Evaluating Children's Conservation Biology Learning at the Zoo

Millions of children visit zoos every year with parents or schools to encounter wildlife firsthand. Public conservation education is a requirement for membership in professional zoo associations. However, in recent years zoos have been criticized for failing to educate the public on conservation issues and related biological concepts, such as animal adaptation to habitats. I used matched pre‐ and postvisit mixed methods questionnaires to investigate the educational value of zoo visits for children aged 7–15 years. The questionnaires gathered qualitative data from these individuals, including zoo‐related thoughts and an annotated drawing of a habitat. A content analysis of these qualitative data produced the quantitative data reported in this article. I evaluated the relative learning outcomes of educator‐guided and unguided zoo visits at London Zoo, both in terms of learning about conservation biology (measured by annotated drawings) and changing attitudes toward wildlife conservation (measured using thought‐listing data). Forty‐one percent of educator‐guided visits and 34% of unguided visits resulted in conservation biology‐related learning. Negative changes in children's understanding of animals and their habitats were more prevalent in unguided zoo visits. Overall, my results show the potential educational value of visiting zoos for children. However, they also suggest that zoos’ standard unguided interpretive materials are insufficient for achieving the best outcomes for visiting children. These results support a theoretical model of conservation biology learning that frames conservation educators as toolmakers who develop conceptual resources to enhance children's understanding of science. Evaluación del Aprendizaje de Biología de la Conservación por Niños en el Zoológico Jensen     

Determining When to Change Course in Management Actions

Time is of the essence in conservation biology. To secure the persistence of a species, we need to understand how to balance time spent among different management actions. A new and simple method to test the efficacy of a range of conservation actions is required. Thus, we devised a general theoretical framework to help determine whether to test a new action and when to cease a trial and revert to an existing action if the new action did not perform well. The framework involves constructing a general population model under the different management actions and specifying a management objective. By maximizing the management objective, we could generate an analytical solution that identifies the optimal timing of when to change management action. We applied the analytical solution to the case of the Christmas Island pipistrelle bat (Pipistrelle murrayi), a species for which captive breeding might have prevented its extinction. For this case, we used our model to determine whether to start a captive breeding program and when to stop a captive breeding program and revert to managing the species in the wild, given that the management goal is to maximize the chance of reaching a target wild population size. For the pipistrelle bat, captive breeding was to start immediately and it was desirable to place the species in captivity for the entire management period. The optimal time to revert to managing the species in the wild was driven by several key parameters, including the management goal, management time frame, and the growth rates of the population under different management actions. Knowing when to change management actions can help conservation managers’ act in a timely fashion to avoid species extinction. Determinar Cuándo Cambiar el Rumbo en las Acciones de Manejo     

A Multidisciplinary Conceptualization of Conservation Opportunity

An opportunity represents an advantageous combination of circumstances that allows goals to be achieved. We reviewed the nature of opportunity and how it manifests in different subsystems (e.g., biophysical, social, political, economic) as conceptualized in other bodies of literature, including behavior, adoption, entrepreneur, public policy, and resilience literature. We then developed a multidisciplinary conceptualization of conservation opportunity. We identified 3 types of conservation opportunity: potential, actors remove barriers to problem solving by identifying the capabilities within the system that can be manipulated to create support for conservation action; traction, actors identify windows of opportunity that arise from exogenous shocks, events, or changes that remove barriers to solving problems; and existing, everything is in place for conservation action (i.e., no barriers exist) and an actor takes advantage of the existing circumstances to solve problems. Different leverage points characterize each type of opportunity. Thus, unique stages of opportunity identification or creation and exploitation exist: characterizing the system and defining problems; identifying potential solutions; assessing the feasibility of solutions; identifying or creating opportunities; and taking advantage of opportunities. These stages can be undertaken independently or as part of a situational analysis and typically comprise the first stage, but they can also be conducted iteratively throughout a conservation planning process. Four types of entrepreneur can be identified (business, policy, social, and conservation), each possessing attributes that enable them to identify or create opportunities and take advantage of them. We examined how different types of conservation opportunity manifest in a social–ecological system (the Great Barrier Reef) and how they can be taken advantage of. Our multidisciplinary conceptualization of conservation opportunity strengthens and legitimizes the concept.     

Putting People on the Map through an Approach That Integrates Social Data in Conservation Planning

Conservation planning is integral to strategic and effective operations of conservation organizations. Drawing upon biological sciences, conservation planning has historically made limited use of social data. We offer an approach for integrating data on social well‐being into conservation planning that captures and places into context the spatial patterns and trends in human needs and capacities. This hierarchical approach provides a nested framework for characterizing and mapping data on social well‐being in 5 domains: economic well‐being, health, political empowerment, education, and culture. These 5 domains each have multiple attributes; each attribute may be characterized by one or more indicators. Through existing or novel data that display spatial and temporal heterogeneity in social well‐being, conservation scientists, planners, and decision makers may measure, benchmark, map, and integrate these data within conservation planning processes. Selecting indicators and integrating these data into conservation planning is an iterative, participatory process tailored to the local context and planning goals. Social well‐being data complement biophysical and threat‐oriented social data within conservation planning processes to inform decisions regarding where and how to conserve biodiversity, provide a structure for exploring socioecological relationships, and to foster adaptive management. Building upon existing conservation planning methods and insights from multiple disciplines, this approach to putting people on the map can readily merge with current planning practices to facilitate more rigorous decision making. Poner a la Gente en el Mapa por Medio de una Estrategia que Integra Información Social en la Planeación de la Conservación     

