Science, Policy Advocacy, and Marine Protected Areas

Abstract:  Much has been written in recent years regarding whether and to what extent scientists should engage in the policy process, and the focus has been primarily on the issue of advocacy. Despite extensive theoretical discussions, little has been done to study attitudes toward and consequences of such advocacy in particular cases. We assessed attitudes toward science and policy advocacy in the case of marine protected areas (MPAs) on the basis of a survey of delegates at the First International Marine Protected Areas Congress. Delegates were all members of the international marine conservation community and represented academic, government, and nongovernmental organizations. A majority of respondents believed science is objective but only a minority believed that values can be eliminated from science. Respondents showed only partial support of positivist principles of science. Almost all respondents supported scientists being integrated into MPA policy making, whereas half of the respondents agreed that scientists should actively advocate for particular MPA policies. Scientists with a positivist view of science supported a minimal role for scientists in policy, whereas government staff with positivist beliefs supported an advocacy or decision-making role for scientists. Policy-making processes for MPAs need to account for these divergent attitudes toward science and advocacy if science-driven and participatory approaches are to be reconciled.     

Credibility and advocacy in conservation science

Conservation policy sits at the nexus of natural science and politics. On the one hand, conservation scientists strive to maintain scientific credibility by emphasizing that their research findings are the result of disinterested observations of reality. On the other hand, conservation scientists are committed to conservation even if they do not advocate a particular policy. The professional conservation literature offers guidance on negotiating the relationship between scientific objectivity and political advocacy without damaging conservation science's credibility. The value of this guidance, however, may be restricted by limited recognition of credibility's multidimensionality and emergent nature: it emerges through perceptions of expertise, goodwill, and trustworthiness. We used content analysis of the literature to determine how credibility is framed in conservation science as it relates to apparent contradictions between science and advocacy. Credibility typically was framed as a static entity lacking dimensionality. Authors identified expertise or trustworthiness as important, but rarely mentioned goodwill. They usually did not identify expertise, goodwill, or trustworthiness as dimensions of credibility or recognize interactions among these 3 dimensions of credibility. This oversimplification may limit the ability of conservation scientists to contribute to biodiversity conservation. Accounting for the emergent quality and multidimensionality of credibility should enable conservation scientists to advance biodiversity conservation more effectively.     

Inadvertent advocacy

Policy advocacy is an issue regularly debated among conservation scientists. These debates have focused on intentional policy advocacy by scientists, but advocacy can also be unintentional. I define inadvertent policy advocacy as the act of unintentionally expressing personal policy preferences or ethical judgments in a way that is nearly indistinguishable from scientific judgments. A scientist may be well intentioned and intellectually honest but still inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. There are two ways to inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. First, a scientist expresses an opinion that she or he believes is a scientific judgment but it is actually an ethical judgment or personal policy preference. Second, a scientist expresses an opinion that he or she knows is an ethical judgment or personal policy preference but inadvertently fails to effectively communicate the nature of the opinion to policy makers or the public. I illustrate inadvertent advocacy with three examples: recovery criteria in recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a scientific peer review of a recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's definition of threatened. In each example, scientists expressed ethical judgments or policy preferences, but their value judgments were not identified as such, and, hence, their value judgments were opaque to policy makers and the public. Circumstances suggest their advocacy was inadvertent. I believe conservation scientists must become acutely aware of the line between science and policy and avoid inadvertent policy advocacy because it is professional negligence, erodes trust in scientists and science, and perpetuates an ethical vacuum that undermines the rational political discourse necessary for the evolution of society's values. The principal remedy for inadvertent advocacy is education of conservation scientists in an effort to help them understand how science and values interact to fulfill the mission of conservation science.     

What Is Ecosystem Management?

The evolving concept of ecosystem management is the focus of much current debate. To clarify discussion and provide a framework for implementation, I trace the historical development of ecosystem management, provide a working definition, and summarize dominant themes taken from an extensive literature review. The general goal of maintaining ecological integrity is discussed along with five specific goals: maintaining viable populations, ecosystem representation, maintaining ecological process (ie., natural disturbance regimes), protecting evolutionary potential of species and ecosystems, and accommodating human use in light of the above. Short-term policy implications of ecosystem management for several groups of key actors (scientists, policymakers, managers, citizens) are discussed. Long-term (> 100 years) policy implications are also reviewed including reframing environmental values, fostering cooperation, and evaluating success. Ecosystem management is not just about science nor is it simply an extension of traditional resource management; it offers a fundamental reframing of bow humans may work with nature.     

