Use of surrogate species to cost-effectively prioritize conservation actions

Conservation efforts often focus on umbrella species whose distributions overlap with many other flora and fauna. However, because biodiversity is affected by different threats that are spatially variable, focusing only on the geographic range overlap of species may not be sufficient in allocating the necessary actions needed to efficiently abate threats. We developed a problem-based method for prioritizing conservation actions for umbrella species that maximizes the total number of flora and fauna benefiting from management while considering threats, actions, and costs. We tested our new method by assessing the performance of the Australian federal government's umbrella prioritization list, which identifies 73 umbrella species as priorities for conservation attention. Our results show that the federal government priority list benefits only 6% of all Australia's threatened terrestrial species. This could be increased to benefit nearly half (or 46%) of all threatened terrestrial species for the same budget of AU$550 million/year if more suitable umbrella species were chosen. This results in a 7-fold increase in management efficiency. We believe nations around the world can markedly improve the selection of prioritized umbrella species for conservation action with this transparent, quantitative, and objective prioritization approach.     

Metrics of progress in the understanding and management of threats to Australian birds

Although evidence-based approaches have become commonplace for determining the success of conservation measures for the management of threatened taxa, there are no standard metrics for assessing progress in research or management. We developed 5 metrics to meet this need for threatened taxa and to quantify the need for further action and effective alleviation of threats. These metrics (research need, research achievement, management need, management achievement, and percent threat reduction) can be aggregated to examine trends for an individual taxon or for threats across multiple taxa. We tested the utility of these metrics by applying them to Australian threatened birds, which appears to be the first time that progress in research and management of threats has been assessed for all threatened taxa in a faunal group at a continental scale. Some research has been conducted on nearly three-quarters of known threats to taxa, and there is a clear understanding of how to alleviate nearly half of the threats with the highest impact. Some management has been attempted on nearly half the threats. Management outcomes ranged from successful trials to complete mitigation of the threat, including for one-third of high-impact threats. Progress in both research and management tended to be greater for taxa that were monitored or occurred on oceanic islands. Predation by cats had the highest potential threat score. However, there has been some success reducing the impact of cat predation, so climate change (particularly drought), now poses the greatest threat to Australian threatened birds. Our results demonstrate the potential for the proposed metrics to encapsulate the major trends in research and management of both threats and threatened taxa and provide a basis for international comparisons of evidence-based conservation science.     

Supporting habitat conservation with automated change detection in Google Earth Engine

A significant limitation in biodiversity conservation has been the effective implementation of laws and regulations that protect species’ habitats from degradation. Flexible, efficient, and effective monitoring and enforcement methods are needed to help conservation policies realize their full benefit. As remote sensing data become more numerous and accessible, they can be used to identify and quantify land-cover changes and habitat loss. However, these data remain underused for systematic conservation monitoring in part because of a lack of simple tools. We adapted 2 algorithms that automatically identify differences between pairs of images. We used free, publicly available satellite data to evaluate their ability to rapidly detect land-cover changes in a variety of land-cover types. We compared algorithm predictions with ground-truthed results at 100 sites of known change in the United States. We also compared algorithm predictions to manually created polygons delineating anthropogenic change in 4 case studies involving imperiled species’ habitat: oil and gas development in the range of the Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus); sand mining operations in the range of the dunes sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus arenicolus); loss of Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) coastal habitat after Hurricane Michael (2018); and residential development in St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) habitat. Both algorithms effectively discriminated between pixels corresponding to land-cover change and unchanged pixels as indicated by area under a receiver operating characteristic curve >0.90. The algorithm that was most effective differed among the case-study habitat types, and both effectively delineated habitat loss as indicated by low omission (min. = 0.0) and commission (min. = 0.0) rates, and moderate polygon overlap (max. = 47%). Our results showed how these algorithms can be used to help close the implementation gap of monitoring and enforcement in biodiversity conservation. We provide a free online tool that can be used to run these analyses ( https://conservationist.io/habitatpatrol ).     

