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.     

Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science

The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.     

Conservation Planning as a Transdisciplinary Process

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

Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary

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

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.     

Facilitating biodiversity conservation through partnerships to achieve transformative outcomes

Conservation biology is a mission-driven discipline that must navigate a new relationship between conservation and science. Because conservation is a social and political as well as an ecological project, conservation biologists must practice interdisciplinarity and collaboration. In a comparative study of 7 cases (Jaguars in the Chaco, Grevy's zebra in Kenya, Beekeeping in Tanzania, Andean cats in Argentina, Jaguars in Mexico, Lobster fishing, and Black bears in Mexico), we examined motivations for collaboration in conservation, who can collaborate in conservation, and how conservation professionals can work well together. In 5 case studies, successful conservation outcomes were prioritized over livelihood benefits. In the other 2 cases, livelihoods were prioritized. All case studies employed participatory approaches. There were multiple external actors, including local and Indigenous communities, nongovernmental organizations, agencies, regional and national governments, and international organizations, which enhanced conservation and wider sustainability outcomes. Key collaboration aspects considered across the case studies were time (mismatch between relationship building and project schedules), trust required for meaningful partnerships, tools employed, and transformative potential for people, nature, and the discipline of conservation biology. We developed guidelines for successful collaboration, including long-term commitment, knowledge integration, multiscalar and plural approaches, cultivation of trust, appropriate engagement, evaluation, supporting students, and efforts for transformation.     

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.     

Enhancement of conservation knowledge through increased access to botanical information

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

How Research‐Prioritization Exercises Affect Conservation Policy

Abstract: Conservation scientists are concerned about the apparent lack of impact their research is having on policy. By better aligning research with policy needs, conservation science might become more relevant to policy and increase its real‐world salience in the conservation of biological diversity. Consequently, some conservation scientists have embarked on a variety of exercises to identify research questions that, if answered, would provide the evidence base with which to develop and implement effective conservation policies. I synthesized two existing approaches to conceptualizing research impacts. One widely used approach classifies the impacts of research as conceptual, instrumental, and symbolic. Conceptual impacts occur when policy makers are sensitized to new issues and change their beliefs or thinking. Instrumental impacts arise when scientific research has a direct effect on policy decisions. The use of scientific research results to support established policy positions are symbolic impacts. The second approach classifies research issues according to whether scientific knowledge is developed fully and whether the policy issue has been articulated clearly. I believe exercises to identify important research questions have objectives of increasing the clarity of policy issues while strengthening science–policy interactions. This may facilitate the transmission of scientific knowledge to policy makers and, potentially, accelerate the development and implementation of effective conservation policy. Other, similar types of exercises might also be useful. For example, identification of visionary science questions independent of current policy needs, prioritization of best practices for transferring scientific knowledge to policy makers, and identification of questions about human values and their role in political processes could all help advance real‐world conservation science. It is crucial for conservation scientists to understand the wide variety of ways in which their research can affect policy and be improved systematically.     

Harnessing the potential of integrated systematics for conservation of taxonomically complex,megadiverse plant groups

The value of natural history collections for conservation science research is increasingly recognized, despite their well-documented limitations in terms of taxonomic, geographic, and temporal coverage. Specimen-based analyses are particularly important for tropical plant groups for which field observations are scarce and potentially unreliable due to high levels of diversity-amplifying identification challenges. Specimen databases curated by specialists are rich sources of authoritatively identified, georeferenced occurrence data, and such data are urgently needed for large genera. We compared entries in a monographic database for the large Neotropical genus Myrcia in 2007 and 2017. We classified and quantified differences in specimen records over this decade and determined the potential impact of these changes on conservation assessments. We distinguished misidentifications from changes due to taxonomic remodeling and considered the effects of adding specimens and georeferences. We calculated the potential impact of each change on estimates of extent of occurrence (EOO), the most frequently used metric in extinction-risk assessments of tropical plants. We examined whether particular specimen changes were associated with species for which changes in EOO over the decade were large enough to change their conservation category. Corrections to specimens previously misidentified or lacking georeferences were overrepresented in such species, whereas changes associated with taxonomic remodeling (lumping and splitting) were underrepresented. Among species present in both years, transitions to less threatened status outnumbered those to more threatened (8% vs 3%, respectively). Species previously deemed data deficient transitioned to threatened status more often than to not threatened (10% vs 7%, respectively). Conservation scientists risk reaching unreliable conclusions if they use specimen databases that are not actively curated to reflect changing knowledge.     

Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science–practice interface in ecology and conservation

The debate in the literature on the science–practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.     

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.     

Improving inferences about private land conservation by accounting for incomplete reporting

Private lands provide key habitat for imperiled species and are core components of function protectected area networks; yet, their incorporation into national and regional conservation planning has been challenging. Identifying locations where private landowners are likely to participate in conservation initiatives can help avoid conflict and clarify trade-offs between ecological benefits and sociopolitical costs. Empirical, spatially explicit assessment of the factors associated with conservation on private land is an emerging tool for identifying future conservation opportunities. However, most data on private land conservation are voluntarily reported and incomplete, which complicates these assessments. We used a novel application of occupancy models to analyze the occurrence of conservation easements on private land. We compared multiple formulations of occupancy models with a logistic regression model to predict the locations of conservation easements based on a spatially explicit social–ecological systems framework. We combined a simulation experiment with a case study of easement data in Idaho and Montana (United States) to illustrate the utility of the occupancy framework for modeling conservation on private land. Occupancy models that explicitly accounted for variation in reporting produced estimates of predictors that were substantially less biased than estimates produced by logistic regression under all simulated conditions. Occupancy models produced estimates for the 6 predictors we evaluated in our case study that were larger in magnitude, but less certain than those produced by logistic regression. These results suggest that occupancy models result in qualitatively different inferences regarding the effects of predictors on conservation easement occurrence than logistic regression and highlight the importance of integrating variable and incomplete reporting of participation in empirical analysis of conservation initiatives. Failure to do so can lead to emphasizing the wrong social, institutional, and environmental factors that enable conservation and underestimating conservation opportunities in landscapes where social norms or institutional constraints inhibit reporting.     

Modeling genetic benefits and financial costs of integrating biobanking into the conservation breeding of managed marsupials

Managed breeding programs are an important tool in marsupial conservation efforts but may be costly and have adverse genetic effects in unavoidably small captive colonies. Biobanking and assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) could help overcome these challenges, but further demonstration of their potential is required to improve uptake. We used genetic and economic models to examine whether supplementing hypothetical captive populations of dibblers (Parantechinus apicalis) and numbats (Myrmecobius fasciatus) with biobanked founder sperm through ARTs could reduce inbreeding, lower required colony sizes, and reduce program costs. We also asked practitioners of the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) captive recovery program to complete a questionnaire to examine the resources and model species research pathways required to develop an optimized biobanking protocol in the black-footed ferret. We used data from this questionnaire to devise similar costed research pathways for Australian marsupials. With biobanking and assisted reproduction, inbreeding was reduced on average by between 80% and 98%, colony sizes were on average 99% smaller, and program costs were 69- to 83-fold lower. Integrating biobanking made long-standing captive genetic retention targets possible in marsupials (90% source population heterozygosity for a minimum of 100 years) within realistic cost frameworks. Lessons from the use of biobanking technology that contributed to the recovery of the black-footed ferret include the importance of adequate research funding (US$4.2 million), extensive partnerships that provide access to facilities and equipment, colony animals, appropriate research model species, and professional and technical staff required to address knowledge gaps to deliver an optimized biobanking protocol. Applied research investment of A$133 million across marsupial research pathways could deliver biobanking protocols for 15 of Australia's most at-risk marsupial species and 7 model species. The technical expertise and ex situ facilities exist to emulate the success of the black-footed ferret recovery program in threatened marsupials using these research pathways. All that is needed now for significant and cost-effective conservation gains is greater investment by policy makers in marsupial ARTs.     

