The place of nature in conservation conflicts

Conservation conflicts are gaining importance in contemporary conservation scholarship such that conservation may have entered a conflict hype. We attempted to uncover and deconstruct the normative assumptions behind such studies by raising several questions: what are conservation conflicts, what justifies the attention they receive, do conservation-conflict studies limit wildlife conservation, is scientific knowledge stacked against wildlife in conservation conflicts, do conservation-conflict studies adopt a specific view of democracy, can laws be used to force conservation outcomes, why is flexibility needed in managing conservation conflicts, can conservation conflicts be managed by promoting tolerance, and who needs to compromise in conservation conflicts? We suggest that many of the intellectual premises in the field may defang conservation and prevent it from truly addressing the current conservation crisis as it accelerates. By framing conservation conflicts as conflicts between people about wildlife or nature, the field insidiously transfers guilt, whereby human activities are no longer blamed for causing species decline and extinctions but conservation is instead blamed for causing social conflicts. When the focus is on mitigating social conflicts without limiting in any powerful way human activities damaging to nature, conservation-conflict studies risk keeping conservation within the limits of human activities, instead of keeping human activities within the limits of nature. For conservation to successfully stop the biodiversity crisis, we suggest the alternative goal of recognizing nature's right to existence to maintenance of ecological functions and evolutionary processes. Nature being a rights bearer or legal person would imply its needs must be explicitly taken into account in conflict adjudication. If, even in conservation, nature's interests come second to human interests, it may be no surprise that conservation cannot succeed.     

Overestimation of self-reported driving exposure: Results from the SHRP2 Naturalistic Driving Study

Objectives: The accuracy of self-reported driving exposure has questioned the validity of using self-reported mileage to inform research questions. Studies examining the accuracy of self-reported driving exposure compared to objective measures find low validity, with drivers overestimating and underestimating driving distance. The aims of the current study were to (1) examine the discrepancy between self-reported annual mileage and driving exposure the following year and (2) investigate whether these differences depended on age and annual mileage.

Methods: Two estimates of drivers’ self-reported annual mileage collected during vehicle installation (obtained via prestudy questionnaires) and approximated annual mileage driven (based upon Global Positioning System data) were acquired from 3,323 participants who participated in the Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP2) Naturalistic Driving Study.

Results: A Wilcoxon signed rank test showed that there was a significant difference between self-reported and annual driving exposure during participation in SHRP 2, with the majority of self-reported responses overestimating annual mileage the following year, irrespective of whether an ordinal or ratio variable was examined. Over 15% of participants provided self-reported responses with over 100% deviation, which were exclusive to participants underestimating annual mileage. Further, deviations in reporting differed between participants who had low, medium, and high exposure, as well as between participants in different age groups.

Conclusions: These findings indicate that although self-reported annual mileage is heavily relied on for research, such estimates of driving distance may be an overestimate of current or future mileage and can influence the validity of prior research that has utilized estimates of driving exposure.     

Effects of Coastal Lighting on Foraging Behaviorof Beach Mice

Abstract:  Introduction of artificial light into wildlife habitat represents a rapidly expanding form of human encroachment, particularly in coastal systems. Light pollution alters the behavior of sea turtles during nesting; therefore, long-wavelength lights—low-pressure sodium vapor and bug lights—that minimize impacts on turtles are required for beach lighting in Florida (U.S.A.). We investigated the effects of these two kinds of lights on the foraging behavior of Santa Rosa beach mice (  Peromyscus polionotus leucocephalus ). We compared patch use and giving-up densities of mice for experimental food patches established along a gradient of artificial light in the field. Mice exploited fewer food patches near both types of artificial light than in areas with little light and harvested fewer seeds within patches near bug lights. Our results show that artificial light affects the behavior of terrestrial species in coastal areas and that light pollution deserves greater consideration in conservation planning.     

Introduced and cryptogenic species in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia

Port Phillip Bay (PPB) is a large (1,930 km²), temperate embayment in southern Victoria, Australia. Extensive bay-wide surveys of PPB have occurred since 1840. In 1995/1996 the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP) undertook an intensive evaluation of the region with the aims of developing a comprehensive species list of native and introduced biota and contrasting previous bay-wide assessments with a current field survey in order to detect new incursions and discern alterations to native communities. Two methods were used to meet these aims: a re-evaluation of regional museum collections and published research in PPB to identify and determine the timing of introductions; and field surveys for benthic (infauna, epifauna and encrusting) organisms between September 1995 to March 1996. One hundred and sixty introduced (99) and cryptogenic (61) species were identified representing over 13% of the recorded species of PPB. As expected, the majority of these are concentrated around the shipping ports of Geelong and Melbourne. Invasions within PPB appear to be increasing, possibly due to an increase in modern shipping traffic and an increase in aquaculture (historically associated with incidental introductions); however the records of extensive biological surveys suggest that this may, in part, be an artefact of sampling effort. In contrast to Northern Hemisphere studies, PPB (and Southern Hemisphere introductions in general) have significantly different suites of successfully invading taxa. PPB is presented as one of the most invaded marine ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere.Communicated by M.S. Johnson, Crawley