When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research

Understanding human perspectives is critical in a range of conservation contexts, for example, in overcoming conflicts or developing projects that are acceptable to relevant stakeholders. The Q methodology is a unique semiquantitative technique used to explore human perspectives. It has been applied for decades in other disciplines and recently gained traction in conservation. This paper helps researchers assess when Q is useful for a given conservation question and what its use involves. To do so, we explained the steps necessary to conduct a Q study, from the research design to the interpretation of results. We provided recommendations to minimize biases in conducting a Q study, which can affect mostly when designing the study and collecting the data. We conducted a structured literature review of 52 studies to examine in what empirical conservation contexts Q has been used. Most studies were subnational or national cases, but some also address multinational or global questions. We found that Q has been applied to 4 broad types of conservation goals: addressing conflict, devising management alternatives, understanding policy acceptability, and critically reflecting on the values that implicitly influence research and practice. Through these applications, researchers found hidden views, understood opinions in depth and discovered points of consensus that facilitated unlocking difficult disagreements. The Q methodology has a clear procedure but is also flexible, allowing researchers explore long‐term views, or views about items other than statements, such as landscape images. We also found some inconsistencies in applying and, mainly, in reporting Q studies, whereby it was not possible to fully understand how the research was conducted or why some atypical research decisions had been taken in some studies. Accordingly, we suggest a reporting checklist.     

Understanding Trait‐Dependent Community Disassembly: Dung Beetles,Density Functions,and Forest Fragmentation

Abstract: Anthropogenic disturbances such as fragmentation are rapidly altering biodiversity, yet a lack of attention to species traits and abundance patterns has made the results of most studies difficult to generalize. We determined traits of extinction‐prone species and present a novel strategy for classifying species according to their population‐level response to a gradient of disturbance intensity. We examined the effects of forest fragmentation on dung beetle communities in an archipelago of 33 islands recently created by flooding in Venezuela. Species richness, density, and biomass all declined sharply with decreasing island area and increasing island isolation. Species richness was highly nested, indicating that local extinctions occurred nonrandomly. The most sensitive dung beetle species appeared to require at least 85 ha of forest, more than many large vertebrates. Extinction‐prone species were either large‐bodied, forest specialists, or uncommon. These explanatory variables were unrelated, suggesting at least 3 underlying causes of extirpation. Large species showed high wing loading (body mass/wing area) and a distinct flight strategy that may increase their area requirements. Although forest specificity made most species sensitive to fragmentation, a few persistent habitat generalists dispersed across the matrix. Density functions classified species into 4 response groups on the basis of their change in density with decreasing species richness. Sensitive and persistent species both declined with increasing fragmentation intensity, but persistent species occurred on more islands, which may be due to their higher baseline densities. Compensatory species increased in abundance following the initial loss of sensitive species, but rapidly declined with increasing fragmentation. Supertramp species (widespread habitat generalists) may be poor competitors but strong dispersers; their abundance peaked following the decline of the other 3 groups. Nevertheless, even the least sensitive species were extirpated or rare on the smallest and most isolated islands.     

Effect of Monitoring Technique on Quality of Conservation Science

Monitoring free‐ranging animals in their natural habitat is a keystone of ecosystem conservation and increasingly important in the context of current rates of loss of biological diversity. Data collected from individuals of endangered species inform conservation policies. Conservation professionals assume that these data are reliable—that the animals from whom data are collected are representative of the species in their physiology, ecology, and behavior and of the populations from which they are drawn. In the last few decades, there has been an enthusiastic adoption of invasive techniques for gathering ecological and conservation data. Although these can provide impressive quantities of data, and apparent insights into animal ranges and distributions, there is increasing evidence that these techniques can result in animal welfare problems, through the wide‐ranging physiological effects of acute and chronic stress and through direct or indirect injuries or compromised movement. Much less commonly, however, do conservation scientists consider the issue of how these effects may alter the behavior of individuals to the extent that the data they collect could be unreliable. The emerging literature on the immediate and longer‐term effects of capture and handling indicate it can no longer be assumed that a wild animal's survival of the process implies the safety of the procedure, that the procedure is ethical, or the scientific validity of the resulting data. I argue that conservation professionals should routinely assess study populations for negative effects of their monitoring techniques and adopt noninvasive approaches for best outcomes not only for the animals, but also for conservation science. Efecto de la Técnica de Monitoreo en la Calidad de la Ciencia de la Conservación