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.     

Making a Model Meaningful to Coral Reef Managers in a Developing Nation: a Case Study of Overfishing and Rock Anchoring in Indonesia

Abstract: Most of the world's coral reefs line the coasts of developing nations, where impacts from intense and destructive fishing practices form critical conservation issues for managers. Overfishing of herbivorous fishes can cause phase shifts to macroalgal dominance, and fishers’ use of rocks as anchors lowers coral cover, giving further competitive advantage to macroalgae. Overfishing and anchoring have been studied extensively, but the role of their interaction in lowering coral reef resilience has not been quantified formally. We analyzed the combined effects of overfishing and rock anchoring on a range of reef habitat types—varying from high coral and low macroalgae cover to low coral and high macroalgae cover—in a marine park in Indonesia. We parameterized a model of coral and algal dynamics with three intensities of anchoring and fishing pressure. Results of the model indicated that damage caused by rock anchoring was equal to or possibly more devastating to coral reefs in the area than the impact of overfishing. This is an important outcome for local managers, who usually have the funds to distribute less‐damaging anchors, but normally are unable to patrol regularly and effectively enough to reduce the impact of overfishing. We translated model results into an interactive visual tool that allows managers to explore the benefits of reducing anchoring frequency and fishing pressure. The potential consequences of inaction were made clear: the likelihood that any of the reef habitats will be dominated in the future by macroalgae rather than corals depends on reducing anchoring frequency, fishing pressure, or both. The tool provides a platform for strengthened relationships between managers and conservationists and can facilitate the uptake of recommendations regarding resource allocation and management actions. Conservation efforts for coral reefs in developing nations are likely to benefit from transforming model projections of habitat condition into tools local managers can understand and interact with.     

Practical implementation of cumulative-effects management of marine ecosystems in western North America

Globally, ecosystem structure and function have been degraded by the cumulative effects (CE) of multiple stressors. To maintain ecosystem resilience, there is an urgent need to better account for CE in management decision-making at various scales. Current laws and regulations are supported by a multitude of frameworks and strategies that vary in application and terminology use across management agencies and geopolitical boundaries. We synthesized management frameworks that accounted for CE in marine ecosystems at the regional and national levels across western North America (Canada, United States, Mexico) to identify similarities and shared challenges to successful implementation. We examined examples of solutions to the identified challenges (e.g., interagency and cross-border partnerships to overcome challenges of managing for ecologically relevant spatial scales). Management frameworks in general consisted of 3 phases: scoping and structuring the system; characterizing relationships; and evaluating management options. Challenges in the robust implementation of these phases included lack of interagency coordination, minimal incorporation of diverse perspectives, and data deficiencies. Cases that provided solutions to these challenges encouraged coordination at ecological rather than jurisdictional scales, enhanced involvement of stakeholders and Indigenous groups, and used nontraditional data sources for decision-making. Broader implementation of these approaches, combined with increased interagency and international coordination and collaboration, should facilitate the rapid advancement of more effective CE assessment and ecosystem management in North America and elsewhere.     

Contribution of Systematic Reviews to Management Decisions

Systematic reviews comprehensively summarize evidence about the effectiveness of conservation interventions. We investigated the contribution to management decisions made by this growing body of literature. We identified 43 systematic reviews of conservation evidence, 23 of which drew some concrete conclusions relevant to management. Most reviews addressed conservation interventions relevant to policy decisions; only 35% considered practical on‐the‐ground management interventions. The majority of reviews covered only a small fraction of the geographic and taxonomic breadth they aimed to address (median = 13% of relevant countries and 16% of relevant taxa). The likelihood that reviews contained at least some implications for management tended to increase as geographic coverage increased and to decline as taxonomic breadth increased. These results suggest the breadth of a systematic review requires careful consideration. Reviews identified a mean of 312 relevant primary studies but excluded 88% of these because of deficiencies in design or a failure to meet other inclusion criteria. Reviews summarized on average 284 data sets and 112 years of research activity, yet the likelihood that their results had at least some implications for management did not increase as the amount of primary research summarized increased. In some cases, conclusions were elusive despite the inclusion of hundreds of data sets and years of cumulative research activity. Systematic reviews are an important part of the conservation decision making tool kit, although we believe the benefits of systematic reviews could be significantly enhanced by increasing the number of reviews focused on questions of direct relevance to on‐the‐ground managers; defining a more focused geographic and taxonomic breadth that better reflects available data; including a broader range of evidence types; and appraising the cost‐effectiveness of interventions. Contribuciones de las Revisiones Sistemáticas a las Decisiones de Manejo     

