Effects of amusing memes on concern for unappealing species

There is limited knowledge of the mechanisms that can inspire people's concern and engagement in the protection of unpopular and unappealing species. We analyzed Polish people's interest in themed internet memes featuring the proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) and the consequences of this interest for conservation marketing. We examined Google Trends data, used Google Search, and searched popular media materials to estimate interest in the proboscis monkey in Poland. Photos of the proboscis monkey when presented with humor in internet memes attracted as much interest as usually more popular species (e.g., koala, panda, and orangutan) used in marketing by nongovernmental organizations. Amusing internet memes spread by social media positively correlated with increasing interest in the unappealing species, such as proboscis monkey. Interest in amusing internet memes positively correlated with individuals’ decisions to donate to 6 crowdfunding actions. Thus, conservation marketing that includes amusing memes and social media may provide a worthwhile complement to traditional campaigns and are likely to influence individuals who are unaffected by the usual means.     

主成分分析法在印染废水混凝试验中的应用

运用主成分分析法的双重图对印染废水混凝试验数据进行分析,揭示了在用复合絮凝剂处理印染废水混凝试验中多维工艺操作参数之间的相关性和各参数对混凝脱色的重要性,从而根据双重图来对混凝试验操作参数实行优化和控制。     

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.     

Scientists' opinions on the global status and management of biological diversity

The large investments needed if loss of biological diversity is to be stemmed will likely lead to increased public and political scrutiny of conservation strategies and the science underlying them. It is therefore crucial to understand the degree of consensus or divergence among scientists on core scientific perceptions and strategies most likely to achieve given objectives. I developed an internet survey designed to elucidate the opinions of conservation scientists. Conservation scientists (n =583) were unanimous (99.5%) in their view that a serious loss of biological diversity is likely, very likely, or virtually certain. Scientists' agreement that serious loss is very likely or virtually certain ranged from 72.8% for Western Europe to 90.9% for Southeast Asia. Tropical coral ecosystems were perceived as the most seriously affected by loss of biological diversity; 88.0% of respondents familiar with that ecosystem type agreed that a serious loss is very likely or virtually certain. With regard to conservation strategies, scientists most often viewed understanding how people and nature interact in certain contexts and the role of biological diversity in maintaining ecosystem function as their priorities. Protection of biological diversity for its cultural and spiritual values and because of its usefulness to humans were low priorities, which suggests that many scientists do not fully support the utilitarian concept of ecosystem services. Many scientists expressed a willingness to consider conservation triage, engage in active conservation interventions, and consider reframing conservation goals and measures of success for conservation of biological diversity in an era of climate change. Although some heterogeneity of opinion is evident, results of the survey show a clear consensus within the scientific community on core issues of the extent and geographic scope of loss of biological diversity and on elements that may contribute to successful conservation strategies in the future.     

Establishing IUCN Red List Criteria for Threatened Ecosystems

Abstract: The potential for conservation of individual species has been greatly advanced by the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) development of objective, repeatable, and transparent criteria for assessing extinction risk that explicitly separate risk assessment from priority setting. At the IV World Conservation Congress in 2008, the process began to develop and implement comparable global standards for ecosystems. A working group established by the IUCN has begun formulating a system of quantitative categories and criteria, analogous to those used for species, for assigning levels of threat to ecosystems at local, regional, and global levels. A final system will require definitions of ecosystems; quantification of ecosystem status; identification of the stages of degradation and loss of ecosystems; proxy measures of risk (criteria); classification thresholds for these criteria; and standardized methods for performing assessments. The system will need to reflect the degree and rate of change in an ecosystem's extent, composition, structure, and function, and have its conceptual roots in ecological theory and empirical research. On the basis of these requirements and the hypothesis that ecosystem risk is a function of the risk of its component species, we propose a set of four criteria: recent declines in distribution or ecological function, historical total loss in distribution or ecological function, small distribution combined with decline, or very small distribution. Most work has focused on terrestrial ecosystems, but comparable thresholds and criteria for freshwater and marine ecosystems are also needed. These are the first steps in an international consultation process that will lead to a unified proposal to be presented at the next World Conservation Congress in 2012.     

