the shelf life of cost‐efficient conservation plans, we simulated a land‐acquisition and restoration initiative aimed at conserving species at risk in Canada's farmlands. We accounted for observed changes in land‐acquisition costs and in agricultural intensity based on censuses of agriculture taken from 1986 to 2011. For each year of data, we mapped costs and areas of conservation priority designated using Marxan. We compared plans to test for changes through time in the arrangement of high‐priority sites and in the total cost of each plan. For acquisition costs, we measured the savings from accounting for prices during site selection. Land‐acquisition costs and land‐use intensity generally rose over time independent of inflation (24–78%), although rates of change were heterogeneous through space and decreased in some areas. Accounting for spatial variation in land price lowered the cost of conservation plans by 1.73–13.9%, decreased the range of costs by 19–82%, and created unique solutions from which to choose. Despite the rise in plan costs over time, the high conservation priority of particular areas remained consistent. Delaying conservation in these critical areas may compromise what optimized conservation plans can achieve. In the case of Canadian farmland, rapid conservation action is cost‐effective, even with moderate levels of uncertainty in how to implement restoration goals.     

Incorporating basic needs to reconcile poverty and ecosystem services

Conservation managers frequently face the challenge of protecting and sustaining biodiversity without producing detrimental outcomes for (often poor) human populations that depend on ecosystem services for their well-being. However, mutually beneficial solutions are often elusive and can mask trade-offs and negative outcomes for people. To deal with such trade-offs, ecological and social thresholds need to be identified to determine the acceptable solution space for conservation. Although human well-being as a concept has recently gained prominence, conservationists still lack tools to evaluate how their actions affect it in a given context. We applied the theory of human needs to conservation by building on an extensive historical application of need approaches in international development. In an innovative participatory method that included focus groups and household surveys, we evaluated how human needs are met based on locally relevant thresholds. We then established connections between human needs and ecosystem services through key-informant focus groups. We applied our method in coastal East Africa to identify households that would not be able to meet their basic needs and to uncover the role of ecosystem services in meeting these. This enabled us to identify how benefits derived from the environment were contributing to meeting basic needs and to consider potential repercussions that could arise through changes to ecosystem service provision. We suggest our approach can help conservationists and planners balance poverty alleviation and biodiversity protection and ensure conservation measures do not, at the very least, cause serious harm to individuals. We further argue it can be used as a basis for monitoring the impacts of conservation on multidimensional poverty.     

Transforming ecology and conservation biology through genome editing

As the conservation challenges increase, new approaches are needed to help combat losses in biodiversity and slow or reverse the decline of threatened species. Genome-editing technology is changing the face of modern biology, facilitating applications that were unimaginable only a decade ago. The technology has the potential to make significant contributions to the fields of evolutionary biology, ecology, and conservation, yet the fear of unintended consequences from designer ecosystems containing engineered organisms has stifled innovation. To overcome this gap in the understanding of what genome editing is and what its capabilities are, more research is needed to translate genome-editing discoveries into tools for ecological research. Emerging and future genome-editing technologies include new clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) targeted sequencing and nucleic acid detection approaches as well as species genetic barcoding and somatic genome-editing technologies. These genome-editing tools have the potential to transform the environmental sciences by providing new noninvasive methods for monitoring threatened species or for enhancing critical adaptive traits. A pioneering effort by the conservation community is required to apply these technologies to real-world conservation problems.     

How Broad-Scale Studies of Patterns and Processes Can Serve to Guide Conservation Planning in Africa

Abstract:  Analysis of large-scale biodiversity patterns can uncover general relationships and problems that need to be taken into account when conservation strategies are developed. Nevertheless, these large-scale patterns need to be supplemented with information from local studies that can identify specific problems and determine how the land can be divided between conservation and development interests. I analyzed biodiversity patterns at three different scales to show how various scales of research contributed to conservation planning. A gap analysis for all of sub-Saharan Africa revealed that the network of wildlife reserves provides insufficient protection of narrowly endemic and threatened species, mainly because such species are aggregated in certain areas with dense human populations. A more fine-grained analysis of the distribution of forest birds of eastern Africa generally confirmed the results obtained with coarse-scale data and added precision by identifying forest tracts where conservation actions should be concentrated. Detailed local distribution data for one of the prioritized areas, the Uluguru Mountains in Tanzania, suggest that the actions to halt the loss of biodiversity should be concentrated in the submontane zone, immediately adjacent to densely populated areas. To achieve conservation on the ground, these general planning tools must be supplemented with other kinds of research concerning land-use and local knowledge and with approaches that promote more sustainable development. Different types of institutions will be needed for these different tasks, but it is essential that researchers maintain a dialogue with planners in this area .     

