What Every Conservation Biologist Should Know about Economic Theory

Abstract: The last century has seen the ascendance of a core economic model, which we will refer to as Walrasian economics. This model is driven by the psychological assumptions that humans act only in a self‐referential and narrowly rational way and that production can be described as a self‐contained circular flow between firms and households. These assumptions have critical implications for the way economics is used to inform conservation biology. Yet the Walrasian model is inconsistent with a large body of empirical evidence about actual human behavior, and it violates a number of basic physical laws. Research in behavioral science and neuroscience shows that humans are uniquely social animals and not self‐centered rational economic beings. Economic production is subject to physical laws including the laws of thermodynamics and mass balance. In addition, some contemporary economic theory, spurred by exciting new research in human behavior and a wealth of data about the negative global impact of the human economy on natural systems, is moving toward a world view that places consumption and production squarely in its behavioral and biophysical context. We argue that abandoning the straightjacket of the Walrasian core is essential to further progress in understanding the complex, coupled interactions between the human economy and the natural world. We call for a new framework for economic theory and policy that is consistent with observed human behavior, recognizes the complex and frequently irreversible interaction between human and natural systems, and directly confronts the cumulative negative effects of the human economy on the Earth's life support systems. Biophysical economics and ecological economics are two emerging economic frameworks in this movement.     

Conservation Development Practices,Extent, and Land‐Use Effects in the United States

Abstract: Conservation development projects combine real‐estate development with conservation of land and other natural resources. Thousands of such projects have been conducted in the United States and other countries through the involvement of private developers, landowners, land trusts, and government agencies. Previous research has demonstrated the potential value of conservation development for conserving species, ecological functions, and other resource values on private lands, especially when traditional sources of conservation funding are not available. Nevertheless, the aggregate extent and effects of conservation development were previously unknown. To address this gap, we estimated the extent and trends of conservation development in the United States and characterized its key attributes to understand its aggregate contribution to land‐conservation and growth‐management objectives. We interviewed representatives from land trusts, planning agencies, and development companies, searched the Internet for conservation development projects and programs, and compiled existing databases of conservation development projects. We collected data on 3884 projects encompassing 1.38 million ha. About 43% of the projects targeted the conservation of specific plant or animal species or ecological communities of conservation concern; 84% targeted the protection of native ecosystems representative of the project area; and 42% provided buffers to existing protected areas. The percentage of protected land in conservation development projects ranged from <40% to >99%, and the effects of these projects on natural resources differed widely. We estimate that conservation development projects have protected roughly 4 million ha of land in the United States and account for about 25% of private‐land conservation activity nationwide.     

Devising Appropriate Policies and Instruments in Support of Private Conservation Areas: Lessons Learned from the Klein Karoo,South Africa

Abstract: The amount of privately conserved land is increasing worldwide. The potential of these areas to contribute to the global conservation of biodiversity is significant, given that statutory protected areas alone will not suffice. Nevertheless, there is still inadequate support for private conservation areas, and further research on appropriate, flexible, and generally applicable incentive measures is necessary. We conducted 25 semistructured interviews with the owners of private conservation areas in the Little Karoo, South Africa, to examine landowner opinions of existing conservation policies and their relationships with the local conservation authority. We also assessed landowner preferences regarding conservation incentive measures. Landowners doubted the conservation authority's capacity to implement its stewardship program and were also discouraged by the bureaucracy of the program. The conservation authority was often viewed negatively, except where landowners had experienced personal contact from conservation staff or where strong social capital had formed among landowners. Landowners did not desire financial rewards for their conservation efforts, but sought recognition of their stewardship role and greater involvement from the conservation authority through personal contact. We conclude that conservation policies for private lands could benefit from the provision of extension services to landowners, promotion of formation of groups of landowners and other stakeholders, and public acknowledgment of the contributions private conservation areas make.     

