The species awareness index as a conservation culturomics metric for public biodiversity awareness

Although threats to global biodiversity are well known, slowing current rates of biodiversity loss remains a challenge. The Aichi targets set out 20 goals on which the international community should act to alleviate biodiversity decline, 1 of which (Target 1) aims to raise public awareness of the importance of biodiversity. Although conventional indicators for Target 1 are of low spatial and temporal coverage, conservation culturomics metrics show how biodiversity awareness can be quantified at the global scale. Following methods used for the Living Planet Index, we devised a species awareness index (SAI) to measure change in species awareness based on Wikipedia views. We calculated this index at the page level for 41,197 species listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) across 10 Wikipedia languages and >2 billion views from 1 July 2015 to 30 March 2020. Bootstrapped indices for the page-level SAI showed that overall awareness of biodiversity increased marginally over time, although there were differences among taxonomic classes and languages. Among taxonomic classes, overall awareness increased fastest for reptiles and slowest for amphibians. Among languages, overall species awareness increased fastest for Japanese and slowest for Chinese and German users. Although awareness of species as a whole increased and was significantly higher for traded species, from January 2016 through January 2020, change in awareness appeared not to be strongly related to whether the species is traded or is a pollinator. As a data source for public biodiversity awareness, the SAI could be integrated into the Conservation International Biodiversity Engagement Indicator.     

A mixed methodology for evaluating use of evidence in conservation planning

Conservation practitioners widely recognize the importance of making decisions based on the best available evidence. However, the effectiveness of evidence use in conservation planning is rarely assessed, which limits opportunities to improve evidence-based practice. We devised a mixed methodology for empirically evaluating use of evidence that applies social science tools to systematically appraise what kinds of evidence are used in conservation planning, to what effect, and under what limitations. We applied our approach in a case study of the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), a leading land conservation organization. We conducted qualitative and quantitative analyses of 65 NCC planning documents (n = 13 in-depth) to identify patterns in evidence use, and surveyed 35 conservation planners to examine experiences of and barriers to using evidence. Although claims in plans contained a wide range of evidence types, 26% of claims were not referenced or associated with an identifiable source. Lack of evidence use was particularly apparent in claims associated with direct threats, particularly those identified as low (71% coded as insufficient or lacking evidence) or medium (45%) threats. Survey participants described relying heavily on practitioner experience and highlighted capacity limitations and disciplinary gaps in expertise among planning teams as barriers to using evidence effectively. We found that although time-intensive, this approach yielded actionable recommendations for improving evidence use in NCC conservation plans. Similar mixed-method assessments may streamline the process by including interviews and refining the document analysis frames to target issues or sections of concern. We suggest our method provides an accessible and robust point of departure for conservation practitioners to evaluate whether the use of conservation planning reflects in-house standards and more broadly recognized best practices.     

A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate

Compassionate conservation holds that compassion should transform conservation. It has prompted heated debate and has been criticized strongly. We reviewed the debate to characterize compassionate conservation and to philosophically analyze critiques that are recurring and that warrant further critical attention. The necessary elements of compassionate conservation relate to the moral value of sentient animals and conservation and to science and conservation practice. Although compassionate conservation has several nontraditional necessary conditions, it also importantly allows a degree of pluralism in values and scientific judgment regarding animals and conservation practice. We identified 52 specific criticisms from 11 articles that directly critique compassionate conservation. We closely examined 33 of these because they recurred regularly or included substantial questions that required further response. Critics criticized compassionate conservation's ethical foundations, scientific credentials, clarity of application, understanding of compassion, its alleged threat to conservation and biodiversity. Some criticisms, we found, are question begging, confused, or overlook conceptual complexity. These criticisms raise questions for critics and proponents, regarding, for example, equal versus differential intrinsic moral value of different sentient animals (including humans), problems of natural and human-caused suffering of wild animals and predation, and the acceptability of specific conservation practices within compassionate conservation. By addressing recurring and faulty critiques of compassionate conservation and identifying issues for compassionate conservation to address, this review provides a clearer basis for crucial ongoing interdisciplinary dialogue about ethics, values, and conservation.