The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy‐neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists’ interpretations of the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.     

Science, Ethical Arguments, and Management in the Preservation of Land for Grizzly Bear Conservation

Abstract: Environmental groups advocate the preservation of an area within British Columbia's coastal temperate rainforest as a sanctuary for grizzly bears (    Ursus arctos horribilis ). Debate among government, industry, and environmental spokespersons has provided arguments but no resolution. We have applied to this issue available biological knowledge on grizzly bears and the arguments of a range of ethical theories. The theories of three professionally trained ethicists were included: Tom Regan, Holmes Rolston III, and Arne Naess. Aldo Leopold's prominent position in the conservation movement justifies his "land ethic" as a fourth ethical theory. All four theories agree that the area should be preserved. Contrary to this fundamental agreement, the theories diverge when tested against a "hard" conservation scenario, the conflict between the protection of the last surviving grizzly bears versus the survival of a culturally distinct human tribe. Application of the principles developed by Regan and Naess recommend that human interests should override the preservation of grizzly bears, whereas Leopold's and Rolston's arguments favor the preservation of the area for the bears. Our work can be used as a model of how the gap between biological sciences, ethical theories, and ecosystem management can be bridged successfully.     

Inherent conflicts at the coast

Because choice is conflict, decision-making is necessarily about conflict resolution. Choices are necessary because the options are mutually exclusive but the nature of this inherent conflict varies. Typically, these conflicts are multidimensional. In coasal zones, the complex interactions between systems makes decision-making particularly complex; in particular, environmental interests are themselves frequently in conflict. In making a choice, it is important to determine why that choice is necessary in the first place. There are further conflicts about the objectives to be satisfied by the decision process; between the determination of the best outcome and the best decision process. Social scientists centre upon the requirement for a fair decision process rather than upon seeking an optimum outcome. Unlike physical scientists who seek more and better information, social scientists focus upon the development and maintenance of institutions.     

Geochemistry,mining and the environment

This paper reviews literature on the sources of lead-zinc mining pollution, and specifically deals with the water and air pollution aspects of these operations. Problems associated with mining and the environment are also discussed. The problems are geochemical in nature but also economic, social, political and legal. Individuals doing research in these boundary conditions are poorly publicised and rarely recognised outside of their own narrow industry.The paper notes that it is possible to have both an economical mining operation and a clean environment. The New Lead Belt region of Southern Missouri, the world's largest lead-mining region lies underneath a national forest with a pure, pristine, undisturbed ecosystem having high recreational value to the nearby cities. By early cooperation between governmental scientists, mining industry, environmental scientists and engineers of the University of Missouri and other universities it was possible to develop this deposit and at the same time keep the pristine nature of the surrounding forest without spending a single day in court or litigation. Problems did arise, but problem-solving sessions dealt with them, not lawyers.     

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 as Virtue: a Scientific and Social Process for Conservation Ethics

Abstract:  Most scientists take ethical arguments for conservation as given and focus on scientific or economic questions. Although nature conservation is often considered a just cause, it is given little further consideration. A lack of attention to ethical theory raises serious concerns for how conservation scientists conceive and practice ethics. I contrast two common ways scientists approach ethics, as demonstrated in the writings of Stephen Jay Gould and E. O. Wilson. Gould casts severe doubt as to whether any ethics are possible from science, whereas Wilson proposes science as the only path to ethics. I argue these two methods ultimately limit popular support for conservation and offer Alasdair MacIntyre's "virtue ethics" as an alternative. Unlike Gould and Wilson, MacIntyre provides an ethical theory that reconciles scientific inquiry and social traditions. Recent studies of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States affirm MacIntyre's claims and provide important insights for conservation today. These accounts argue that social solidarity and political success against segregation were possible only as rooted in the particular language, logic, and practices of a robust cultural tradition. If correct, conservation science should attend to several questions. On what basis can conservation achieve widespread cultural legitimacy? What are the particular social currencies for a conservation ethic? What role does science play in such a scheme? MacIntyre's careful positioning of scientific and social traditions provides a hopeful ethical direction for conservation.     

