Efficacy-based and normative interventions for facilitating the diffusion of conservation behavior through social networks

Research suggests that encouraging motivated residents to reach out to others in their social network is an effective strategy for increasing the scale and speed of conservation action adoption. However, little is known about how to effectively encourage large numbers of residents to reach out to others about conservation causes. We examined the influence of normative and efficacy-based messaging at motivating residents to engage in and to encourage others to participate in native plant gardening in their community. To do so, we conducted a field experiment with messages on mailings and tracked native plant vouchers used. Efficacy messages tended to be more effective than normative messages at increasing residents’ willingness to reach out to others to encourage conservation action, as indicated by a several percentage point increase in native plant voucher use by residents’ friends and neighbors. Messages sometimes had different impacts on residents based on past behaviors and perceptions related to native plant gardening. Among these subgroups, efficacy and combined efficacy and norm messages most effectively encouraged individual and collective actions, as indicated by increased voucher usage. Our findings suggest that interventions that build residents’ efficacy for engaging in a conservation behavior and for reaching out to others may be a promising path forward for outreach. However, given our results were significant at a false discovery rate cutoff of 0.25 but not 0.05, more experimental trials are needed to determine the robustness of these trends.     

Using environmental and geographic data to optimize ex situ collections and preserve evolutionary potential

Maintenance of biodiversity through seed banks and botanical gardens, where the wealth of species’ genetic variation may be preserved ex situ, is a major goal of conservation. However, challenges can persist in optimizing ex situ collections if trade-offs exist among cost, effort, and conserving species evolutionary potential, particularly when genetic data are not available. We evaluated the genetic consequences of population preservation informed by geographic (isolation by distance [IBD]) and environmental (isolation by environment [IBE]) distance for ex situ collections for which population provenance is available. We used 19 genetic and genomic data sets from 15 plant species to assess the proportion of population genetic differentiation explained by geographic and environmental factors and to simulate ex situ collections prioritizing source populations based on pairwise geographic distance, environmental distance, or both. Specifically, we tested the impact prioritizing sampling based on these distances may have on the capture of neutral, functional, or putatively adaptive genetic diversity and differentiation. Individually, IBD and IBE explained limited population genetic differences across all 3 genetic marker classes (IBD, 10–16%; IBE, 1–5.5%). Together, they explained a substantial proportion of population genetic differences for functional (45%) and adaptive (71%) variation. Simulated ex situ collections revealed that inclusion of IBD, IBE, or both increased allelic diversity and genetic differentiation captured among populations, particularly for loci that may be important for adaptation. Thus, prioritizing population collections based on environmental and geographic distance data can optimize genetic variation captured ex situ. For the vast majority of plant species for which there is no genetic information, these data are invaluable to conservation because they can guide preservation of genetic variation needed to maintain evolutionary potential within collections.     

Effects of law enforcement and community outreach on mammal diversity in a biodiversity hotspot

Management activities such as law enforcement and community outreach are thought to affect conservation outcomes in protected areas, but their importance relative to intrinsic environmental characteristics of the parks and extrinsic human pressures surrounding the parks have not been explored. Furthermore, it is not clear which is more related to conservation outcomes—the management itself or local people's perceptions of the management. We measured objective (reports by park staff) and subjective (reports by local people) levels of community outreach and law enforcement based on responses to 374 questionnaires. We estimated mammal abundance and diversity of 6 protected areas based on data from 115 camera traps in Xishuangbanna, southwest China, a biodiversity hotspot with high hunting and land-conversion pressures. We then examined correlations among them and found that local people's perception of law enforcement was positively related to the local abundance of 2 large, hunted species, wild boar (Sus scrofa) (β = 15.22) and muntjac (Muntiacus vaginalis) (β = 14.82), but not related to the abundance of smaller mammals or to objective levels of enforcement. The subjective frequency of outreach by park staff to local communities (β = 3.42) and park size (β = 3.28) were significantly and positively related to mammal species richness, whereas elevation, human population density, and subjective frequency of law enforcement were not. We could not conclude that community outreach and law enforcement were directly causing increased mammal abundance and diversity. Nevertheless, the patterns we detected are some of the first empirical evidence consistent with the idea that biodiversity in protected areas may be more positively and strongly related to local perceptions of the intensity of park management than to either intrinsic (e.g., elevation, park size) or extrinsic (e.g., human population density) environmental factors.     