Extinction risk of the endemic vascular flora of Kauai,Hawaii, based on IUCN assessments

The International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN Red List) is the world's most comprehensive information source on the global conservation status of species. Governmental agencies and conservation organizations increasingly rely on IUCN Red List assessments to develop conservation policies and priorities. Funding agencies use the assessments as evaluation criteria, and researchers use meta-analysis of red-list data to address fundamental and applied conservation science questions. However, the circa 143,000 IUCN assessments represent a fraction of the world's biodiversity and are biased in regional and organismal coverage. These biases may affect conservation priorities, funding, and uses of these data to understand global patterns. Isolated oceanic islands are characterized by high endemicity, but the unique biodiversity of many islands is experiencing high extinction rates. The archipelago of Hawaii has one of the highest levels of endemism of any floristic region; 90% of its 1367 native vascular plant taxa are classified as endemic. We used the IUCN's assessment of the complete single-island endemic (SIE) vascular plant flora of Kauai, Hawaii, to assess the proportion and drivers of decline of threatened plants in an oceanic island setting. We compared the IUCN assessments with federal, state, and other local assessments of Kauai species or taxa of conservation concern. Finally, we conducted a preliminary assessment for all 1044 native vascular plants of Hawaii based on IUCN criterion B by estimating area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, and number of locations to determine whether the pattern found for the SIE vascular flora of Kauai is comparable to the native vascular flora of the Hawaiian Islands. We compared our results with patterns observed for assessments of other floras. According to IUCN, 256 SIE vascular plant taxa are threatened with extinction and 5% are already extinct. This is the highest extinction risk reported for any flora to date. The preliminary assessment of the native vascular flora of Hawaii showed that 72% (753 taxa) is threatened. The flora of Hawaii may be one of the world's most threatened; thus, increased and novel conservation measures in the state and on other remote oceanic islands are urgently needed.     

Wildlife collection for scientific purposes

Illegal transfer of wildlife has 2 main purposes: trade and scientific research. Trade is the most common, whereas scientific research is much less common and unprofitable, yet still important. Biopiracy in science is often neglected despite that many researchers encounter it during their careers. The use of illegally acquired specimens is detected in different research fields, from scientists bioprospecting for new pharmacological substances, to taxonomists working on natural history collections, to researchers working in zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens. The practice can be due to a lack of knowledge about the permit requirements in different countries or, probably most often, to the generally high level of bureaucracy associated with rule compliance. Significant regulatory filters to avoid biopiracy can be provided by different stakeholders. Natural history collection hosts should adopt strict codes of conduct; editors of scientific publications should require authors to declare that all studied specimens were acquired legally and to cite museum catalog numbers as guarantee of best practices. Scientific societies should actively encourage publication in peer-reviewed journals of work in which specimens collected from the wild were used. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature could require newly designated types based on recently collected specimens to be accompanied by statements of deposition in recognized scientific or educational institutions. We also propose the creation of an online platform that gathers information about environmental regulations and permits required for scientific activities in different countries and respective responsible governmental agencies and the simplification of the bureaucracy related to regulating scientific activities. This would make regulations more agile and easier to comply with. The global biodiversity crisis means data need to be collected ever faster, but biopiracy is not the answer and undermines the credibility of science and researchers. It is critical to find a modus vivendi that promotes compliance with regulations and scientific progress.     