Promoting meaningful and positive nature interactions for visitors to green spaces

The increasing alienation of people from nature is profoundly concerning because people's interactions with nature affect well-being, affinity for nature, and support of biodiversity conservation. Efforts to restore or enhance people's interactions with nature are, therefore, important to ensure sustainable human and wildlife communities, but little is known about how this can be achieved. A key factor that shapes the way people interact with nature is their affinity for nature (often measured as nature relatedness [NR]). We explored how using cues to experience nature as a means to induce NR situationally can influence the quality of people's nature interactions on visits to green spaces and their positive affect after the visit. Cues to experience are cues that guide individuals on how to interact with nature. We surveyed 1023 visitors to a nature reserve to examine the relationships between trait (i.e., stable and long-lasting) and state (i.e., temporary, brief) NR, the quality of nature interactions, and positive affect. We also conducted a controlled experiment in which 303 participants spent 30 min outdoors on campus and reported the quality of their nature interactions and positive affect. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 9 cues-to-experience experimental groups (e.g., smell flowers, observe wildlife, turn off your phone) that differed in the psychological distance from nature that they prompted. Participants who received cues of close psychological distance from nature (e.g., smell and touch natural elements) interacted 3 to 4 times more with nature and reported 0.2 more positive affect than other participants. Our results demonstrate that providing cues to experience nature, which bring people closer to nature and potentially induce state NR, can enhance the quality of people's nature interactions and their positive affect. These results highlight the role of NR in high-quality nature interactions and suggest the use of cues to experience as a promising avenue for inducing state NR and promoting meaningful interactions with biodiversity, thus, reconciling conservation and well-being objectives.     

Correcting common misconceptions to inspire conservation action in urban environments

Despite repeated calls to action, proposals for urban conservation are often met with surprise or scepticism. There remains a pervasive narrative in policy, practice, and the public psyche that urban environments, although useful for engaging people with nature or providing ecosystem services, are of little conservation value. We argue that the tendency to overlook the conservation value of urban environments stems from misconceptions about the ability of native species to persist within cities and towns and that this, in turn, hinders effective conservation action. However, recent scientific evidence shows that these assumptions do not always hold. Although it is generally true that increasing the size, quality, and connectivity of habitat patches will improve the probability that a species can persist, the inverse is not that small, degraded, or fragmented habitats found in urban environments are worthless. In light of these findings we propose updated messages that guide and inspire researchers, practitioners, and decision makers to undertake conservation action in urban environments: consider small spaces, recognize unconventional habitats, test creative solutions, and use science to minimize the impacts of future urban development.     

Strengthening conservation science as a crisis discipline by addressing challenges of precaution,privilege, and individualism

Conservation science deals with crises and supports policy interventions devised to mitigate highly uncertain threats that pose irreversible harm. When conventional policy tools, such as quantitative risk assessments, are insufficient, the precautionary principle provides a practical framework and range of robust heuristics. Yet, precaution is often resisted in many policy arenas, especially those involving powerful self-interests, and this resistance is compounded by structures of privilege and competitive individualism in science. We describe key drivers and effects of such resistance in conservation science. These include a loss of rigor under uncertainty, an erosion of crisis response capabilities, and a further reinforcement of privileged interests in conservation politics. We recommend open acknowledgement of the pressures exerted by power inside science; greater recognition for the value of the precautionary principle under uncertainty; deliberate measures to resist competitive individualism; support for blind review, open science, and data sharing; and a shift from hierarchical multidisciplinarity toward more egalitarian transdisciplinarity to accelerate advances in conservation science. Article impact statement: Precautionary principle, privilege structures among disciplines, and culture of individualism link to effective conservation policy making.     

Global gap analysis of cactus species and priority sites for their conservation

Knowing how much biodiversity is captured by protected areas (PAs) is important to meeting country commitments to international conservation agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, and analyzing gaps in species coverage by PAs contributes greatly to improved locating of new PAs and conservation of species. Regardless of their importance, global gap analyses have been conducted only for a few taxonomic groups (e.g., mangroves, corals, amphibians, birds, mammals). We conducted the first global gap analysis for a complete specious plant group, the highly threatened Cactaceae. Using geographic distribution data of 1438 cactus species, we assessed how well the current PA network represents them. We also systematically identified priority areas for conservation of cactus species that met and failed to meet conservation targets accounting for their conservation status. There were 261 species with no coverage by PAs (gap species). A greater percentage of cacti species (18%) lacked protection than mammals (9.7%) and birds (5.6%), and also a greater percentage of threatened cacti species (32%) were outside protected areas than amphibians (26.5%), birds (19.9%), or mammals (16%). The top 17% of the landscape that best captured covered species represented on average 52.9% of species ranges. The priority areas for gap species and the unprotected portion of the ranges of species that only partially met their conservation target (i.e., partial gap) captured on average 75.2% of their ranges, of which 100 were threatened gap species. These findings and knowledge of the threats affecting species provide information that can be used to improve planning for cacti conservation and highlight the importance of assessing the representation of major groups, such as plants, in PAs to determining the performance of the current PA network.     

