Transforming conservation science and practice for a postnormal world

We examine issues to consider when reframing conservation science and practice in the context of global change. New framings of the links between ecosystems and society are emerging that are changing peoples’ values and expectations of nature, resulting in plural perspectives on conservation. Reframing conservation for global change can thus be regarded as a stage in the evolving relationship between people and nature rather than some recent trend. New models of how conservation links with transformative adaptation include how decision contexts for conservation can be reframed and integrated with an adaptation pathways approach to create new options for global‐change‐ready conservation. New relationships for conservation science and governance include coproduction of knowledge that supports social learning. New processes for implementing adaptation for conservation outcomes include deliberate practices used to develop new strategies, shift world views, work with conflict, address power and intergenerational equity in decisions, and build consciousness and creativity that empower agents to act. We argue that reframing conservation for global change requires scientists and practitioners to implement approaches unconstrained by discipline and sectoral boundaries, geopolitical polarities, or technical problematization. We consider a stronger focus on inclusive creation of knowledge and the interaction of this knowledge with societal values and rules is likely to result in conservation science and practice that meets the challenges of a postnormal world.     

Human perspectives and conservation of grizzly bears in Banff National Park, Canada

Some conservation initiatives provoke intense conflict among stakeholders. The need for action, the nature of the conservation measures, and the effects of these measures on human interests may be disputed. Tools are needed to depolarize such situations, foster understanding of the perspectives of people involved, and find common ground. We used Q methodology to explore stakeholders' perspectives on conservation and management of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in Banff National Park and the Bow River watershed of Alberta, Canada. Twenty-nine stakeholders participated in the study, including local residents, scientists, agency employees, and representatives of nongovernmental conservation organizations and other interest groups. Participants rank ordered a set of statements to express their opinions on the problems of grizzly bear management (I-IV) and a second set of statements on possible solutions to the problems (A-C). Factor analysis revealed that participants held 4 distinct views of the problems: individuals associated with factor I emphasized deficiencies in goals and plans; those associated with factor II believed that problems had been exaggerated; those associated with factor III blamed institutional flaws such as disjointed management and inadequate resources; and individuals associated with factor IV blamed politicized decision making. There were 3 distinct views about the best solutions to the problems: individuals associated with factor A called for increased conservation efforts; those associated with factor B wanted reforms in decision-making processes; and individuals associated with factor C supported active landscape management. We connected people's definitions of the problem with their preferred solutions to form 5 overall problem narratives espoused by groups in the study: the problem is deficient goals and plans, the solution is to prioritize conservation efforts (planning-oriented conservation advocates); the problem is flawed institutions, the solution is to prioritize conservation efforts (institutionally-oriented conservation advocates); the problems have been exaggerated, but there is a need to improve decision-making processes (optimistic decision-process reformers); the problems have been exaggerated, but managers should more actively manage the landscape (optimistic landscape managers); and the problem is politicized decision making, solutions vary (democratizers). Although these 5 groups differed on many issues, they agreed that the population of grizzly bears is vulnerable to extirpation, human use of the area should be designed around ecological constraints, and more inclusive decision-making processes are needed. We used our results to inform a series of workshops in which stakeholders developed and agreed on new management strategies that were implemented by Parks Canada. Our research demonstrates the usefulness of Q method to illuminate people's perspectives and identify common ground in settings where conservation is contested.     

Influence of Political Opposition and Compromise on Conservation Outcomes in the Tongass National Forest,Alaska

Abstract: To understand how a highly contentious policy process influenced a major conservation effort, I examined the origins, compromises, and outcomes of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) for the Tongass National Forest. Tongass wilderness designation was among the most controversial issues in the ANILCA debate, and it faced strong opposition from influential lawmakers, land managers, and Alaska residents. To investigate the influence of this opposition on Tongass conservation outcomes, I conducted a gap analysis of Tongass reserves and a policy analysis of the ANILCA debate and traced the influence of specific interests through the amendments, negotiations, and resulting compromises needed to enact ANILCA. Overall, I found that Tongass reserves comprise a broadly representative cross‐section of ecosystems and species habitats in southeastern Alaska. Redrawn reserve boundaries, industry subsidies, and special access regulations reflected compromises to minimize the impact of wilderness conservation on mining, timber, and local stakeholder interests, respectively. Fragmentation of the Admiralty Island National Monument—the most ecologically valuable and politically controversial reserve—resulted from compromises with Alaskan Native (indigenous peoples of Alaska) corporations and timber interests. Despite language to accommodate “reasonable access” to wilderness reserves, ongoing access limitations highlight the concerns of Alaska residents that opposed ANILCA several decades ago. More broadly, the Tongass case suggests that early and ambitious conservation action may offset strong political opposition; compromises needed to establish key reserves often exacerbate development impacts in unprotected areas; and efforts to minimize social conflicts are needed to safeguard the long‐term viability of conservation measures.     