Prospects for Reconciling the Conflict between Economic Growth and Biodiversity Conservation with Technological Progress

Abstract: The conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation is understood in portions of academia and sometimes acknowledged in political circles. Nevertheless, there is not a unified response. In political and policy circles, the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) is posited to solve the conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. In academia, however, the EKC has been deemed fallacious in macroeconomic scenarios and largely irrelevant to biodiversity. A more compelling response to the conflict is that it may be resolved with technological progress. Herein I review the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation in the absence of technological progress, explore the prospects for technological progress to reconcile that conflict, and provide linguistic suggestions for describing the relationships among economic growth, technological progress, and biodiversity conservation. The conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation is based on the first two laws of thermodynamics and principles of ecology such as trophic levels and competitive exclusion. In this biophysical context, the human economy grows at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate. Reconciling the conflict via technological progress has not occurred and is infeasible because of the tight linkage between technological progress and economic growth at current levels of technology. Surplus production in existing economic sectors is required for conducting the research and development necessary for bringing new technologies to market. Technological regimes also reflect macroeconomic goals, and if the goal is economic growth, reconciliatory technologies are less likely to be developed. As the economy grows, the loss of biodiversity may be partly mitigated with end‐use innovation that increases technical efficiency, but this type of technological progress requires policies that are unlikely if the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation (and other aspects of environmental protection) is not acknowledged.     

Use of Modified Threat Reduction Assessments to Estimate Success of Conservation Measures within and Adjacent to Kruger National Park,South Africa

Abstract: The importance of biodiversity as natural capital for economic development and sustaining human welfare is well documented. Nevertheless, resource degradation rates and persistent deterioration of human welfare in developing countries is increasingly worrisome. Developing effective monitoring and evaluation schemes and measuring biodiversity loss continue to pose unique challenges, particularly when there is a paucity of historical data. Threat reduction assessment (TRA) has been proposed as a method to measure conservation success and as a proxy measurement of conservation impact, monitoring threats to resources rather than changes to biological parameters themselves. This tool is considered a quick, practical alternative to more cost‐ and time‐intensive approaches, but has inherent weaknesses. I conducted TRAs to evaluate the effectiveness of Kruger National Park (KNP) and Limpopo Province, South Africa, in mitigating threats to biodiversity from 1994 to 2004 in 4 geographical areas. I calculated TRA index values in these TRAs by using the original scoring developed by Margoluis and Salafsky (2001) and a modified scoring system that assigned negative mitigation values to incorporate new or worsening threats. Threats were standardized to allow comparisons across the sites. Modified TRA index values were significantly lower than values derived from the original scoring exercise. Five of the 11 standardized threats were present in all 4 assessment areas, 2 were restricted to KNP, 2 to Limpopo Province, and 2 only to Malamulele municipality. These results indicate, first, the need to integrate negative mitigation values into TRA scoring. By including negative values, investigators will be afforded a more accurate picture of biodiversity threats and of temporal and spatial trends across sites. Where the original TRA scoring was used to measure conservation success, reevaluation of these cases with the modified scoring is recommended. Second, practitioners must carefully consider the need and consequences of generalizing threats into generic categories for comparative assessments. Finally, continued refinement of the methodology and its extension to facilitate the transfer of successful conservation strategies is needed.     

Biodiversity Conservation and Indigenous Land Management in the Era of Self‐Determination