Pharmaceuticals,endocrine disruptors,personal care products,nanomaterials and perfluorinated pollutants: a review

The presence of emerging micropollutants such as pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, personal care products, nanomaterials and perfluorinated substances in the environment remains a great threat to the health and safety of humans and aquatic species. These micropollutants enter the environment via anthropogenic activities and have been detected in surface water, groundwater and even drinking water at nanogram per litre to microgram per litre concentration. To date, limited information exists on the fate, behaviours, and pathways of these micropollutants in the environment. The potential ecotoxicological effects on the receptors due to exposure to individual or mixture of these chemicals still remain unknown. This review provides an overview on pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting compounds, personal care products, nanomaterials and perfluorinated pollutants, with emphasis on their occurrences, effects, environmental fates, and potential risk of exposure in water, soil or sediment. Based on the literature survey, it was found that in spite of an extensive research and different developmental efforts on the challenges of emerging micropollutants, the solution to the problem of emerging micropollutants in the environment is far from being solved. The needs for behavioural change among citizens, strong political will and policy formulation on the part of government are identified as possible panacea for combating the growing influence of these potential damaging substances. Suggestions on proactive and precautionary measures that must be taken to protect the environment as well as guarantee the health and safety of humans and aquatic species are provided. Future research should concentrate on the development of a risk based screening models and framework that can predict the sources, fate and behaviours of emerging contaminants in the environment is recommended.     

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

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

Invasive species in Europe: ecology, status, and policy

Globalization of trade and travel has facilitated the spread of non-native species across the earth. A proportion of these species become established and cause serious environmental, economic, and human health impacts. These species are referred to as invasive, and are now recognized as one of the major drivers of biodiversity change across the globe. As a long-time centre for trade, Europe has seen the introduction and subsequent establishment of at least several thousand non-native species. These range in taxonomy from viruses and bacteria to fungi, plants, and animals. Although invasive species cause major negative impacts across all regions of Europe, they also offer scientists the opportunity to develop and test theory about how species enter and leave communities, how non-native and native species interact with each other, and how different types of species affect ecosystem functions. For these reasons, there has been recent growth in the field of invasion biology as scientists work to understand the process of invasion, the changes that invasive species cause to their recipient ecosystems, and the ways that the problems of invasive species can be reduced. This review covers the process and drivers of species invasions in Europe, the socio-economic factors that make some regions particularly strongly invaded, and the ecological factors that make some species particularly invasive. We describe the impacts of invasive species in Europe, the difficulties involved in reducing these impacts, and explain the policy options currently being considered. We outline the reasons that invasive species create unique policy challenges, and suggest some rules of thumb for designing and implementing management programs. If new management programs are not enacted in Europe, it is inevitable that more invasive species will arrive, and that the total economic, environmental, and human health impacts from these species will continue to grow.     

Quantifying Preferences for the Natural World Using Monetary and Nonmonetary Assessments of Value

Given that funds for biodiversity conservation are limited, there is a need to understand people's preferences for its different components. To date, such preferences have largely been measured in monetary terms. However, how people value biodiversity may differ from economic theory, and there is little consensus over whether monetary metrics are always appropriate or the degree to which other methods offer alternative and complementary perspectives on value. We used a choice experiment to compare monetary amounts recreational visitors to urban green spaces were willing to pay for biodiversity enhancement (increases in species richness for birds, plants, and aquatic macroinvertebrates) with self‐reported psychological gains in well‐being derived from visiting the same sites. Willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) estimates were significant and positive, and respondents reported high gains in well‐being across 3 axes derived from environmental psychology theories (reflection, attachment, continuity with past). The 2 metrics were broadly congruent. Participants with above‐median self‐reported well‐being scores were willing to pay significantly higher amounts for enhancing species richness than those with below‐median scores, regardless of taxon. The socio‐economic and demographic background of participants played little role in determining either their well‐being or the probability of choosing a paying option within the choice experiment. Site‐level environmental characteristics were only somewhat related to WTP, but showed strong associations with self‐reported well‐being. Both approaches are likely to reflect a combination of the environmental properties of a site and unobserved individual preference heterogeneity for the natural world. Our results suggest that either metric will deliver mutually consistent results in an assessment of environmental preferences, although which approach is preferable depends on why one wishes to measure values for the natural world. Preferencias de Cuantificación para el Mundo Natural Usando Estudios de Valor Monetario y No Monetario.     