Characterizing the trophy hunting debate on Twitter

Social media is an arena of debate for contentious political and social topics. One conservation topic debated online is the acceptability of trophy hunting, a debate that has implications for national and international policy. We used a mixed-methods approach (grounded theory and quantitative clustering) to identify themes in the trophy hunting debate on Twitter. We examined commonly co-occurring categories that describe people's stances on trophy hunting. We identified 12 categories and 4 preliminary archetypes opposing trophy hunting—activism, scientific, condemning, and objecting—whose opposition derived from different moral reasoning. Few tweets (22) in our sample of 500 supported trophy hunting, whereas 350 opposed it. The debate was hostile; 7% of tweets in our sample were categorized as abusive. Online debates can be unproductive, and our findings may be important for stakeholders wishing to effectively engage in the trophy hunting debate on Twitter. More generally, we contend that because social media is increasingly influential, it is important to formally contextualize public responses to contentious conservation topics in order to aid communication of conservation evidence and to integrate diverse public perspectives in conservation practice.     

The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: An econometric analysis using matching methods

Diametrically opposed views of the effectiveness of the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) co-exist more than 30 years after the Act's creation. The evidence marshaled to date for and against the ESA suffers from a problem common in analyses of biodiversity protection measures: the absence of a well-chosen control group. We demonstrate how matching methods can be used to select such a control group and thereby estimate how species listed under the ESA would have fared had they not been listed. Our results show that listing a species under the ESA is, on average, detrimental to species recovery if not combined with substantial government funds. In contrast, listed species with such funding tend to improve. Our analysis offers not only new insights into a controversial debate, but also a methodology to guide conservation scientists in evaluating the effectiveness of society's responses to biodiversity loss.     

Accounting for the Impact of Conservation on Human Well‐Being

Conservationists are increasingly engaging with the concept of human well‐being to improve the design and evaluation of their interventions. Since the convening of the influential Sarkozy Commission in 2009, development researchers have been refining conceptualizations and frameworks to understand and measure human well‐being and are starting to converge on a common understanding of how best to do this. In conservation, the term human well‐being is in widespread use, but there is a need for guidance on operationalizing it to measure the impacts of conservation interventions on people. We present a framework for understanding human well‐being, which could be particularly useful in conservation. The framework includes 3 conditions; meeting needs, pursuing goals, and experiencing a satisfactory quality of life. We outline some of the complexities involved in evaluating the well‐being effects of conservation interventions, with the understanding that well‐being varies between people and over time and with the priorities of the evaluator. Key challenges for research into the well‐being impacts of conservation interventions include the need to build up a collection of case studies so as to draw out generalizable lessons; harness the potential of modern technology to support well‐being research; and contextualize evaluations of conservation impacts on well‐being spatially and temporally within the wider landscape of social change. Pathways through the smog of confusion around the term well‐being exist, and existing frameworks such as the Well‐being in Developing Countries approach can help conservationists negotiate the challenges of operationalizing the concept. Conservationists have the opportunity to benefit from the recent flurry of research in the development field so as to carry out more nuanced and locally relevant evaluations of the effects of their interventions on human well‐being. Consideración del Impacto de la Conservación sobre el Bienestar Humano     

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     

Common and Conflicting Interests in the Engagements between Conservation Organizations and Corporations

The conservation community increasingly views the corporate sector as a positive force for conservation. Collaborations between corporations and nongovernmental conservation organizations (NGOs) seek to mitigate the negative effects of corporate activities and augment positive conservation outcomes. I reviewed the establishment of corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies by corporations; the emerging focus on environmental practices and sustainability; and the history of engagement between corporations and nongovernmental organizations. I considered the ethical and reputation vulnerabilities of these collaborations, which depend especially on the financial nature of the relationship and reviewed how CSR approaches have influenced corporate practices. I concluded that whereas CSR practices can act to mitigate negative environmental impact, to date they have had limited positive effect on biodiversity conservation. Intereses Comunes y Conflictivos en los Compromisos entre Organizaciones y Corporaciones de Conservación     