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.     

Transferability of Species Distribution Models: a Functional Habitat Approach for Two Regionally Threatened Butterflies

Abstract:  Numerous models for predicting species distribution have been developed for conservation purposes. Most of them make use of environmental data (e.g., climate, topography, land use) at a coarse grid resolution (often kilometres). Such approaches are useful for conservation policy issues including reserve-network selection. The efficiency of predictive models for species distribution is usually tested on the area for which they were developed. Although highly interesting from the point of view of conservation efficiency, transferability of such models to independent areas is still under debate. We tested the transferability of habitat-based predictive distribution models for two regionally threatened butterflies, the green hairstreak ( Callophrys rubi ) and the grayling ( Hipparchia semele ), within and among three nature reserves in northeastern Belgium. We built predictive models based on spatially detailed maps of area-wide distribution and density of ecological resources. We used resources directly related to ecological functions (host plants, nectar sources, shelter, microclimate) rather than environmental surrogate variables. We obtained models that performed well with few resource variables. All models were transferable—although to different degrees—among the independent areas within the same broad geographical region. We argue that habitat models based on essential functional resources could transfer better in space than models that use indirect environmental variables. Because functional variables can easily be interpreted and even be directly affected by terrain managers, these models can be useful tools to guide species-adapted reserve management.     

Striking a Balance between Biodiversity Conservation and Socioeconomic Viability in the Design of Marine Protected Areas

Abstract: The establishment of marine protected areas is often viewed as a conflict between conservation and fishing. We considered consumptive and nonconsumptive interests of multiple stakeholders (i.e., fishers, scuba divers, conservationists, managers, scientists) in the systematic design of a network of marine protected areas along California's central coast in the context of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. With advice from managers, administrators, and scientists, a representative group of stakeholders defined biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic goals that accommodated social needs and conserved marine ecosystems, consistent with legal requirements. To satisfy biodiversity goals, we targeted 11 marine habitats across 5 depth zones, areas of high species diversity, and areas containing species of special status. We minimized adverse socioeconomic impacts by minimizing negative effects on fishers. We included fine‐scale fishing data from the recreational and commercial fishing sectors across 24 fisheries. Protected areas designed with consideration of commercial and recreational fisheries reduced potential impact to the fisheries approximately 21% more than protected areas designed without consideration of fishing effort and resulted in a small increase in the total area protected (approximately 3.4%). We incorporated confidential fishing data without revealing the identity of specific fisheries or individual fishing grounds. We sited a portion of the protected areas near land parks, marine laboratories, and scientific monitoring sites to address nonconsumptive socioeconomic goals. Our results show that a stakeholder‐driven design process can use systematic conservation‐planning methods to successfully produce options for network design that satisfy multiple conservation and socioeconomic objectives. Marine protected areas that incorporate multiple stakeholder interests without compromising biodiversity conservation goals are more likely to protect marine ecosystems.     

Case studies of conservation plans that incorporate geodiversity

Geodiversity has been used as a surrogate for biodiversity when species locations are unknown, and this utility can be extended to situations where species locations are in flux. Recently, scientists have designed conservation networks that aim to explicitly represent the range of geophysical environments, identifying a network of physical stages that could sustain biodiversity while allowing for change in species composition in response to climate change. Because there is no standard approach to designing such networks, we compiled 8 case studies illustrating a variety of ways scientists have approached the challenge. These studies show how geodiversity has been partitioned and used to develop site portfolios and connectivity designs; how geodiversity‐based portfolios compare with those derived from species and communities; and how the selection and combination of variables influences the results. Collectively, they suggest 4 key steps when using geodiversity to augment traditional biodiversity‐based conservation planning: create land units from species‐relevant variables combined in an ecologically meaningful way; represent land units in a logical spatial configuration and integrate with species locations when possible; apply selection criteria to individual sites to ensure they are appropriate for conservation; and develop connectivity among sites to maintain movements and processes. With these considerations, conservationists can design more effective site portfolios to ensure the lasting conservation of biodiversity under a changing climate.     

