Effectiveness of biodiversity-conservation marketing

Conservation marketing holds potential as a means to engage audiences with biodiversity conservation and help to address the human dimensions of biodiversity loss. Empirical evaluations of conservation marketing indicatives are growing, so we reviewed the literature on this research to inform future directions in the field. We used a systematic search strategy to identify studies that evaluated the effects of conservation marketing interventions (techniques and campaigns) on psychosocial outcomes, categorized as cognitive, affective, or behavioral. Six academic databases (Business Source Complete, Communication & Mass Media Complete, Greenfile, Proquest, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collections), 3 gray-literature databases (BASE, Zenodo, and Google Scholar), and 2 websites (Rare and WildAid) were searched. Articles were subjected to critical appraisal to assess their methodological quality, and data were extracted from each article and analyzed using narrative synthesis. Altogether 28 studies from 26 articles were included in the review. Twenty-five studies were conducted from 2014 through 2016. Methodological quality of most studies was weak (n = 16, 57%) (moderate quality n = 8, 29%; high quality n = 4, 14%). The proportion of studies that evaluated a conservation-marketing technique (e.g., variants of texts, images, or videos) versus a campaign (e.g., community-based campaigns targeting locally relevant issues, such as unsustainable palm oil agriculture, light pollution, or wood fuel fire use) was relatively balanced. Although many studies reported statistically significant results in the intended direction, the utility of findings was limited by persistent methodological limitations, such as a lack of a comparator group, use of non-validated assessment tools, and a focus on self-reported data and subjective outcomes. Conservation marketing is clearly a nascent field of scientific enquiry that warrants further, high-quality research investigations.     

A climate-change vulnerability and adaptation assessment for Brazil's protected areas

Brazil hosts the largest expanse of tropical ecosystems within protected areas (PAs), which shelter biodiversity and support traditional human populations. We assessed the vulnerability to climate change of 993 terrestrial and coastal-marine Brazilian PAs by combining indicators of climatic-change hazard with indicators of PA resilience (size, native vegetation cover, and probability of climate-driven vegetation transition). This combination of indicators allows the identification of broad climate-change adaptation pathways. Seventeen PAs (20,611 km²) were highly vulnerable and located mainly in the Atlantic Forest (7 PAs), Cerrado (6), and the Amazon (4). Two hundred fifty-eight PAs (756,569 km²), located primarily in Amazonia, had a medium vulnerability. In the Amazon and western Cerrado, the projected severe climatic change and probability of climate-driven vegetation transition drove vulnerability up, despite the generally good conservation status of PAs. Over 80% of PAs of high or moderate vulnerability are managed by indigenous populations. Hence, besides the potential risks to biodiversity, the traditional knowledge and livelihoods of the people inhabiting these PAs may be threatened. In at least 870 PAs, primarily in the Atlantic Forest and Amazon, adaptation could happen with little or no intervention due to low climate-change hazard, high resilience status, or both. At least 20 PAs in the Atlantic Forest, Cerrado, and Amazonia should be targeted for stronger interventions (e.g., improvement of ecological connectivity), given their low resilience status. Despite being a first attempt to link vulnerability and adaptation in Brazilian PAs, we suggest that some of the PAs identified as highly or moderately vulnerable should be prioritized for testing potential adaptation strategies in the near future.     

The place of nature in conservation conflicts

Conservation conflicts are gaining importance in contemporary conservation scholarship such that conservation may have entered a conflict hype. We attempted to uncover and deconstruct the normative assumptions behind such studies by raising several questions: what are conservation conflicts, what justifies the attention they receive, do conservation-conflict studies limit wildlife conservation, is scientific knowledge stacked against wildlife in conservation conflicts, do conservation-conflict studies adopt a specific view of democracy, can laws be used to force conservation outcomes, why is flexibility needed in managing conservation conflicts, can conservation conflicts be managed by promoting tolerance, and who needs to compromise in conservation conflicts? We suggest that many of the intellectual premises in the field may defang conservation and prevent it from truly addressing the current conservation crisis as it accelerates. By framing conservation conflicts as conflicts between people about wildlife or nature, the field insidiously transfers guilt, whereby human activities are no longer blamed for causing species decline and extinctions but conservation is instead blamed for causing social conflicts. When the focus is on mitigating social conflicts without limiting in any powerful way human activities damaging to nature, conservation-conflict studies risk keeping conservation within the limits of human activities, instead of keeping human activities within the limits of nature. For conservation to successfully stop the biodiversity crisis, we suggest the alternative goal of recognizing nature's right to existence to maintenance of ecological functions and evolutionary processes. Nature being a rights bearer or legal person would imply its needs must be explicitly taken into account in conflict adjudication. If, even in conservation, nature's interests come second to human interests, it may be no surprise that conservation cannot succeed.     