Conservation Science and Forest Service Policy for Roadless Areas

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

Preferred conservation policies of shark researchers

There is increasing concern about the conservation status of sharks. However, the presence of numerous different (and potentially mutually exclusive) policies complicates management implementation and public understanding of the process. We distributed an online survey to members of the largest professional shark and ray research societies to assess member knowledge of and attitudes toward different conservation policies. Questions covered society member opinions on conservation and management policies, personal histories of involvement in advocacy and management, and perceptions of the approach of conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to shark conservation. One hundred and two surveys were completed (overall response rate 21%). Respondents considered themselves knowledgeable about and actively involved in conservation and management policy; a majority believed scientists have a responsibility to advocate for conservation (75%), and majorities have sent formal public comments to policymakers (54%) and included policy suggestions in their papers (53%). They believe sustainable shark fisheries are possible, are currently happening today (in a few places), and should be the goal instead of banning fisheries. Respondents were generally less supportive of newer limit‐based (i.e., policies that ban exploitation entirely without a species‐specific focus) conservation policy tools, such as shark sanctuaries and bans on the sale of shark fins, than of target‐based fisheries management tools (i.e., policies that allow for sustainable harvest of species whose populations can withstand it), such as fishing quotas. Respondents were generally supportive of environmental NGO efforts to conserve sharks but raised concerns about some NGOs that they perceived as using incorrect information and focusing on the wrong problems. Our results show there is an ongoing debate in shark conservation and management circles relative to environmental policy on target‐based natural resources management tools versus limit‐based conservation tools. They also suggest that closer communication between the scientific and environmental NGO communities may be needed to recognize and reconcile differing values and objectives between these groups.     

Selection of facility location under environmental damage priority and using ELECTRE method

In the recent years, the environmental problems have reached to a vital extent, which is pushing the boundaries and far beyond daily evaluations. Industrial plants, the energy sources and uncontrolled release of pollutant gases (SO2, CO2 etc.) in the production stage have the greatest share in the occurrence of unfavorable environmental conditions. For this reason, the dimension of the problems that may arise in the production stage of industrial plants is directly related to the selection of facility location. In this study, geographical regions (a total of 7 regions) of our country have been analyzed in terms of environmental values based on their basins and the unfavorable environmental problems that are currently being experienced. Considered as such, with the directives of an expert group composed of nature scientists, the criteria and alternative areas are determined using the data gathered on ecosystem, basin characteristics, and land types. Since the primary goal is to keep the environmental damages at the minimum level, comprehensive definition of the problem is constructed by consultation of the expert group and the criteria are determined. Considering the fact that it will prevent the drawbacks generated by making decisions depending on certain stereotypes toa great extent, ELECTRE (Elimination and Choice Translating Reality English - Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la Realite) method is used to determine in which geographic region our country's industrial plants should be located.     

Whither Conservation Ethics?

Abstract: A review of the moral foundations of American conservation provides a historical perspective for formulating a twenty-first century conservation ethic. Building on the Work of R.W. Emerson and H.D. Thoreau, John Muir formulated a Romantic-Transcendental Preservation Ethic that pitted the allegedly higher aesthetic and spiritual uses of nature against consumptive and extractive material uses. Gifford Pinchot formulated a more pedestrian and egalitarian Resource Conservation Ethic consistent with utilitarian and democratic ideals. Muir also adumbrated a more radical nonanthropocentric preservation ethic rhetorically cast in Biblical terms Aldo Leopold articulated a similarly nonanthropocentric environmental ethic in evolutionary and ecological terms. A review of Leopold's large literay estate, however, reveals that he continued to advocate active management for a mutually beneficial human-nature symbiosis, in addition to the passive preservation of "wilderness" As the human population grows and more nations develop, the best hope for conservation biology lies in a generalization of Leopold's ideal of ecosystems which are at once economically productive and ecologically healthy. The principal intellectual challenge raised by such an ideal for conservation biology is the development of criteria of ecological health and integrity in an inherently dynamic, evolving, and human-saturated biota.