Assessing ecological function in the context of species recovery

Species interactions matter to conservation. Setting an ambitious recovery target for a species requires considering the size, density, and demographic structure of its populations such that they fulfill the interactions, roles, and functions of the species in the ecosystems in which they are embedded. A recently proposed framework for an International Union for Conservation of Nature Green List of Species formalizes this requirement by defining a fully recovered species in terms of representation, viability, and functionality. Defining and quantifying ecological function from the viewpoint of species recovery is challenging in concept and application, but also an opportunity to insert ecological theory into conservation practice. We propose 2 complementary approaches to assessing a species’ ecological functions: confirmation (listing interactions of the species, identifying ecological processes and other species involved in these interactions, and quantifying the extent to which the species contributes to the identified ecological process) and elimination (inferring functionality by ruling out symptoms of reduced functionality, analogous to the red-list approach that focuses on symptoms of reduced viability). Despite the challenges, incorporation of functionality into species recovery planning is possible in most cases and it is essential to a conservation vision that goes beyond preventing extinctions and aims to restore a species to levels beyond what is required for its viability. This vision focuses on conservation and recovery at the species level and sees species as embedded in ecosystems, influencing and being influenced by the processes in those ecosystems. Thus, it connects and integrates conservation at the species and ecosystem levels.     

The ethics of genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation

The ethical issues associated with using genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation are typically described as consisting of risk assessment and management, public engagement and acceptance, opportunity costs, risk and benefit distributions, and oversight. These are important, but the ethical concerns extend beyond them because the use of genetic engineering has the potential to significantly alter the practices, concepts, and value commitments of conservation. I sought to elucidate the broader set of ethical issues connected with a potential genetic engineering turn in conservation and provide an approach to ethical analysis of novel conservation technologies. The primary rationales offered in support of using genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation are efficiency and necessity for achieving conservation goals. The instrumentalist ethical perspective associated with these rationales involves assessing novel technologies as a means to accomplish desired ends. For powerful emerging technologies the instrumentalist perspective needs to be complemented by a form-of-life perspective frequently applied in the philosophy of technology. The form-of-life perspective involves considering how novel technologies restructure the activities into which they are introduced. When the form-of-life perspective is applied to creative genetic engineering in conservation, it brings into focus a set of ethical issues, such as those associated with power, meaning, relationships, and values, that are not captured by the instrumentalist perspective. It also illuminates why the use of gene drives in conservation is so ethically and philosophically interesting.     

Countering resistance to protected‐area extension

The establishment of protected areas is a critical strategy for conserving biodiversity. Key policy directives like the Aichi targets seek to expand protected areas to 17% of Earth's land surface, with calls by some conservation biologists for much more. However, in places such as the United States, Germany, and Australia, attempts to increase protected areas are meeting strong resistance from communities, industry groups, and governments. We examined case studies of such resistance in Victoria, Australia, Bavaria, Germany, and Florida, United States. We considered 4 ways to tackle this problem. First, broaden the case for protected areas beyond nature conservation to include economic, human health, and other benefits, and translate these into a persuasive business case for protected areas. Second, better communicate the conservation values of protected areas. This should include highlighting how many species, communities, and ecosystems have been conserved by protected areas and the counterfactual (i.e., what would have been lost without protected area establishment). Third, consider zoning of activities to ensure the maintenance of effective management. Finally, remind citizens to think about conservation when they vote, including holding politicians accountable for their environmental promises. Without tackling resistance to expanding the protected estate, it will be impossible to reach conservation targets, and this will undermine attempts to stem the global extinction crisis.     

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.     

Fishing‐gear restrictions and biomass gains for coral reef fishes in marine protected areas

Considerable empirical evidence supports recovery of reef fish populations with fishery closures. In countries where full exclusion of people from fishing may be perceived as inequitable, fishing‐gear restrictions on nonselective and destructive gears may offer socially relevant management alternatives to build recovery of fish biomass. Even so, few researchers have statistically compared the responses of tropical reef fisheries to alternative management strategies. We tested for the effects of fishery closures and fishing gear restrictions on tropical reef fish biomass at the community and family level. We conducted 1,396 underwater surveys at 617 unique sites across a spatial hierarchy within 22 global marine ecoregions that represented 5 realms. We compared total biomass across local fish assemblages and among 20 families of reef fishes inside marine protected areas (MPAs) with different fishing restrictions: no‐take, hook‐and‐line fishing only, several fishing gears allowed, and sites open to all fishing gears. We included a further category representing remote sites, where fishing pressure is low. As expected, full fishery closures, (i.e., no‐take zones) most benefited community‐ and family‐level fish biomass in comparison with restrictions on fishing gears and openly fished sites. Although biomass responses to fishery closures were highly variable across families, some fishery targets (e.g., Carcharhinidae and Lutjanidae) responded positively to multiple restrictions on fishing gears (i.e., where gears other than hook and line were not permitted). Remoteness also positively affected the response of community‐level fish biomass and many fish families. Our findings provide strong support for the role of fishing restrictions in building recovery of fish biomass and indicate important interactions among fishing‐gear types that affect biomass of a diverse set of reef fish families.