Assessing the current state of ecological connectivity in a large marine protected area system

The establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) is a critical step in ensuring the continued persistence of marine biodiversity. Although the area protected in MPAs is growing, the movement of individuals (or larvae) among MPAs, termed connectivity, has only recently been included as an objective of many MPAs. As such, assessing connectivity is often neglected or oversimplified in the planning process. For promoting population persistence, it is important to ensure that protected areas in a system are functionally connected through dispersal or adult movement. We devised a multi-species model of larval dispersal for the Australian marine environment to evaluate how much local scale connectivity is protected in MPAs and determine whether the extensive system of MPAs truly functions as a network. We focused on non-migratory species with simplified larval behaviors (i.e., passive larval dispersal) (e.g., no explicit vertical migration) as an illustration. Of all the MPAs analyzed (approximately 2.7 million km²), outside the Great Barrier Reef and Ningaloo Reef, <50% of MPAs (46-80% of total MPA area depending on the species considered) were functionally connected. Our results suggest that Australia's MPA system cannot be referred to as a single network, but rather a collection of numerous smaller networks delineated by natural breaks in the connectivity of reef habitat. Depending on the dispersal capacity of the taxa of interest, there may be between 25 and 47 individual ecological networks distributed across the Australian marine environment. The need to first assess the underlying natural connectivity of a study system prior to implementing new MPAs represents a key research priority for strategically enlarging MPA networks. Our findings highlight the benefits of integrating multi-species connectivity into conservation planning to identify opportunities to better incorporate connectivity into the design of MPA systems and thus to increase their capacity to support long-term, sustainable biodiversity outcomes.     

A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity

Measuring progress toward international biodiversity targets requires robust information on the conservation status of species, which the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species provides. However, data and capacity are lacking for most hyperdiverse groups, such as invertebrates, plants, and fungi, particularly in megadiverse or high-endemism regions. Conservation policies and biodiversity strategies aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2020 need to be adapted to tackle these information shortfalls after 2020. We devised an 8-point strategy to close existing data gaps by reviving explorative field research on the distribution, abundance, and ecology of species; linking taxonomic research more closely with conservation; improving global biodiversity databases by making the submission of spatially explicit data mandatory for scientific publications; developing a global spatial database on threats to biodiversity to facilitate IUCN Red List assessments; automating preassessments by integrating distribution data and spatial threat data; building capacity in taxonomy, ecology, and biodiversity monitoring in countries with high species richness or endemism; creating species monitoring programs for lesser-known taxa; and developing sufficient funding mechanisms to reduce reliance on voluntary efforts. Implementing these strategies in the post-2020 biodiversity framework will help to overcome the lack of capacity and data regarding the conservation status of biodiversity. This will require a collaborative effort among scientists, policy makers, and conservation practitioners.     