The virtue of compassion in compassionate conservation

The role of ethics is becoming an increasingly important feature of biodiversity conservation dialogue and practice. Compassionate conservationists argue for a prohibition of, or at least a strong presumption against, the adoption of conservation policies that intentionally harm animals. They assert that to be compassionate is to care about animals and that it is antithetical to caring for animals to intentionally harm them. Compassionate conservationists thus criticize many existing conservation practices and policies. Two things together challenge the philosophical foundation of compassionate conservation. First, compassionate conservationists ground their theory in virtue ethics, yet virtue ethics permits exceptions to moral rules, so there cannot be an in-principle prohibition on adopting intentional harm-inducing policies and practices. But not all compassionate conservationists advocate for a prohibition on intentionally harming animals, only a strong presumption against it. This leads to the second point: compassion can motivate a person to adopt a harm-inducing conservation policy or practice when doing so is the best available option in a situation in which animals will be harmed no matter what policy or practice is adopted. Combining these insights with the empirical observation that conservationists regularly find themselves in tragic situations, we arrive at the conclusion that conservationists may regularly advocate for harm-inducing policies and practices from a position of compassion. Article Impact Statement: Compassionate conservationists should accept that the virtuously compassionate person may adopt harm-causing conservation policies.     

Aligning science and policy to achieve evolutionarily enlightened conservation

There is increasing recognition among conservation scientists that long‐term conservation outcomes could be improved through better integration of evolutionary theory into management practices. Despite concerns that the importance of key concepts emerging from evolutionary theory (i.e., evolutionary principles and processes) are not being recognized by managers, there has been little effort to determine the level of integration of evolutionary theory into conservation policy and practice. We assessed conservation policy at 3 scales (international, national, and provincial) on 3 continents to quantify the degree to which key evolutionary concepts, such as genetic diversity and gene flow, are being incorporated into conservation practice. We also evaluated the availability of clear guidance within the applied evolutionary biology literature as to how managers can change their management practices to achieve better conservation outcomes. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of maintaining genetic diversity, conservation policies provide little guidance about how this can be achieved in practice and other relevant evolutionary concepts, such as inbreeding depression, are mentioned rarely. In some cases the poor integration of evolutionary concepts into management reflects a lack of decision‐support tools in the literature. Where these tools are available, such as risk‐assessment frameworks, they are not being adopted by conservation policy makers, suggesting that the availability of a strong evidence base is not the only barrier to evolutionarily enlightened management. We believe there is a clear need for more engagement by evolutionary biologists with policy makers to develop practical guidelines that will help managers make changes to conservation practice. There is also an urgent need for more research to better understand the barriers to and opportunities for incorporating evolutionary theory into conservation practice.     

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.     

Statistical matching for conservation science

The awareness of the need for robust impact evaluations in conservation is growing and statistical matching techniques are increasingly being used to assess the impacts of conservation interventions. Used appropriately matching approaches are powerful tools, but they also pose potential pitfalls. We outlined important considerations and best practice when using matching in conservation science. We identified 3 steps in a matching analysis. First, develop a clear theory of change to inform selection of treatment and controls and that accounts for real-world complexities and potential spillover effects. Second, select the appropriate covariates and matching approach. Third, assess the quality of the matching by carrying out a series of checks. The second and third steps can be repeated and should be finalized before outcomes are explored. Future conservation impact evaluations could be improved by increased planning of evaluations alongside the intervention, better integration of qualitative methods, considering spillover effects at larger spatial scales, and more publication of preanalysis plans. Implementing these improvements will require more serious engagement of conservation scientists, practitioners, and funders to mainstream robust impact evaluations into conservation. We hope this article will improve the quality of evaluations and help direct future research to continue to improve the approaches on offer.     

Making the Leap from Researcher to Planner: Lessons from Avian Conservation Planning in the Dominican Republic

Abstract: As research biologists move into conservation biology, especially in foreign countries, providing support for conservation planning efforts presents unique challenges. Published accounts of national, multidisciplinary planning efforts and priority setting for avian conservation are not common. I describe the process and results of a broad-based, grassroots-oriented avian conservation planning workshop held in the Dominican Republic in which we designed a coordinated strategy for avian conservation in the country. The planning process sought to (1) increase communication and cooperation among conservationists; (2) familiarize participants with resources pertinent to avian conservation; (3) encourage the transfer of information between researchers and managers; (4) promote the concepts of long-term avian monitoring, avian conservation plans, and species management plans; and (5) develop a common, multidisciplinary strategy to promote the conservation of birds in the Dominican Republic. The workshop highlighted group discussions among research biologists, managers, educators, and public policy specialists to assess avian conservation needs and priorities with respect to each discipline and has since galvanized a significant portion of the conservation community around several cooperative projects involving diverse segments of the community. Avian biologists can play a significant role in conservation efforts through a willingness to work with key players in diverse fields and to envision holistic, multidisciplinary approaches to conservation issues.     