A landscape-scale framework to identify refugia from multiple stressors

From a conservation perspective, quantifying potential refugial capacity has been predominantly focused on climate refugia, which is critical for maintaining the persistence of species and ecosystems. However, protection from other stressors, such as human-induced changes in fire and hydrology, that cause habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation is also necessary to ensure that conservation efforts focused on climate are not undermined by other threats. Thus, conceptual and methodological advances for quantifying potential refugia from multiple anthropogenic stressors are important to support conservation efforts. We devised a new conceptual approach, the domains of refugia, for assessing refugial capacity that identifies areas where exposure to multiple stressors is low. In our framework, patterns of environmental variability (e.g., increased frequency of warm summers), thresholds of resilience, and extent and intensity of stressors are used to identify areas of potential refugia from a suite of ongoing anthropogenic stressors (e.g., changes in fire regime). To demonstrate its utility, we applied the framework to a Southern California landscape. Sites with high refugial capacity (super-refugia sites) had on average 30% fewer extremely warm summers, 20% fewer fire events, 10% less exposure to altered river channels and riparian areas, and 50% fewer recreational trails than the surrounding landscape. Our results suggest that super-refugia sites (∼8200 km²) for some natural communities are underrepresented in the existing protected area network, a finding that can inform efforts to expand protected areas. Our case study highlights how considering exposure to multiple stressors can inform planning and practice to conserve biodiversity in a changing world.     

Translating habitat class to land cover to map area of habitat of terrestrial vertebrates

Area of habitat (AOH) is defined as the “habitat available to a species, that is, habitat within its range” and is calculated by subtracting areas of unsuitable land cover and elevation from the range. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Habitats Classification Scheme provides information on species habitat associations, and typically unvalidated expert opinion is used to match habitat to land-cover classes, which generates a source of uncertainty in AOH maps. We developed a data-driven method to translate IUCN habitat classes to land cover based on point locality data for 6986 species of terrestrial mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. We extracted the land-cover class at each point locality and matched it to the IUCN habitat class or classes assigned to each species occurring there. Then, we modeled each land-cover class as a function of IUCN habitat with (SSG, using) logistic regression models. The resulting odds ratios were used to assess the strength of the association between each habitat and land-cover class. We then compared the performance of our data-driven model with those from a published translation table based on expert knowledge. We calculated the association between habitat classes and land-cover classes as a continuous variable, but to map AOH as binary presence or absence, it was necessary to apply a threshold of association. This threshold can be chosen by the user according to the required balance between omission and commission errors. Some habitats (e.g., forest and desert) were assigned to land-cover classes with more confidence than others (e.g., wetlands and artificial). The data-driven translation model and expert knowledge performed equally well, but the model provided greater standardization, objectivity, and repeatability. Furthermore, our approach allowed greater flexibility in the use of the results and uncertainty to be quantified. Our model can be modified for regional examinations and different taxonomic groups.     

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

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

Hybridization,agency discretion,and implementation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the “best available scientific and commercial data” be used to protect imperiled species from extinction and preserve biodiversity. However, it does not provide specific guidance on how to apply this mandate. Scientific data can be uncertain and controversial, particularly regarding species delineation and hybridization issues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had an evolving hybrid policy to guide protection decisions for individuals of hybrid origin. Currently, this policy is in limbo because it resulted in several controversial conservation decisions in the past. Biologists from FWS must interpret and apply the best available science to their recommendations and likely use considerable discretion in making recommendations for what species to list, how to define those species, and how to recover them. We used semistructured interviews to collect data on FWS biologists’ use of discretion to make recommendations for listed species with hybridization issues. These biologists had a large amount of discretion to determine the best available science and how to interpret it but generally deferred to the scientific consensus on the taxonomic status of an organism. Respondents viewed hybridization primarily as a problem in the context of the ESA, although biologists who had experience with hybridization issues were more likely to describe it in more nuanced terms. Many interviewees expressed a desire to continue the current case‐by‐case approach for handling hybridization issues, but some wanted more guidance on procedures (i.e., a “flexible” hybrid policy). Field‐level information can provide critical insight into which policies are working (or not working) and why. The FWS biologists’ we interviewed had a high level of discretion, which greatly influenced ESA implementation, particularly in the context of hybridization.