Meta‐Analysis of Attitudes toward Damage‐Causing Mammalian Wildlife

Many populations of threatened mammals persist outside formally protected areas, and their survival depends on the willingness of communities to coexist with them. An understanding of the attitudes, and specifically the tolerance, of individuals and communities and the factors that determine these is therefore fundamental to designing strategies to alleviate human‐wildlife conflict. We conducted a meta‐analysis to identify factors that affected attitudes toward 4 groups of terrestrial mammals. Elephants (65%) elicited the most positive attitudes, followed by primates (55%), ungulates (53%), and carnivores (44%). Urban residents presented the most positive attitudes (80%), followed by commercial farmers (51%) and communal farmers (26%). A tolerance to damage index showed that human tolerance of ungulates and primates was proportional to the probability of experiencing damage while elephants elicited tolerance levels higher than anticipated and carnivores elicited tolerance levels lower than anticipated. Contrary to conventional wisdom, experiencing damage was not always the dominant factor determining attitudes. Communal farmers had a lower probability of being positive toward carnivores irrespective of probability of experiencing damage, while commercial farmers and urban residents were more likely to be positive toward carnivores irrespective of damage. Urban residents were more likely to be positive toward ungulates, elephants, and primates when probability of damage was low, but not when it was high. Commercial and communal farmers had a higher probability of being positive toward ungulates, primates, and elephants irrespective of probability of experiencing damage. Taxonomic bias may therefore be important. Identifying the distinct factors explaining these attitudes and the specific contexts in which they operate, inclusive of the species causing damage, will be essential for prioritizing conservation investments. Meta‐Análisis de las Posturas hacia la Mamíferos Silvestres Causantes de Daños     

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy‐influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.     

Putting Density Back into the Habitat‐Quality Equation: Case Study of an Open‐Nesting Forest Bird

Abstract: Ecological traps and other cases of apparently maladaptive habitat selection cast doubt on the relevance of density as an indicator of habitat quality. Nevertheless, the prevalence of these phenomena remains poorly known, and density may still reflect habitat quality in most systems. We examined the relationship between density and two other parameters of habitat quality in an open‐nesting passerine species: the Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla). We hypothesized that the average individual bird makes a good decision when selecting its breeding territory and that territory spacing reflects site productivity or predation risk. Therefore, we predicted that density would be positively correlated with productivity (number of young fledged per unit area). Because individual performance is sensitive to events partly determined by chance, such as nest predation, we further predicted density would be weakly correlated or uncorrelated with the proportion of territories fledging young. We collected data in 23 study sites (25 ha each), 16 of which were located in untreated mature northern hardwood forest and seven in stands partially harvested (treated) 1–7 years prior to the survey. Density explained most of the variability in productivity (R²= 0.73), and there was no apparent decoupling between density and productivity in treated plots. In contrast, there was no significant relationship between density and the proportion of territories fledging ≥1 young over the entire breeding season. These results suggest that density reflects habitat quality at the plot scale in this study system. To our knowledge this is one of the few studies testing the value of territory density as an indicator of habitat quality in an open‐nesting bird species on the basis of a relatively large number of sizeable study plots.     

Protected-Area Monitoring Dilemmas: a New Tool to Assess Success

Abstract:  Understanding factors that influence the success of protected areas in curbing unsustainable resource consumption is essential for determining best management strategies and allocating limited resources to those projects most likely to succeed. I used a law-enforcement and monitoring game-theory model from the political science literature to identify three key variables useful in predicting the success of a protected area: costs of monitoring for rule breakers, benefits of catching a rule breaker, and probability of catching a rule breaker if monitoring. Although assigning exact values for each of these variables was difficult, the variables had a strong predictive capacity even when coded as coarse ordinal values. A model in which such values were used correctly predicted the outcome of 88 of 116 protected areas sampled from the peer-reviewed literature. The model identified a critical zone of common mismatch between protected-area circumstances and management policies. In situations where the costs of monitoring were greater than the product of the probability of catching a rule breaker and the benefit of doing so, conservation was unlikely to succeed. Control of illegal use of protected resources was reported in only 8% of such cases, regardless of strategies to motivate potential users to cooperate with conservation. My model does not prescribe a best management policy for conserving natural resources; rather, it can be used as a tool to help predict whether a proposed management policy will likely succeed in a given situation.     

Quantifying the Indicator Power of an Indicator Species

Abstract:  Biodiversity indicator species are needed for classifying biotopes and sites for conservation, and a number of methods have been developed for determining indicator species for this purpose. Nevertheless, in addition to site classification, there is sometimes a need to define an indicator species that indicates the occurrence of another species. For example, when a species of interest (target species) is difficult to detect or identify, a reliable indicator species can function as a tool that saves time and money. We derived a method that provides a quantitative measure of the indicator power (IP) of an indicator species for the target species or any species assemblage. We calculated the measure of IP from a presence–absence matrix that covered several sites. The method provided a list of indicator species, the presence of which reliably indicated the presence of another species (e.g., a threatened or rare species in a given area). The IP of the species was highest when the number of shared occurrences between the indicator species and the target species was high and, simultaneously, when the indicator species and the target species occurred separately in only a few cases. The IP was also positively influenced by the number of sites with no occurrences of either the indicator or the target species. Our method can also be used to quantify different types of species occurrence indications. We refer to these types as presence–presence, presence–absence, absence–presence, and absence–absence indications. To clarify the use of the method, we examined the situation with red-listed polypores in White-backed Woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) habitats in Fennoscandia and found some suitable indicator species. Our method provides a new, objective way to evaluate the IP of an indicator species.