Defining the balance point between conservation and development

In the face of the current global ecological crisis and the threats it poses to human survival and security, the fundamental solution is to resolve the deep contradiction between conservation and economic development. We considered the 3 key and basic questions of why to protect, how much to protect, and where to protect natural areas. Human survival depends on functioning ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide. In this regard, conserving core biodiversity conservation priority areas (BCPAs) can provide maximum conservation benefit. The goals of protected area (PA) systems globally and nationally must be clearly defined so as to sustain the survival and development of people and to coordinate and balance other objectives with this goal at the center. There is an urgent need to study, calculate, and define the extent of the natural world to ensure the well-being of people. We call this area over which natural areas of land and sea extend across the world or a country nature proportion (N%). Especially, a minimum area that ensures human survival should be protected, and we suggest that this area should cover core BCPAs so that it can achieve the maximum conservation benefit. These recommendations could be applied at global or national levels. The Chinese government proposes “developing a protected-area system composed mainly of national parks,” and it has unified the administration of PAs into a central management authority. At this key time in the reform of the PA system, should this proposal be adopted, conservation will garner the greatest social consensus and support, and planning at the national level for BCPA coverage will be improved. We believe these recommendations are critical for China and other countries and extremely important for the world because they will pave the way toward a balance between nature conservation and human development as the projected human population reaches 10 billion by 2050.     

An Australian perspective on rewilding

Rewilding is increasingly recognized as a conservation tool but is often context specific, which inhibits broad application. Rewilding in Australia seeks to enhance ecosystem function and promote self-sustaining ecosystems. An absence of large-bodied native herbivores means trophic rewilding in mainland Australia has focused on the restoration of functions provided by apex predators and small mammals. Because of the pervasive influence of introduced mesopredators, predator-proof fences, and establishment of populations on predator-free islands are common rewilding approaches. This sets Australian rewilding apart from most jurisdictions and provides globally relevant insights but presents challenges to restoring function to broader landscapes. Passive rewilding is of limited utility in arid zones. Although increasing habitat extent and quality in mesic coastal areas may work, it will likely be necessary to undertake active management. Because much of Australia's population is in urban areas, rewilding efforts must include urban areas to maximize effectiveness. Thus rewilding is not synonymous with wilderness and can occur over multiple scales. Rewilding efforts must recognize human effects on other species and benefit both nature and humans. Rewilding in Australia requires development of a shared vision and strategy and proof-of-concept projects to demonstrate the benefits. The repackaging of existing conservation activities as rewilding may confuse and undermine the success of rewilding programs and should be avoided. As elsewhere, rewilding in Australia should be viewed as an important conservation tool.     

Ethics and biodiversity offsetting

Biodiversity offsetting is an increasingly applied tool aiming to compensate for environmental damage caused by exploitation projects. Critics, however, raise concerns over the purported effectiveness of offsetting and question the ethical underpinnings and implications of offsetting. These ethical dimensions have largely been overlooked in research, which may lead to offsetting systems that fail to respect the values intended to be safeguarded. To address these dimensions, 5 ethical objections in the scientific literature were identified: offsetting violates nature's intrinsic value; losses of nature cannot be compensated for by human interventions; too little is known to make adequate trades; offsetting impedes virtuous dispositions toward nature; and offsetting has negative justice implications. We examined these objections and arguments against them based on the ethical concepts of intrinsic and instrumental values, anthropocentrism, nonanthropocentrism, and deontological, consequentialist, and virtue-ethical paradigms. Both nonanthropocentric and anthropocentric concerns were expressed in deontological, consequential, and virtue-ethical framings. Objections mostly had a deontological or virtue-ethical basis, whereas counterarguments were based on consequential reasoning, but common ground in practice is often conceivable. Based on our findings, we formulated 10 recommendations for policy makers and 5 questions for practitioners to consider. We propose, for example, that policy makers clarify aims, legislate on no-go areas, and govern the use of multipliers. We suggest that practitioners consider, for instance, how to improve case-specific knowledge and promote learning and stakeholder engagement. We hope these recommendations and questions will encourage further discussion of the ethics of biodiversity offsets and ultimately strengthen the respect for biodiversity and human-welfare values at stake in offsetting projects.     

