Making Sense of the Policy Process for Carnivore Conservation

Grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ), mountain lions ( Puma concolor ), wolverines ( Gulo gulo ), wolves ( Canis lupus ), and lynx ( Felis lynx ) are all top-level carnivores in the Rocky Mountains of the northern U.S. and southern Canada. Because of their body size and high trophic position, these species require abundant prey species and large habitat areas—requirements that make their conservation a controversial public policy problem. Because the challenge of conserving these species extends beyond biological issues, it is necessary to involve other relevant disciplines and perspectives in understanding and solving the problem. Our examination of the context, content, and process of large carnivore conservation policies suggests more effective and active roles for scientists in designing solutions to the problem of landscape-level carnivore conservation. Scientists must develop an understanding of the range of participants in the policy process and the ways in which these participants receive and utilize information. This knowledge of the policy process could help scientists to better understand their roles in framing and clarifying policy questions, projecting the consequences of various alternatives, and presenting policy information in appropriate fora.     

The politics of employment liability

Employment liability is an important check and balance against employee harm at work. In practice, however, an inadvertent consequence of employment liability is a potential shift in power from organizations to employees that affects subsequent managerial decision making. In this Incubator, we discuss behavioral and attitudinal ramifications of employment liability at work. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social media and disasters: a functional framework for social media use in disaster planning,response, and research

A comprehensive review of online, official, and scientific literature was carried out in 2012–13 to develop a framework of disaster social media. This framework can be used to facilitate the creation of disaster social media tools, the formulation of disaster social media implementation processes, and the scientific study of disaster social media effects. Disaster social media users in the framework include communities, government, individuals, organisations, and media outlets. Fifteen distinct disaster social media uses were identified, ranging from preparing and receiving disaster preparedness information and warnings and signalling and detecting disasters prior to an event to (re)connecting community members following a disaster. The framework illustrates that a variety of entities may utilise and produce disaster social media content. Consequently, disaster social media use can be conceptualised as occurring at a number of levels, even within the same disaster. Suggestions are provided on how the proposed framework can inform future disaster social media development and research.     

Ten ways remote sensing can contribute to conservation

In an effort to increase conservation effectiveness through the use of Earth observation technologies, a group of remote sensing scientists affiliated with government and academic institutions and conservation organizations identified 10 questions in conservation for which the potential to be answered would be greatly increased by use of remotely sensed data and analyses of those data. Our goals were to increase conservation practitioners’ use of remote sensing to support their work, increase collaboration between the conservation science and remote sensing communities, identify and develop new and innovative uses of remote sensing for advancing conservation science, provide guidance to space agencies on how future satellite missions can support conservation science, and generate support from the public and private sector in the use of remote sensing data to address the 10 conservation questions. We identified a broad initial list of questions on the basis of an email chain‐referral survey. We then used a workshop‐based iterative and collaborative approach to whittle the list down to these final questions (which represent 10 major themes in conservation): How can global Earth observation data be used to model species distributions and abundances? How can remote sensing improve the understanding of animal movements? How can remotely sensed ecosystem variables be used to understand, monitor, and predict ecosystem response and resilience to multiple stressors? How can remote sensing be used to monitor the effects of climate on ecosystems? How can near real‐time ecosystem monitoring catalyze threat reduction, governance and regulation compliance, and resource management decisions? How can remote sensing inform configuration of protected area networks at spatial extents relevant to populations of target species and ecosystem services? How can remote sensing‐derived products be used to value and monitor changes in ecosystem services? How can remote sensing be used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of conservation efforts? How does the expansion and intensification of agriculture and aquaculture alter ecosystems and the services they provide? How can remote sensing be used to determine the degree to which ecosystems are being disturbed or degraded and the effects of these changes on species and ecosystem functions?     

Livelihoods,conflict and aid programming: is the evidence base good enough?

In conflict‐affected situations, aid‐funded livelihood interventions are often tasked with a dual imperative: to generate material welfare benefits and to contribute to peacebuilding outcomes. There may be some logic to such a transformative agenda, but does the reality square with the rhetoric? Through a review of the effectiveness of a range of livelihood promotion interventions—from job creation to microfinance—this paper finds that high quality empirical evidence is hard to come by in conflict‐affected situations. Many evaluations appear to conflate outputs with impacts and numerous studies fail to include adequate information on their methodologies and datasets, making it difficult to appraise the reliability of their conclusions. Given the primary purpose of this literature—to provide policy guidance on effective ways to promote livelihoods—this silence is particularly concerning. As such, there is a strong case to be made for a restrained and nuanced handling of such interventions in conflict‐affected settings.