An Australian perspective on rewilding

Rewilding is increasingly recognized as a conservation tool but is often context specific, which inhibits broad application. Rewilding in Australia seeks to enhance ecosystem function and promote self-sustaining ecosystems. An absence of large-bodied native herbivores means trophic rewilding in mainland Australia has focused on the restoration of functions provided by apex predators and small mammals. Because of the pervasive influence of introduced mesopredators, predator-proof fences, and establishment of populations on predator-free islands are common rewilding approaches. This sets Australian rewilding apart from most jurisdictions and provides globally relevant insights but presents challenges to restoring function to broader landscapes. Passive rewilding is of limited utility in arid zones. Although increasing habitat extent and quality in mesic coastal areas may work, it will likely be necessary to undertake active management. Because much of Australia's population is in urban areas, rewilding efforts must include urban areas to maximize effectiveness. Thus rewilding is not synonymous with wilderness and can occur over multiple scales. Rewilding efforts must recognize human effects on other species and benefit both nature and humans. Rewilding in Australia requires development of a shared vision and strategy and proof-of-concept projects to demonstrate the benefits. The repackaging of existing conservation activities as rewilding may confuse and undermine the success of rewilding programs and should be avoided. As elsewhere, rewilding in Australia should be viewed as an important conservation tool.     

Effects of interactions between anthropogenic stressors and recurring perturbations on ecosystem resilience and collapse

Insights into declines in ecosystem resilience and their causes and effects can inform preemptive action to avoid ecosystem collapse and loss of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being. Empirical studies of ecosystem collapse are rare and hampered by ecosystem complexity, nonlinear and lagged responses, and interactions across scales. We investigated how an anthropogenic stressor could diminish ecosystem resilience to a recurring perturbation by altering a critical ecosystem driver. We studied groundwater-dependent, peat-accumulating, fire-prone wetlands known as upland swamps in southeastern Australia. We hypothesized that underground mining (stressor) reduces resilience of these wetlands to landscape fires (perturbation) by diminishing groundwater, a key ecosystem driver. We monitored soil moisture as an indicator of ecosystem resilience during and after underground mining. After landscape fire, we compared responses of multiple state variables representing ecosystem structure, composition, and function in swamps within the mining footprint with unmined reference swamps. Soil moisture declined without recovery in swamps with mine subsidence (i.e., undermined), but was maintained in reference swamps over 8 years (effect size 1.8). Relative to burned reference swamps, burned undermined swamps showed greater loss of peat via substrate combustion; reduced cover, height, and biomass of regenerating vegetation; reduced postfire plant species richness and abundance; altered plant species composition; increased mortality rates of woody plants; reduced postfire seedling recruitment; and extirpation of a hydrophilic animal. Undermined swamps therefore showed strong symptoms of postfire ecosystem collapse, whereas reference swamps regenerated vigorously. We found that an anthropogenic stressor diminished the resilience of an ecosystem to recurring perturbations, predisposing it to collapse. Avoidance of ecosystem collapse hinges on early diagnosis of mechanisms and preventative risk reduction. It may be possible to delay or ameliorate symptoms of collapse or to restore resilience, but the latter appears unlikely in our study system due to fundamental alteration of a critical ecosystem driver. Efectos de las interacciones entre los estresantes antropogénicos y las perturbaciones recurrentes sobre la resiliencia y el colapso de los ecosistemas     

Effects of national forest‐management regimes on unprotected forests of the Himalaya