Emotion as a source of moral understanding in conservation

Recent debates around the meaning and implications of compassionate conservation suggest that some conservationists consider emotion a false and misleading basis for moral judgment and decision making. We trace these beliefs to a long-standing, gendered sociocultural convention and argue that the disparagement of emotion as a source of moral understanding is both empirically and morally problematic. According to the current scientific and philosophical understanding, reason and emotion are better understood as partners, rather than opposites. Nonetheless, the two have historically been seen as separate, with reason elevated in association with masculinity and emotion (especially nurturing emotion) dismissed or delegitimated in association with femininity. These associations can be situated in a broader, dualistic, and hierarchical logic used to maintain power for a dominant male (White, able-bodied, upper class, heterosexual) human class. We argue that emotion should be affirmed by conservationists for the novel and essential insights it contributes to conservation ethics. We consider the specific example of compassion and characterize it as an emotional experience of interdependence and shared vulnerability. This experience highlights conservationists’ responsibilities to individual beings, enhancing established and widely accepted beliefs that conservationists have a duty to protect populations, species, and ecosystems (or biodiversity). We argue compassion, thus understood, should be embraced as a core virtue of conservation.     

Geographic bias in citation rates of conservation research

We investigated whether the impact of conservation science is greater for research conducted in countries with more pressing conservation problems. We quantified research impact for 231 countries based on 2 citation metrics (mean cites per paper and h index) and fitted models predicting research impact based on number of threatened bird and mammal species (as a measure of conservation importance of a country) and a range of demographic variables. Citation rates of conservation research increased as a country's conservation need increased and as human population, quality of governance, and wealth increased. Even after accounting for these factors, citation rates among regions and countries within regions varied significantly. The conservation research community needs to consider ways to begin addressing the entrenched disadvantages some countries have when it comes to initiating projects and producing high‐quality research.     

Evaluating the conservation impact of Antarctica's protected areas

Antarctic specially protected areas (ASPAs) are a key regulatory mechanism for protecting Antarctic environmental values. Previous evaluations of the effectiveness of the ASPA system focused on its representativeness and design characteristics, presenting a compelling rationale for its systematic revision. Upgrading the system could increase the representation of values within ASPAs, but representation alone does not guarantee the avoided loss or improvement of those values. Identifying factors that influence the effectiveness of ASPAs would inform the design and management of an ASPA system with the greatest capacity to deliver its intended conservation outcomes. To facilitate evaluations of ASPA effectiveness, we devised a research and policy agenda that includes articulating a theory of change for what outcomes ASPAs generate and how; building evaluation principles into ASPA design and designation processes; employing complementary approaches to evaluate multiple dimensions of effectiveness; and extending evaluation findings to identify and exploit drivers of positive conservation impact. Implementing these approaches will enhance the efficacy of ASPAs as a management tool, potentially leading to improved outcomes for Antarctic natural values in an era of rapid global change. Evaluación del impacto de conservación de las áreas protegidas de la Antártida     