An Empirical Assessment of the Focal Species Hypothesis

Biodiversity surrogates and indicators are commonly used in conservation management. The focal species approach (FSA) is one method for identifying biodiversity surrogates, and it is underpinned by the hypothesis that management aimed at a particular focal species will confer protection on co‐occurring species. This concept has been the subject of much debate, in part because the validity of the FSA has not been subject to detailed empirical assessment of the extent to which a given focal species actually co‐occurs with other species in an assemblage. To address this knowledge gap, we used large‐scale, long‐term data sets of temperate woodland birds to select focal species associated with threatening processes such as habitat isolation and loss of key vegetation attributes. We quantified co‐occurrence patterns among focal species, species in the wider bird assemblage, and species of conservation concern. Some, but not all, focal species were associated with high levels of species richness. One of our selected focal species was negatively associated with the occurrence of other species (i.e., it was an antisurrogate)—a previously undescribed property of nominated focal species. Furthermore, combinations of focal species were not associated with substantially elevated levels of bird species richness, relative to levels associated with individual species. Our results suggest that although there is some merit to the underpinning concept of the FSA, there is also a need to ensure that actions are sufficiently flexible because management tightly focused on a given focal species may not benefit some other species, including species of conservation concern, such of which might not occur in species‐rich assemblages. Una Evaluación Empírica de la Hipótesis de Especie Focal     

When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research

Understanding human perspectives is critical in a range of conservation contexts, for example, in overcoming conflicts or developing projects that are acceptable to relevant stakeholders. The Q methodology is a unique semiquantitative technique used to explore human perspectives. It has been applied for decades in other disciplines and recently gained traction in conservation. This paper helps researchers assess when Q is useful for a given conservation question and what its use involves. To do so, we explained the steps necessary to conduct a Q study, from the research design to the interpretation of results. We provided recommendations to minimize biases in conducting a Q study, which can affect mostly when designing the study and collecting the data. We conducted a structured literature review of 52 studies to examine in what empirical conservation contexts Q has been used. Most studies were subnational or national cases, but some also address multinational or global questions. We found that Q has been applied to 4 broad types of conservation goals: addressing conflict, devising management alternatives, understanding policy acceptability, and critically reflecting on the values that implicitly influence research and practice. Through these applications, researchers found hidden views, understood opinions in depth and discovered points of consensus that facilitated unlocking difficult disagreements. The Q methodology has a clear procedure but is also flexible, allowing researchers explore long‐term views, or views about items other than statements, such as landscape images. We also found some inconsistencies in applying and, mainly, in reporting Q studies, whereby it was not possible to fully understand how the research was conducted or why some atypical research decisions had been taken in some studies. Accordingly, we suggest a reporting checklist.     

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.     

Using historical ecology to reassess the conservation status of coniferous forests in Central Europe

Forests cover approximately one‐third of Central Europe. Oak (Quercus) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica) are considered the natural dominants at low and middle elevations, respectively. Many coniferous forests (especially of Picea abies) occur primarily at midelevations, but these are thought to have resulted from forestry plantations planted over the past 200 years. Nature conservation and forestry policy seek to promote broadleaved trees over conifers. However, there are discrepancies between conservation guidelines (included in Natura 2000) and historical and palaeoecological data with regard to the distribution of conifers. Our aim was to bring new evidence to the debate on the conservation of conifers versus broadleaved trees at midelevations in Central Europe. We created a vegetation and land‐cover model based on pollen data for a highland area of 11,300 km² in the Czech Republic and assessed tree species composition in the forests before the onset of modern forestry based on 18th‐century archival sources. Conifers dominated the study region throughout the entire Holocene (approximately 40–60% of the area). Broadleaved trees were present in a much smaller area than envisaged by current ideas of natural vegetation. Rather than casting doubt on the principles of Central European nature conservation in general, our results highlight the necessity of detailed regional investigations and the importance of historical data in challenging established notions on the natural distribution of tree species.     

