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.     

Understanding implications of consumer behavior for wildlife farming and sustainable wildlife trade

Unsustainable wildlife trade affects biodiversity and the livelihoods of communities dependent upon those resources. Wildlife farming has been proposed to promote sustainable trade, but characterizing markets and understanding consumer behavior remain neglected but essential steps in the design and evaluation of such operations. We used sea turtle trade in the Cayman Islands, where turtles have been farm raised for human consumption for almost 50 years, as a case study to explore consumer preferences toward wild‐sourced (illegal) and farmed (legal) products and potential conservation implications. Combining methods innovatively (including indirect questioning and choice experiments), we conducted a nationwide trade assessment through in‐person interviews from September to December 2014. Households were randomly selected using disproportionate stratified sampling, and responses were weighted based on district population size. We approached 597 individuals, of which 37 (6.2%) refused to participate. Although 30% of households had consumed turtle in the previous 12 months, the purchase and consumption of wild products was rare (e.g., 64–742 resident households consumed wild turtle meat [i.e., 0.3–3.5% of households] but represented a large threat to wild turtles in the area due to their reduced populations). Differences among groups of consumers were marked, as identified through choice experiments, and price and source of product played important roles in their decisions. Despite the long‐term practice of farming turtles, 13.5% of consumers showed a strong preference for wild products, which demonstrates the limitations of wildlife farming as a single tool for sustainable wildlife trade. By using a combination of indirect questioning, choice experiments, and sales data to investigate demand for wildlife products, we obtained insights about consumer behavior that can be used to develop conservation‐demand‐focused initiatives. Lack of data from long‐term social–ecological assessments hinders the evaluation of and learning from wildlife farming. This information is key to understanding under which conditions different interventions (e.g., bans, wildlife farming, social marketing) are likely to succeed.     

Impact of floodplain and Stage 0 stream restoration on flood attenuation and floodplain exchange during small frequent storms

River flooding impacts human life and infrastructure, yet provides habitat and ecosystem services. Traditional flood control (e.g., levees, dams) reduces habitat and ecosystem services, and exacerbates flooding elsewhere. Floodplain restoration (i.e., bankfull floodplain reconnection and Stage 0) can also provide flood management, but has not been sufficiently evaluated for small frequent storms. We used 1D unsteady Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System to simulate small storms in a 5 km-long, second-order generic stream from the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and varied % channel restored (starting at the upstream end), restoration location, restoration bank height (distinguishes bankfull from Stage 0 restoration), and floodplain width/Manning's n. Stream restoration decreased (attenuated) peak flow up to 37% and increased floodplain exchange by up to 46%. Floodplain width and % channel restored had the largest impact on flood attenuation. The incremental effects of new restoration projects on flood attenuation were greatest when little prior restoration had occurred. By contrast, incremental effects on floodplain exchange were greatest in the presence of substantial prior restoration, setting up a tradeoff. A similar tradeoff was revealed between attenuation and exchange for project location, but not bank height or floodplain width. In particular, attenuation and exchange were always greater for Stage 0 than for bankfull floodplain restoration. Stage 0 thus may counteract human impacts such as urbanization.     

Mainstreaming human and large carnivore coexistence through institutional collaboration

Achieving coexistence between large carnivores and humans in human-dominated landscapes (HDLs) is a key challenge for societies globally. This challenge cannot be adequately met with the current sectoral approaches to HDL governance and an academic community largely dominated by disciplinary sectors. Academia (universities and other research institutions and organizations) should take a more active role in embracing societal challenges around conservation of large carnivores in HDLs by facilitating cross-sectoral cooperation to mainstream coexistence of humans and large carnivores. Drawing on lessons from populated regions of Europe, Asia, and South America with substantial densities of large carnivores, we suggest academia should better embrace the principles and methods of sustainability sciences and create institutional spaces for the implementation of transdisciplinary curricula and projects; reflect on research approaches (i.e., disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary) they apply and how their outcomes could aid leveraging institutional transformations for mainstreaming; and engage with various institutions and stakeholder groups to create novel institutional structures that can respond to multiple challenges of HDL management and human–large carnivore coexistence. Success in mainstreaming this coexistence in HDL will rest on the ability to think and act cooperatively. Such a conservation achievement, if realized, stands to have far-reaching benefits for people and biodiversity.     

Interinstrument comparison of remote-sensing devices and a new method for calculating on-road nitrogen oxides emissions and validation of vehicle-specific power

Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by vehicles in real driving environments are only partially understood. This has been brought to the attention of the world with recent revelations of the cheating of the type of approval tests exposed in the dieselgate scandal. Remote-sensing devices offer investigators an opportunity to directly measure in situ real driving emissions of tens of thousands of vehicles. Remote-sensing NO₂ measurements are not as widely available as would be desirable. The aim of this study is to improve the ability of investigators to estimate the NO₂ emissions and to improve the confidence of the total NOx results calculated from standard remote-sensing device (RSD) measurements. The accuracy of the RSD speed and acceleration module was also validated using state-of-the-art onboard global positioning system (GPS) tracking. Two RSDs used in roadside vehicle emissions surveys were tested side by side under off-carriageway conditions away from transient pollution sources to ascertain the consistency of their measurements. The speed correlation was consistent across the range of measurements at 95% confidence and the acceleration correlation was consistent at 95% confidence intervals for all but the most extreme acceleration cases. VSP was consistent at 95% confidence across all measurements except for those at VSP ≥ 15 kW t^?1, which show a small underestimate. The controlled distribution gas nitric oxide measurements follow a normal distribution with 2σ equal to 18.9% of the mean, compared to 15% observed during factory calibration indicative of additional error introduced into the system. Systematic errors of +84 ppm were observed but within the tolerance of the control gas. Interinstrument correlation was performed, with the relationship between the FEAT and the RSD4600 being linear with a gradient of 0.93 and an R² of 0.85, indicating good correlation. A new method to calculate NOx emissions using fractional NO₂ combined with NO measurements made by the RSD4600 was constructed, validated, and shown to be more accurate than previous methods.

Implications: Synchronized remote-sensing measurements of NO were taken using two different remote-sensing devices in an off-road study. It was found that the measurements taken by both instruments were well correlated. Fractional NO₂ measurements from a prior study, measurable on only one device, were used to create new NO_x emission factors for the device that could not be measured by the second device. These estimates were validated against direct measurement of total NO_x emission factors and shown to be an improvement on previous methodologies. Validation of vehicle-specific power was performed with good correlation observed.