The challenge of biased evidence in conservation

Efforts to tackle the current biodiversity crisis need to be as efficient and effective as possible given chronic underfunding. To inform decision-makers of the most effective conservation actions, it is important to identify biases and gaps in the conservation literature to prioritize future evidence generation. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the state of the global literature that tests conservation actions for amphibians and birds. For the studies in the database, we investigated their spatial and taxonomic extent and distribution across biomes, effectiveness metrics, and study designs. Studies were heavily concentrated in Western Europe and North America for birds and particularly for amphibians, and temperate forest and grassland biomes were highly represented relative to their percentage of land coverage. Studies that used the most reliable study designs—before-after control-impact and randomized controlled trials—were the most geographically restricted and scarce in the evidence base. There were negative spatial relationships between the numbers of studies and the numbers of threatened and data-deficient species worldwide. Taxonomic biases and gaps were apparent for amphibians and birds—some entire orders were absent from the evidence base—whereas others were poorly represented relative to the proportion of threatened species they contained. Metrics used to evaluate effectiveness of conservation actions were often inconsistent between studies, potentially making them less directly comparable and evidence synthesis more difficult. Testing conservation actions on threatened species outside Western Europe, North America, and Australasia should be prioritized. Standardizing metrics and improving the rigor of study designs used to test conservation actions would also improve the quality of the evidence base for synthesis and decision-making.     

Sentiment analysis as a measure of conservation culture in scientific literature

Culturomics is emerging as an important field within science, as a way to measure attitudes and beliefs and their dynamics across time and space via quantitative analysis of digitized data from literature, news, film, social media, and more. Sentiment analysis is a culturomics tool that, within the last decade, has provided a means to quantify the polarity of attitudes expressed within various media. Conservation science is a crisis discipline; therefore, accurate and effective communication are paramount. We investigated how conservation scientists communicate their findings through scientific journal articles. We analyzed 15,001 abstracts from articles published from 1998 to 2017 in 6 conservation-focused journals selected based on indexing in scientific databases. Articles were categorized by year, focal taxa, and the conservation status of the focal species. We calculated mean sentiment score for each abstract (mean adjusted z score) based on 4 lexicons (Jockers-Rinker, National Research Council, Bing, and AFINN). We found a significant positive annual trend in the sentiment scores of articles. We also observed a significant trend toward increasing negativity along the spectrum of conservation status categories (i.e., from least concern to extinct). There were some clear differences in the sentiments with which research on different taxa was reported, however. For example, abstracts mentioning lobe finned fishes tended to have high sentiment scores, which could be related to the rediscovery of the coelacanth driving a positive narrative. Contrastingly, abstracts mentioning elasmobranchs had low scores, possibly reflecting the negative sentiment score associated with the word shark. Sentiment analysis has applications in science, especially as it pertains to conservation psychology, and we suggest a new science-based lexicon be developed specifically for the field of conservation.     

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.     

Balancing making a difference with making a living in the conservation sector

Goals play important roles in people's lives because they focus attention, mobilize effort, and sustain motivation. Understanding conservationists’ satisfaction with goal progress may provide insights into real-world environmental trends and flag risks to their well-being and motivation. We asked 2694 conservationists working globally how satisfied they were with progress toward goals important to them. We then explored how this satisfaction varied among groups, including demographic and occupational. Finally, we looked at respondents' experiences associated with goal-progress satisfaction. Many (94.0%) indicated that making a meaningful contribution to conservation was an important goal for them, and over half were satisfied or very satisfied in this area (52.5%). However, respondents were generally dissatisfied with progress on collective conservation goals (e.g., stopping species loss). Some groups were more likely to report dissatisfaction than others. For instance, those in conservation for longer tended to be less satisfied with collective goal progress (log odds –0.21, 95% credibility interval [CI] –0.32 to –0.10), but practitioners reported greater satisfaction (log odds 0.38, 95% CI 0.15–0.60). Likewise, those who were more optimistic in life (log odds 0.24, 95% CI 0.17–0.32), male (log odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.10–0.41), and working in conservation practice (log odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.08–0.43) reported greater satisfaction with individual goal progress. Free-text responses suggested widespread dissatisfaction with livelihood goals, particularly related to job security and adequate compensation. Although contributing to conservation appeared to be a source of satisfaction, slow goal progress in other areas––particularly around making a living––looked to be a source of distress and demotivation. Employers, funders, professional societies, and others should consider ways to help those in the sector make a difference while making a satisfactory living by, for example, prioritizing conservationists′ well-being when allocating funding. This support could include avoiding exploitative practices, fostering supportive work environments, and celebrating positive outcomes.     

