Design trade-offs in rights-based management of small-scale fisheries

Small-scale fisheries collectively have a large ecological footprint and are key sources of food security, especially in developing countries. Many of the data-intensive approaches to fishery management are infeasible in these fisheries, but a strategy that has emerged to overcome these challenges is the establishment of territorial user rights for fisheries (TURFs). In this approach, exclusive fishing zones are established for groups of stakeholders, which eliminates the race to fish with other groups. A key challenge, however, is setting the size of TURFs—too large and the number of stakeholders sharing them impedes collective action, and too small and the movement of target fish species in and out of the TURFs effectively removes the community's exclusive access. We assessed the size of 137 TURFs from across the globe relative to this design challenge by applying theoretical models that predict their performance. We estimated that roughly two-thirds of these TURFs were sized ideally to overcome the challenges posed by resource movement and fisher group size. However, for most of the remaining TURFs, all possible sizes were either too small to overcome the resource-movement challenge or too large to overcome the collective action challenge. Our results suggest these fisheries, which target mobile species in densely populated regions, may need additional interventions to be successful.     

Exploring the emergence of a tipping point for conservation with increased recognition of social considerations

Despite a common understanding of the harmful impacts of Western conservation models that separate people from nature, widespread progress toward incorporating socioeconomic, political, cultural, and spiritual considerations in conservation practice is lacking. For some, the concept of nature-based solutions (NbS) is seen as an interdisciplinary and holistic pathway to better integrate human well-being in conservation. We examined how conservation practitioners in the United States view NbS and how social considerations are or are not incorporated in conservation adaptation projects. We interviewed 28 individuals working on 15 different such projects associated with the Wildlife Conservation Society's Climate Adaptation Fund. We completed 2 rounds of iterative coding in NVivo 12.6.1 to identify in the full text of all interview responses an a priori set of themes related to our research questions and emergent themes. Many respondents saw this moment as a tipping point for the field (one in which the perceived values of social considerations are increasing in conservation practice) (76%) and that social justice concerns and the need to overcome racist and colonial roots of Western conservation have risen to the forefront. Respondents also tentatively agreed that NbS in conservation could support social and ecological outcomes for conservation, but that it was far from guaranteed. Despite individual intention and awareness among practitioners to incorporate social considerations in conservation practice, structural barriers, including limited funding and inflexible grant structures, continue to constrain systemic change. Ultimately, systemic changes that address power and justice in policy and practice are required to leverage this moment to more fully address social considerations in conservation.     

Key considerations and challenges in the application of social-network research for environmental decision making

Attempts to better understand the social context in which conservation and environmental decisions are made has led to increased interest in human social networks. To improve the use of social-network analysis in conservation, we reviewed recent studies in the literature in which such methods were applied. In our review, we looked for problems in research design and analysis that limit the utility of network analysis. Nineteen of 55 articles published from January 2016 to June 2019 exhibited at least 1 of the following problems: application of analytical methods inadequate or sensitive to incomplete network data; application of statistical approaches that ignore dependency in the network; or lack of connection between the theoretical base, research question, and choice of analytical techniques. By drawing attention to these specific areas of concern and highlighting research frontiers and challenges, including causality, network dynamics, and new approaches, we responded to calls for increasing the rigorous application of social science in conservation.     

A qualitative systematic review of governance principles for mangrove conservation

Management of mangrove ecosystems is complex, given that mangroves are both terrestrial and marine, often cross regional or national boundaries, and are valued by local stakeholders in different ways than they are valued on national and international scales. Thus, mangrove governance has had varying levels of success, analyzed through concepts such as principles of good governance and procedural justice in decision-making. Although there is substantial research on case studies of mangrove management, global comparisons of mangrove governance are lacking. This research aims to fill this gap by comparing relationships among qualities of governance across mangrove social-ecological systems worldwide. Through a systematic literature search and screening process, we identified 65 articles that discussed mangrove governance and conservation. Case studies in these articles, drawn from 39 countries, were categorized as top-down, bottom-up, or comanaged and thematically coded to assess the influence of eight principles of good governance in mangrove conservation success. Across all three governance systems, the principles of legitimacy, fairness, and integration were most important in determining conservation success or failure. These principles are closely related to the concept of procedural justice, highlighting the importance of stakeholder inclusion throughout all stages of mangrove management. Thus, we recommend clearly defined roles for all governance actors, transparent communication of policy development to stakeholders, fairness in both process and outcome, and careful consideration of sustainable access to conservation resources.     

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy‐influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.     

Current Practice and Future Prospects for Social Data in Coastal and Ocean Planning

Coastal and ocean planning comprises a broad field of practice. The goals, political processes, and approaches applied to planning initiatives may vary widely. However, all planning processes ultimately require adequate information on both the biophysical and social attributes of a planning region. In coastal and ocean planning practice, there are well‐established methods to assess biophysical attributes; however, less is understood about the role and assessment of social data. We conducted the first global assessment of the incorporation of social data in coastal and ocean planning. We drew on a comprehensive review of planning initiatives and a survey of coastal and ocean practitioners. There was significantly more incorporation of social data in multiuse versus conservation‐oriented planning. Practitioners engaged a wide range of social data, including governance, economic, and cultural attributes of planning regions and human impacts data. Less attention was given to ecosystem services and social–ecological linkages, both of which could improve coastal and ocean planning practice. Although practitioners recognize the value of social data, little funding is devoted to its collection and incorporation in plans. Increased capacity and sophistication in acquiring critical social and ecological data for planning is necessary to develop plans for more resilient coastal and ocean ecosystems and communities. We suggest that improving social data monitoring, and in particular spatial social data, to complement biophysical data, is necessary for providing holistic information for decision‐support tools and other methods. Moving beyond people as impacts to people as beneficiaries, through ecosystem services assessments, holds much potential to better incorporate the tenets of ecosystem‐based management into coastal and ocean planning by providing targets for linked biodiversity conservation and human welfare outcomes. La Práctica Actual y los Prospectos Futuros para los Datos Sociales en la Planeación Costera y Oceánica