Globally, deforestation continues, and although protected areas effectively protect forests, the majority of forests are not in protected areas. Thus, how effective are different management regimes to avoid deforestation in non‐protected forests? We sought to assess the effectiveness of different national forest‐management regimes to safeguard forests outside protected areas. We compared 2000–2014 deforestation rates across the temperate forests of 5 countries in the Himalaya (Bhutan, Nepal, China, India, and Myanmar) of which 13% are protected. We reviewed the literature to characterize forest management regimes in each country and conducted a quasi‐experimental analysis to measure differences in deforestation of unprotected forests among countries and states in India. Countries varied in both overarching forest‐management goals and specific tenure arrangements and policies for unprotected forests, from policies emphasizing economic development to those focused on forest conservation. Deforestation rates differed up to 1.4% between countries, even after accounting for local determinants of deforestation, such as human population density, market access, and topography. The highest deforestation rates were associated with forest policies aimed at maximizing profits and unstable tenure regimes. Deforestation in national forest‐management regimes that emphasized conservation and community management were relatively low. In India results were consistent with the national‐level results. We interpreted our results in the context of the broader literature on decentralized, community‐based natural resource management, and our findings emphasize that the type and quality of community‐based forestry programs and the degree to which they are oriented toward sustainable use rather than economic development are important for forest protection. Our cross‐national results are consistent with results from site‐ and regional‐scale studies that show forest‐management regimes that ensure stable land tenure and integrate local‐livelihood benefits with forest conservation result in the best forest outcomes.     

Alternative Perspectives on the Sustainability of Alaska's Commercial Fisheries

Many believe commercial fisheries in Alaska (U.S.A.) are sustainability success stories, but ongoing socioeconomic problems across the state raise questions about how this sustainability is being defined and evaluated. Problems such as food insecurity and the disenfranchisement of Alaska Natives from fishing rights are well documented, yet these concerns are obscured by marketing campaigns that convey images of flourishing fishing communities and initiatives to certify Alaska's fisheries as responsibly managed. Fisheries management mandates and approaches built on such metrics and technologies as maximum sustainable yield and systems of tradable quotas actually serve to constrain, circumscribe, and marginalize some Alaskans’ opportunities for effecting change in how the benefits of these fisheries are allocated. Beneath the narrative of sustainability, these management technologies perpetuate a cognitive ecological model of sustainability that is oriented to single‐species outcomes, that casts people as parasites, and thus assumes the necessity of trade‐offs between biological and social goals. Alternative cognitive models are available that draw metaphors from different ecological concepts such as keystone species and mutualisms. Such models, when used to inform management approaches, may improve societal outcomes in Alaska and elsewhere by promoting food security and sustainability through diversified natural resource harvest strategies that are more flexible and responsive to environmental variability and change. Perspectivas Alternativas sobre la Sustentabilidad de las Pesquerías Comerciales en Alaska     

Effects of experience with access regimes on stewardship behaviors of small-scale fishers

Governance regimes that assign exclusive access to support collective action are increasingly promoted to manage common-pool resources under the premise that they foster environmental stewardship. However, experimental evidence linked to existing policies that support this premise is lacking. Overlapping access policies in small-scale fisheries provide a unique opportunity to test the effects of access regimes on users’ stewardship behaviors. We performed a lab-in-the-field experiment to assess how fishers’ previous experience with access regimes relates to compliance and peer enforcement (n = 120). Fishers’ compliance and peer-enforcement decisions were compared in a common-pool-resource game. Treatments differed in framing to represent exclusive access and pseudo-open access regimes, both of which fishers face in real life. To contrast behavior in the game with real-life observations, we compared fishers’ associations that have shown relatively high and low management performance under exclusive access policies. Compliance and peer enforcement were higher under the exclusive access treatment than under the pseudo-open access treatment only for fishers’ associations with high management performance in real life. Behaviors in the game reflected differences between associations in real life. Our results support previous research on ocean governance by experimentally assessing the role of access regimes in determining users’ stewardship and suggest potential mechanisms for stewardship internalization.     

Addressing identity-related barriers to collaboration for conservation through self-affirmation theory and moral foundations theory

The natural resource management literature documents many reasons for pursuing collaborative processes, offering useful insights on how to manage conflict and facilitate productive deliberation in complex multistakeholder collaborative efforts. Moral foundations theory and self-affirmation theory can further help collaborative efforts mitigate conflicts caused by identity threats and the identity-protective reasoning these threats provoke. Moral foundations theory suggests an approach to increase collaboration by minimizing triggering language and helping people appreciate opposing viewpoints. Self-affirmation theory suggests a practical intervention that could be used to increase collaboration by desensitizing people to identity threats and reducing defensiveness. Taken together, these theories can contribute substantially to the understanding and practice of collaboration and conflict management for conservation.