Assessing the components of adaptive capacity to improve conservation and management efforts under global change

Natural‐resource managers and other conservation practitioners are under unprecedented pressure to categorize and quantify the vulnerability of natural systems based on assessment of the exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of species to climate change. Despite the urgent need for these assessments, neither the theoretical basis of adaptive capacity nor the practical issues underlying its quantification has been articulated in a manner that is directly applicable to natural‐resource management. Both are critical for researchers, managers, and other conservation practitioners to develop reliable strategies for assessing adaptive capacity. Drawing from principles of classical and contemporary research and examples from terrestrial, marine, plant, and animal systems, we examined broadly the theory behind the concept of adaptive capacity. We then considered how interdisciplinary, trait‐ and triage‐based approaches encompassing the oft‐overlooked interactions among components of adaptive capacity can be used to identify species and populations likely to have higher (or lower) adaptive capacity. We identified the challenges and value of such endeavors and argue for a concerted interdisciplinary research approach that combines ecology, ecological genetics, and eco‐physiology to reflect the interacting components of adaptive capacity. We aimed to provide a basis for constructive discussion between natural‐resource managers and researchers, discussions urgently needed to identify research directions that will deliver answers to real‐world questions facing resource managers, other conservation practitioners, and policy makers. Directing research to both seek general patterns and identify ways to facilitate adaptive capacity of key species and populations within species, will enable conservation ecologists and resource managers to maximize returns on research and management investment and arrive at novel and dynamic management and policy decisions.     

Lessons from other disciplines for setting management thresholds for biodiversity conservation

Successful, state-dependent management, in which the goal of management is to maintain a system in a desired state, involves defining the boundaries between different states. Once these boundaries have been defined, managers require a strategic action plan with thresholds that initiate management interventions to either maintain or return the system to a desired state. This approach to management is widely used across diverse industries from agriculture, to medicine, to information technology, but it has only been adopted in conservation management relatively recently. Conservation practitioners have expressed a willingness to integrate this structured approach in their management systems, but they have also voiced concerns, including lack of a robust process for doing so. Given the widespread use of state-dependent management in other fields, we conducted an extensive review of the literature on threshold-based management to gain insight into how and where it is applied and identify potential lessons for conservation management. We identified 22 industries using 75 different methods for setting management thresholds in 843 studies. Methods spanned six broad approaches, including expert driven, statistical, predictive, optimization, experimental, and artificial intelligence methods. The objectives of each of these studies influenced the approaches used, including the methods for setting thresholds and selecting actions, and the number of thresholds set. The role of value judgments in setting thresholds was clear; studies across all industries frequently involved experts in setting thresholds, often accompanied by computational tools to simulate the consequences of proposed thresholds under different conditions. Of the 30 conservation studies examined, two-thirds used expert-driven methods, consistent with prior evidence that experience-based information often drives conservation management decisions. The methods we identified from other disciplines could help conservation decision makers set thresholds for management interventions in different contexts, linking monitoring to management actions and ensuring that conservation interventions are timely and effective.     

Ecological Ethics: Building a New Tool Kit for Ecologists and Biodiversity Managers

Abstract:  Ecological research and biodiversity management often raise ethical questions in areas that include responsibilities and duties to the scientific community, public welfare, research animals, species, and ecosystems. Answering these questions is challenging because ecologists and biodiversity managers do not have the equivalent of bioethics, an established field with a support network focused mainly on biomedicine, to guide them in making decisions. Environmental ethics provides some insight into environmental values and the duties these may impose on humans. But for the most part those in the field have not considered many of the common responsibilities and obligations that ecologists and managers have to the scientific profession or to public welfare. There is a need to bring ethicists, scientists, and biodiversity managers together in a collaborative effort to study and inform the methods of ethical analysis and problem solving in ecological research and biodiversity management. We present a series of cases that illustrate the kinds of ethical questions faced by researchers and biodiversity managers in practice. We argue for the creation of an extensive case database and a pluralistic and integrated ethical framework, one that draws from the theoretical (normative), research, animal, and environmental ethics traditions. These tools form the foundations of a new area of inquiry and practical ethical problem solving, that we call "ecological ethics."     

The Complementary Niches of Anthropocentric and Biocentric Conservationists

A divergence of values has become apparent in recent debates between conservationists who focus on ecosystem services that can improve human well‐being and those who focus on avoiding the extinction of species. These divergent points of view fall along a continuum from anthropocentric to biocentric values, but most conservationists are relatively closer to each other than to the ends of the spectrum. We have some concerns with both positions but emphasize that conservation for both people and all other species will be most effective if conservationists focus on articulating the values they all share, being respectful of divergent values, and collaborating on common interests. The conservation arena is large enough to accommodate many people and organizations whose diverse values lead them to different niches that can, with good will and foresight, be far more complementary than competitive. Los Nichos Complementarios de los Conservacionistas Antropocéntricos y Biocéntricos