Red-list status and extinction risk of the world's whales,dolphins, and porpoises

To understand the scope and scale of the loss of biodiversity, tools are required that can be applied in a standardized manner to all species globally, spanning realms from land to the open ocean. We used data from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List to provide a synthesis of the conservation status and extinction risk of cetaceans. One in 4 cetacean species (26% of 92 species) was threatened with extinction (i.e., critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable) and 11% were near threatened. Ten percent of cetacean species were data deficient, and we predicted that 2–3 of these species may also be threatened. The proportion of threatened cetaceans has increased: 15% in 1991, 19% in 2008, and 26% in 2021. The assessed conservation status of 20% of species has worsened from 2008 to 2021, and only 3 moved into categories of lesser threat. Cetacean species with small geographic ranges were more likely to be listed as threatened than those with large ranges, and those that occur in freshwater (100% of species) and coastal (60% of species) habitats were under the greatest threat. Analysis of odontocete species distributions revealed a global hotspot of threatened small cetaceans in Southeast Asia, in an area encompassing the Coral Triangle and extending through nearshore waters of the Bay of Bengal, northern Australia, and Papua New Guinea and into the coastal waters of China. Improved management of fisheries to limit overfishing and reduce bycatch is urgently needed to avoid extinctions or further declines, especially in coastal areas of Asia, Africa, and South America.     

Use of ambiguous detections to improve estimates from species distribution models

As large carnivores recover throughout Europe, their distribution needs to be studied to determine their conservation status and assess the potential for human-carnivore conflicts. However, efficient monitoring of many large carnivore species is challenging due to their rarity, elusive behavior, and large home ranges. Their monitoring can include opportunistic sightings from citizens in addition to designed surveys. Two types of detection errors may occur in such monitoring schemes: false negatives and false positives. False-negative detections can be accounted for in species distribution models (SDMs) that deal with imperfect detection. False-positive detections, due to species misidentification, have rarely been accounted for in SDMs. Generally, researchers use ad hoc data-filtering methods to discard ambiguous observations prior to analysis. These practices may discard valuable ecological information on the distribution of a species. We investigated the costs and benefits of including data types that may include false positives rather than discarding them for SDMs of large carnivores. We used a dynamic occupancy model that simultaneously accounts for false negatives and positives to jointly analyze data that included both unambiguous detections and ambiguous detections. We used simulations to compare the performances of our model with a model fitted on unambiguous data only. We tested the 2 models in 4 scenarios in which parameters that control false-positive detections and true detections varied. We applied our model to data from the monitoring of the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in the European Alps. The addition of ambiguous detections increased the precision of parameter estimates. For the Eurasian lynx, incorporating ambiguous detections produced more precise estimates of the ecological parameters and revealed additional occupied sites in areas where the species is likely expanding. Overall, we found that ambiguous data should be considered when studying the distribution of large carnivores through the use of dynamic occupancy models that account for misidentification.     

Myths and assumptions about human-wildlife conflict and coexistence

Recent extinctions often resulted from humans retaliating against wildlife that threatened people's interests or were perceived to threaten current or future interests. Today's subfield of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence (HWCC) grew out of an original anthropocentric concern with such real or perceived threats and then, starting in the mid-1990s, with protecting valued species from people. Recent work in ethics and law has shifted priorities toward coexistence between people and wild animals. To spur scientific progress and more effective practice, we examined 4 widespread assumptions about HWCC that need to be tested rigorously: scientists are neutral and objective about HWCC; current participatory, consensus-based decisions provide just and fair means to overcome challenges in HWCC; wildlife threats to human interests are getting worse; and wildlife damage to human interests is additive to other sources of damage. The first 2 assumptions are clearly testable, but if they are entangled can become a wicked problem and may need debunking as myths if they cannot be disentangled. Some assumptions have seldom or never been tested and those that have been tested appear dubious, yet the use of the assumptions continues in the practice and scholarship of HWCC. We call for tests of assumptions and debunking of myths in the scholarship of HWCC. Adherence to the principles of scientific integrity and application of standards of evidence can help advance our call. We also call for practitioners and interest groups to improve the constitutive process prior to decision making about wildlife. We predict these steps will hasten scientific progress toward evidence-based interventions and improve the fairness, ethics, and legality of coexistence strategies.