The Grain of Spatially Referenced Economic Cost and Biodiversity Benefit Data and the Effectiveness of a Cost Targeting Strategy

Facing tight resource constraints, conservation organizations must allocate funds available for habitat protection as effectively as possible. Often, they combine spatially referenced economic and biodiversity data to prioritize land for protection. We tested how sensitive these prioritizations could be to differences in the spatial grain of these data by demonstrating how the conclusion of a classic debate in conservation planning between cost and benefit targeting was altered based on the available information. As a case study, we determined parcel‐level acquisition costs and biodiversity benefits of land transactions recently undertaken by a nonprofit conservation organization that seeks to protect forests in the eastern United States. Then, we used hypothetical conservation plans to simulate the types of ex ante priorities that an organization could use to prioritize areas for protection. We found the apparent effectiveness of cost and benefit targeting depended on the spatial grain of the data used when prioritizing parcels based on local species richness. However, when accounting for complementarity, benefit targeting consistently was more efficient than a cost targeting strategy regardless of the spatial grain of the data involved. More pertinently for other studies, we found that combining data collected over different spatial grains inflated the apparent effectiveness of a cost targeting strategy and led to overestimation of the efficiency gain offered by adopting a more integrative return‐on‐investment approach.     

Local Land‐Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners’ Perspectives on What Works

Abstract: Because habitat loss due to urbanization is a primary threat to biodiversity, and land‐use decisions in urbanizing areas are mainly made at the local level, land‐use planning by municipal planning departments has a potentially important—but largely unrealized—role in conserving biodiversity. To understand planners’ perspectives on the factors that facilitate and impede biodiversity conservation in local planning, we interviewed directors of 17 municipal planning departments in the greater Seattle (Washington, U.S.A.) area and compared responses of planners from similar‐sized jurisdictions that were “high” and “low performing” with respect to incorporation of biodiversity conservation in local planning. Planners from low‐performing jurisdictions regarded mandates from higher governmental levels as the primary drivers of biodiversity conservation, whereas those from high‐performing jurisdictions regarded community values as the main drivers, although they also indicated that mandates were important. Biodiversity conservation was associated with presence of local conservation flagship elements (e.g., salmonids) and human‐centered benefits of biodiversity conservation (e.g., quality of life). Planners from high‐ and low‐performing jurisdictions favored different planning mechanisms for biodiversity conservation, perhaps reflecting differences in funding and staffing. High performers reported more collaborations with other entities on biodiversity issues. Planners’ comments indicated that the term biodiversity may be problematic in the context of local planning. The action most planners recommended to increase biodiversity conservation in local planning was public education. These results suggest that to advance biodiversity conservation in local land‐use planning, conservation biologists should investigate and educate the public about local conservation flagships and human benefits of local biodiversity, work to raise ecological literacy and explain biodiversity more effectively to the public, and promote collaboration on biodiversity conservation among jurisdictions and inclusion of biodiversity specialists in planning departments.     

Acknowledging Conservation Trade‐Offs and Embracing Complexity

Abstract: There is a growing recognition that conservation often entails trade‐offs. A focus on trade‐offs can open the way to more complete consideration of the variety of positive and negative effects associated with conservation initiatives. In analyzing and working through conservation trade‐offs, however, it is important to embrace the complexities inherent in the social context of conservation. In particular, it is important to recognize that the consequences of conservation activities are experienced, perceived, and understood differently from different perspectives, and that these perspectives are embedded in social systems and preexisting power relations. We illustrate the role of trade‐offs in conservation and the complexities involved in understanding them with recent debates surrounding REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), a global conservation policy designed to create incentives to reduce tropical deforestation. Often portrayed in terms of the multiple benefits it may provide: poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, and climate‐change mitigation; REDD may involve substantial trade‐offs. The gains of REDD may be associated with a reduction in incentives for industrialized countries to decrease carbon emissions; relocation of deforestation to places unaffected by REDD; increased inequality in places where people who make their livelihood from forests have insecure land tenure; loss of biological and cultural diversity that does not directly align with REDD measurement schemes; and erosion of community‐based means of protecting forests. We believe it is important to acknowledge the potential trade‐offs involved in conservation initiatives such as REDD and to examine these trade‐offs in an open and integrative way that includes a variety of tools, methods, and points of view.     