Practical guide to coproduction in conservation science

We considered a series of conservation-related research projects on the island of Pemba, Tanzania, to reflect on the broad significance of Beier et al.’s recommendations for linking conservation science with practical conservation outcomes. The implementation of just some of their suggestions can advance a successful coproduction of actionable science by small research teams. Key elements include, first, scientists and managers working together in the field to ensure feedback in real time; second, questions jointly identified by managers and researchers to facilitate engaged collaboration; third, conducting research at multiple sites, thereby broadening managers’ abilities to reach multiple stakeholders; and fourth, establishing a multidisciplinary team because most of the concerns of local managers require input from multiple disciplines.     

The value, limitations, and challenges of employing local experts in conservation research

Abstract: Evidence suggests that the involvement of local people in conservation work increases a project's chances of success. Involving citizen scientists in research, however, raises questions about data quality. As a tool to better assess potential participants for conservation projects, we developed a knowledge gradient, K, along which community members occupy different positions on the basis of their experience with and knowledge of a research subject. This gradient can be used to refine the citizen–science concept and allow researchers to differentiate between community members with expert knowledge and those with little knowledge. We propose that work would benefit from the inclusion of select local experts because it would allow researchers to harness the benefits of local involvement while maintaining or improving data quality. We used a case study from the DeHoop Nature Preserve, South Africa, in which we conducted multiple interviews, identified and employed a local expert animal tracker, evaluated the expert's knowledge, and analyzed the data collected by the expert. The expert animal tracker J.J. created his own sampling design and gathered data on mammals. He patrolled 4653 km in 214 days and recorded 4684 mammals. He worked from a central location, and his patrols formed overlapping loops; however, his data proved neither spatially nor temporally autocorrelated. The distinctive data collected by J.J. are consistent with the notion that involving local experts can produce reliable data. We developed a conceptual model to help identify the appropriate participants for a given project on the basis of research budget, knowledge or skills needed, technical literacy requirements, and scope of the project.     

Developing shared qualitative models for complex systems

Understanding complex systems is essential to ensure their conservation and effective management. Models commonly support understanding of complex ecological systems and, by extension, their conservation. Modeling, however, is largely a social process constrained by individuals’ mental models (i.e., a small-scale internal model of how a part of the world works based on knowledge, experience, values, beliefs, and assumptions) and system complexity. To account for both system complexity and the diversity of knowledge of complex systems, we devised a novel way to develop a shared qualitative complex system model. We disaggregated a system (carbonate coral reefs) into smaller subsystem modules that each represented a functioning unit, about which an individual is likely to have more comprehensive knowledge. This modular approach allowed us to elicit an individual mental model of a defined subsystem for which the individuals had a higher level of confidence in their knowledge of the relationships between variables. The challenge then was to bring these subsystem models together to form a complete, shared model of the entire system, which we attempted through 4 phases: develop the system framework and subsystem modules; develop the individual mental model elicitation methods; elicit the mental models; and identify and isolate differences for exploration and identify similarities to cocreate a shared qualitative model. The shared qualitative model provides opportunities to develop a quantitative model to understand and predict complex system change.     

Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people

Social science is becoming increasingly important in conservation, with more studies involving methodologies that collect data from and about people. Conservation science is a normative and applied discipline designed to support and inform management and practice. Poor research practice risks harming participants and, researchers, and can leave negative legacies. Often, those at the forefront of field-based research are early-career researchers, many of whom enter their first research experience ill-prepared for the ethical conundrums they may face. We draw on our own experiences as early-career researchers to illuminate how ethical challenges arise during conservation research that involves human participants. Specifically, we considered ethical review procedures, conflicts of values, and power relations, and devised broad recommendations on how to navigate ethical challenges when they arise during research. In particular, we recommend researchers apply reflexivity (i.e., thinking that allows researchers to recognize the effect researchers have on the research) to help navigate ethical challenges and encourage greater engagement with ethical review processes and the development of ethical guidelines for conservation research that involves human participants. Such guidelines must be accompanied by the integration of rigorous ethical training into conservation education. We believe our experiences are not uncommon and can be avoided and hope to spark discussion to contribute to a more socially just conservation.