Abstract: Indigenous people inhabit approximately 85% of areas designated for biodiversity conservation worldwide. They also continue to struggle for recognition and preservation of cultural identities, lifestyles, and livelihoods—a struggle contingent on control and protection of traditional lands and associated natural resources (hereafter, self‐determination). Indigenous lands and the biodiversity they support are increasingly threatened because of human population growth and per capita consumption. Application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to tribal lands in the United States provides a rich example of the articulation between biodiversity conservation and indigenous peoples' struggle for self‐determination. We found a paradoxical relationship whereby tribal governments are simultaneously and contradictorily sovereign nations; yet their communities depend on the U.S. government for protection through the federal‐trust doctrine. The unique legal status of tribal lands, their importance for conserving federally protected species, and federal environmental regulations' failure to define applicability to tribal lands creates conflict between tribal sovereignty, self‐determination, and constitutional authority. We reviewed Secretarial Order 3206, the U.S. policy on “American Indian tribal rights, federal–tribal trust responsibilities, and the ESA,” and evaluated how it influences ESA implementation on tribal lands. We found improved biodiversity conservation and tribal self‐determination requires revision of the fiduciary relationship between the federal government and the tribes to establish clear, legal definitions regarding land rights, applicability of environmental laws, and financial responsibilities. Such actions will allow provision of adequate funding and training to tribal leaders and resource managers, government agency personnel responsible for biodiversity conservation and land management, and environmental policy makers. Increased capacity, cooperation, and knowledge transfer among tribes and conservationists will improve biodiversity conservation and indigenous self‐determination.     

Past,present, and future of a freshwater fish metapopulation in a threatened landscape

It is well documented that hydropower plants can affect the dynamics of fish populations through landscape alterations and the creation of new barriers. Less emphasis has been placed on the examination of the genetic consequences for fish populations of the construction of dams. The relatively few studies that focus on genetics often do not consider colonization history and even fewer tend to use this information for conservation purposes. As a case study, we used a 3‐pronged approach to study the influence of historical processes, contemporary landscape features, and potential future anthropogenic changes in landscape on the genetic diversity of a fish metapopulation. Our goal was to identify the metapopulation's main attributes, detect priority areas for conservation, and assess the consequences of the construction of hydropower plants for the persistence of the metapopulation. We used microsatellite markers and coalescent approaches to examine historical colonization processes, traditional population genetics, and simulations of future populations under alternate scenarios of population size reduction and gene flow. Historical gene flow appeared to have declined relatively recently and contemporary populations appeared highly susceptible to changes in landscape. Gene flow is critical for population persistence. We found that hydropower plants could lead to a rapid reduction in number of alleles and to population extirpation 50–80 years after their construction. More generally, our 3‐pronged approach for the analyses of empirical genetic data can provide policy makers with information on the potential impacts of landscape changes and thus lead to more robust conservation efforts.     

Biodiversity Conservation in Agricultural Landscapes: Challenges and Opportunities of Coffee Agroforests in the Western Ghats,India

Abstract: The new approaches advocated by the conservation community to integrate conservation and livelihood development now explicitly address landscape mosaics composed of agricultural and forested land rather than only protected areas and largely intact forests. We refer specifically to a call by Harvey et al. (2008) to develop a new approach based on six strategies to integrate biodiversity conservation with sustainable livelihoods in Mesoamerican landscape mosaics. We examined the applicability of this proposal to the coffee agroforests of the Western Ghats, India. Of the six strategies, only one directly addresses livelihood conditions. Their approach has a clear emphasis on conservation and, as currently formulated risks repeating the failures of past integrated conservation and development projects. It fails to place the aspirations of farmers at the core of the agenda. Thus, although we acknowledge and share the broad vision and many of the ideas proposed by this approach, we urge more balanced priority setting by emphasizing people as much as biodiversity through a careful consideration of local livelihood needs and aspirations.     