Traditional Ecological Knowledge Trends in the Transition to a Market Economy: Empirical Study in the Doñana Natural Areas

Abstract: Researchers and conservation managers largely agree on the relevance of traditional ecological knowledge for natural resource management in indigenous communities, but its prevalence and role as societies modernize are contested. We analyzed the transmission of traditional knowledge among rural local people in communities linked to protected areas in Doñana, southwestern Spain. We studied changes in knowledge related to local practices in agriculture and livestock farming among 198 informants from three generations that cover the period in which the area transited from an economy strongly dependent on local ecosystem services to a market economy with intensified production systems. Our results suggest an abrupt loss of traditional agricultural knowledge related to rapid transformations and intensification of agricultural systems, but maintenance of knowledge of traditional livestock farming, an activity allowed in the protected areas that maintains strong links with local cultural identity. Our results demonstrate the potential of protected areas in protecting remaining bodies of traditional ecological knowledge in developed country settings. Nevertheless, we note that strict protection in cultural‐landscape‐dominated areas can disrupt transmission of traditional knowledge if local resource users and related practices are excluded from ecosystem management.     

The city as a refuge for insect pollinators

Research on urban insect pollinators is changing views on the biological value and ecological importance of cities. The abundance and diversity of native bee species in urban landscapes that are absent in nearby rural lands evidence the biological value and ecological importance of cities and have implications for biodiversity conservation. Lagging behind this revised image of the city are urban conservation programs that historically have invested in education and outreach rather than programs designed to achieve high‐priority species conservation results. We synthesized research on urban bee species diversity and abundance to determine how urban conservation could be repositioned to better align with new views on the ecological importance of urban landscapes. Due to insect pollinators’ relatively small functional requirements—habitat range, life cycle, and nesting behavior—relative to larger mammals, we argue that pollinators put high‐priority and high‐impact urban conservation within reach. In a rapidly urbanizing world, transforming how environmental managers view the city can improve citizen engagement and contribute to the development of more sustainable urbanization.     

A fungal perspective on conservation biology

Hitherto fungi have rarely been considered in conservation biology, but this is changing as the field moves from addressing single species issues to an integrative ecosystem‐based approach. The current emphasis on biodiversity as a provider of ecosystem services throws the spotlight on the vast diversity of fungi, their crucial roles in terrestrial ecosystems, and the benefits of considering fungi in concert with animals and plants. We reviewed the role of fungi in ecosystems and composed an overview of the current state of conservation of fungi. There are 5 areas in which fungi can be readily integrated into conservation: as providers of habitats and processes important for other organisms; as indicators of desired or undesired trends in ecosystem functioning; as indicators of habitats of conservation value; as providers of powerful links between human societies and the natural world because of their value as food, medicine, and biotechnological tools; and as sources of novel tools and approaches for conservation of megadiverse organism groups. We hope conservation professionals will value the potential of fungi, engage mycologists in their work, and appreciate the crucial role of fungi in nature. Una Perspectiva Micótica de la Biología de la Conservación     

Building Dialogue on Complex Conservation Issues in a Conference Setting

Dialogue about complex science and society issues is important for contemporary conservation agendas. Conferences provide an appropriate space for such dialogue, but despite its recognized worth, best practices for facilitating active dialogue are still being explored. Face‐to‐face (FTF) and computer‐mediated communication (CMC) are two approaches to facilitating dialogue that have different strengths. We assessed the use of these approaches to create dialogue on cultural perspectives of conservation and biodiversity at a national ecology conference. In particular, we aimed to evaluate their potential to enhance dialogue through their integrated application. We used an interactive blog to generate CMC on participant‐sourced issues and to prime subsequent discussion in an FTF conference workshop. The quantity and quality of both CMC and FTF discussion indicated that both approaches were effective in building dialogue. Prior to the conference the blog averaged 126 views per day, and 44 different authors contributed a total of 127 comments. Twenty‐five participants subsequently participated in active FTF discussion during a 3‐h workshop. Postconference surveys confirmed that CMC had developed participants’ thinking and deepened FTF dialogue; 88% indicated specifically that CMC helped facilitate the FTF discussion. A further 83% of respondents concluded that preliminary blog discussion would be useful for facilitating dialogue at future conferences. Construcción del Diálogo sobre Problemas Complejos de Conservación en un Escenario de Conferencia