Patterns of Citations of Open Access and Non‐Open Access Conservation Biology Journal Papers and Book Chapters

Abstract: Open access (OA) publishing, whereby authors, their institutions, or their granting bodies pay or provide a repository through which peer‐reviewed work is available online for free, is championed as a model to increase the number of citations per paper and disseminate results widely, especially to researchers in developing countries. We compared the number of citations of OA and non‐OA papers in six journals and four books published since 2000 to test whether OA increases number of citations overall and increases citations made by authors in developing countries. After controlling for type of paper (e.g., review or research paper), length of paper, authors’ citation profiles, number of authors per paper, and whether the author or the publisher released the paper in OA, OA had no statistically significant influence on the overall number of citations per journal paper. Journal papers were cited more frequently if the authors had published highly cited papers previously, were members of large teams of authors, or published relatively long papers, but papers were not cited more frequently if they were published in an OA source. Nevertheless, author‐archived OA book chapters accrued up to eight times more citations than chapters in the same book that were not available through OA, perhaps because there is no online abstracting service for book chapters. There was also little evidence that journal papers or book chapters published in OA received more citations from authors in developing countries relative to those journal papers or book chapters not published in OA. For scholarly publications in conservation biology, only book chapters had an OA citation advantage, and OA did not increase the number of citations papers or chapters received from authors in developing countries.     

Warfare in Biodiversity Hotspots

Abstract:  Conservation efforts are only as sustainable as the social and political context within which they take place. The weakening or collapse of sociopolitical frameworks during wartime can lead to habitat destruction and the erosion of conservation policies, but in some cases, may also confer ecological benefits through altered settlement patterns and reduced resource exploitation. Over 90% of the major armed conflicts between 1950 and 2000 occurred within countries containing biodiversity hotspots, and more than 80% took place directly within hotspot areas. Less than one-third of the 34 recognized hotspots escaped significant conflict during this period, and most suffered repeated episodes of violence. This pattern was remarkably consistent over these 5 decades. Evidence from the war-torn Eastern Afromontane hotspot suggests that biodiversity conservation is improved when international nongovernmental organizations support local protected area staff and remain engaged throughout the conflict. With biodiversity hotspots concentrated in politically volatile regions, the conservation community must maintain continuous involvement during periods of war, and biodiversity conservation should be incorporated into military, reconstruction, and humanitarian programs in the world's conflict zones.     

Impacts of Marine Protected Areas on Fishing Communities

Abstract: Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a popular conservation strategy, but their impacts on human welfare are poorly understood. To inform future research and policy decisions, we reviewed the scientific literature to assess MPA impacts on five indicators of human welfare: food security, resource rights, employment, community organization, and income. Following MPA establishment, food security generally remained stable or increased in older and smaller MPAs. The ability of most fishing groups to govern MPA resources changed. Increased resource rights were positively correlated with MPA zoning and compliance with MPA regulations. Small sample sizes precluded statistical tests of the impacts of MPAs on employment, community organization, and income. Our results demonstrate that MPAs shape the social well‐being and political power of fishing communities; impacts (positive and negative) vary within and among social groups; and social impacts are correlated with some—but not all—commonly hypothesized explanatory factors. Accordingly, MPAs may represent a viable strategy for enhancing food security and empowering local communities, but current practices negatively affect at least a minority of fishers. To inform policy making, further research must better document and explain variation in the positive and negative social impacts of MPAs.     

Building a Regionally Connected Reserve Network in a Changing and Uncertain World

Abstract: Habitat connectivity is required at large spatial scales to facilitate movement of biota in response to climatic changes and to maintain viable populations of wide‐ranging species. Nevertheless, it may require decades to acquire habitat linkages at such scales, and areas that could provide linkages are often developed before they can be reserved. Reserve scheduling methods usually consider only current threats, but threats change over time as development spreads and reaches presently secure areas. We investigated the importance of considering future threats when implementing projects to maintain habitat connectivity at a regional scale. To do so, we compared forward‐looking scheduling strategies with strategies that consider only current threats. The strategies were applied to a Costa Rican case study, where many reserves face imminent isolation and other reserves will probably become isolated in the more distant future. We evaluated strategies in terms of two landscape‐scale connectivity metrics, a pure connectivity metric and a metric of connected habitat diversity. Those strategies that considered only current threats were unreliable because they often failed to complete planned habitat linkage projects. The most reliable and effective strategies considered the future spread of development and its impact on the likelihood of completing planned habitat linkage projects. Our analyses highlight the critical need to consider future threats when building connected reserve networks over time.