Examining the relationship between local extinction risk and position in range

Over half of globally threatened animal species have experienced rapid geographic range loss. Identifying the parts of species’ distributions most vulnerable to local extinction would benefit conservation planning. However, previous studies give little consensus on whether ranges decline to the core or edge. We built on previous work by using empirical data to examine the position of recent local extinctions within species’ geographic ranges, address range position as a continuum, and explore the influence of environmental factors. We aggregated point‐locality data for 125 Galliform species from across the Palearctic and Indo‐Malaya into equal‐area half‐degree grid cells and used a multispecies dynamic Bayesian occupancy model to estimate rates of local extinctions. Our model provides a novel approach to identify loss of populations from within species ranges. We investigated the relationship between extinction rates and distance from range edge by examining whether patterns were consistent across biogeographic realm and different categories of land use. In the Palearctic, local extinctions occurred closer to the range edge than range core in both unconverted and human‐dominated landscapes. In Indo‐Malaya, no pattern was found for unconverted landscapes, but in human‐dominated landscapes extinctions tended to occur closer to the core than the edge. Our results suggest that local and regional factors override general spatial patterns of recent local extinction within species’ ranges and highlight the difficulty of predicting the parts of a species’ distribution most vulnerable to threat.     

Biodiversity Loss in Latin American Coffee Landscapes: Review of the Evidence on Ants,Birds, and Trees

Abstract: Studies have documented biodiversity losses due to intensification of coffee management (reduction in canopy richness and complexity). Nevertheless, questions remain regarding relative sensitivity of different taxa, habitat specialists, and functional groups, and whether implications for biodiversity conservation vary across regions. We quantitatively reviewed data from ant, bird, and tree biodiversity studies in coffee agroecosystems to address the following questions: Does species richness decline with intensification or with individual vegetation characteristics? Are there significant losses of species richness in coffee‐management systems compared with forests? Is species loss greater for forest species or for particular functional groups? and Are ants or birds more strongly affected by intensification? Across studies, ant and bird richness declined with management intensification and with changes in vegetation. Species richness of all ants and birds and of forest ant and bird species was lower in most coffee agroecosystems than in forests, but rustic coffee (grown under native forest canopies) had equal or greater ant and bird richness than nearby forests. Sun coffee (grown without canopy trees) sustained the highest species losses, and species loss of forest ant, bird, and tree species increased with management intensity. Losses of ant and bird species were similar, although losses of forest ants were more drastic in rustic coffee. Richness of migratory birds and of birds that forage across vegetation strata was less affected by intensification than richness of resident, canopy, and understory bird species. Rustic farms protected more species than other coffee systems, and loss of species depended greatly on habitat specialization and functional traits. We recommend that forest be protected, rustic coffee be promoted, and intensive coffee farms be restored by augmenting native tree density and richness and allowing growth of epiphytes. We also recommend that future research focus on potential trade‐offs between biodiversity conservation and farmer livelihoods stemming from coffee production.     

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.     

Land‐use trade‐offs between tree biodiversity and crop production in the Atlantic Forest

Trade‐offs in ecosystem services (ES) have received increasing attention because provisioning services often come at the expense of biodiversity loss. When land‐use patterns are not maximally efficient relative to productivity, provisioning services, such as crop production, can often be increased without losing biodiversity. The Atlantic Forest (AF) encompasses dense, mixed, and seasonal forests and has high levels of endemism and anthropogenic threat. We examined trade‐offs between biodiversity and crop production in the AF to provide insights into land‐use management decisions. We developed a biodiversity metric that combines information on tree species richness, evolutionary distinctiveness, and rarity at the local level. We examined the extent to which the nature of ES trade‐offs differ among the 3 forest types. We assessed how annual deforestation rates and land management practices affect biodiversity and agricultural revenues. Finally, we tested whether it is possible to achieve the same total regional revenue without reducing biodiversity by improving local management practices. The 3 forest types had similar patterns in ES trade‐offs, although within mixed forest patterns differed. Biodiversity appeared to be more sensitive to land‐use change than crop revenues. Certain crops yielded up to 10 times higher values in some sites. Enhanced crop productivity may increase revenues without reducing biodiversity. Our results showed that to enhance human well‐being without further conversion of AF, maximizing crop productivity is needed . Increasing efficiency of management outcomes by maintaining higher biodiversity and increasing provisioning services depends on knowledge of forest type, the comparative advantage of planting crops in the best places, and preserving species in a balanced manner across forests.