Incorporating putatively neutral and adaptive genomic data into marine conservation planning

The availability of genomic data for an increasing number of species makes it possible to incorporate evolutionary processes into conservation plans. Recent studies show how genetic data can inform spatial conservation prioritization (SCP), but they focus on metrics of diversity and distinctness derived primarily from neutral genetic data sets. Identifying adaptive genetic markers can provide important information regarding the capacity for populations to adapt to environmental change. Yet, the effect of including metrics based on adaptive genomic data into SCP in comparison to more widely used neutral genetic metrics has not been explored. We used existing genomic data on a commercially exploited species, the giant California sea cucumber (Parastichopus californicus), to perform SCP for the coastal region of British Columbia (BC), Canada. Using a RAD-seq data set for 717 P. californicus individuals across 24 sampling locations, we identified putatively adaptive (i.e., candidate) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) based on genotype–environment associations with seafloor temperature. We calculated various metrics for both neutral and candidate SNPs and compared SCP outcomes with independent metrics and combinations of metrics. Priority areas varied depending on whether neutral or candidate SNPs were used and on the specific metric used. For example, targeting sites with a high frequency of warm-temperature-associated alleles to support persistence under future warming prioritized areas in the southern coastal region. In contrast, targeting sites with high expected heterozygosity at candidate loci to support persistence under future environmental uncertainty prioritized areas in the north. When combining metrics, all scenarios generated intermediate solutions, protecting sites that span latitudinal and thermal gradients. Our results demonstrate that distinguishing between neutral and adaptive markers can affect conservation solutions and emphasize the importance of defining objectives when choosing among various genomic metrics for SCP.     

Effects of site-selection bias on estimates of biodiversity change

Estimates of biodiversity change are essential for the management and conservation of ecosystems. Accurate estimates rely on selecting representative sites, but monitoring often focuses on sites of special interest. How such site-selection biases influence estimates of biodiversity change is largely unknown. Site-selection bias potentially occurs across four major sources of biodiversity data, decreasing in likelihood from citizen science, museums, national park monitoring, and academic research. We defined site-selection bias as a preference for sites that are either densely populated (i.e., abundance bias) or species rich (i.e., richness bias). We simulated biodiversity change in a virtual landscape and tracked the observed biodiversity at a sampled site. The site was selected either randomly or with a site-selection bias. We used a simple spatially resolved, individual-based model to predict the movement or dispersal of individuals in and out of the chosen sampling site. Site-selection bias exaggerated estimates of biodiversity loss in sites selected with a bias by on average 300–400% compared with randomly selected sites. Based on our simulations, site-selection bias resulted in positive trends being estimated as negative trends: richness increase was estimated as 0.1 in randomly selected sites, whereas sites selected with a bias showed a richness change of −0.1 to −0.2 on average. Thus, site-selection bias may falsely indicate decreases in biodiversity. We varied sampling design and characteristics of the species and found that site-selection biases were strongest in short time series, for small grains, organisms with low dispersal ability, large regional species pools, and strong spatial aggregation. Based on these findings, to minimize site-selection bias, we recommend use of systematic site-selection schemes; maximizing sampling area; calculating biodiversity measures cumulatively across plots; and use of biodiversity measures that are less sensitive to rare species, such as the effective number of species. Awareness of the potential impact of site-selection bias is needed for biodiversity monitoring, the design of new studies on biodiversity change, and the interpretation of existing data.     

Improving inferences about private land conservation by accounting for incomplete reporting

Private lands provide key habitat for imperiled species and are core components of function protectected area networks; yet, their incorporation into national and regional conservation planning has been challenging. Identifying locations where private landowners are likely to participate in conservation initiatives can help avoid conflict and clarify trade-offs between ecological benefits and sociopolitical costs. Empirical, spatially explicit assessment of the factors associated with conservation on private land is an emerging tool for identifying future conservation opportunities. However, most data on private land conservation are voluntarily reported and incomplete, which complicates these assessments. We used a novel application of occupancy models to analyze the occurrence of conservation easements on private land. We compared multiple formulations of occupancy models with a logistic regression model to predict the locations of conservation easements based on a spatially explicit social–ecological systems framework. We combined a simulation experiment with a case study of easement data in Idaho and Montana (United States) to illustrate the utility of the occupancy framework for modeling conservation on private land. Occupancy models that explicitly accounted for variation in reporting produced estimates of predictors that were substantially less biased than estimates produced by logistic regression under all simulated conditions. Occupancy models produced estimates for the 6 predictors we evaluated in our case study that were larger in magnitude, but less certain than those produced by logistic regression. These results suggest that occupancy models result in qualitatively different inferences regarding the effects of predictors on conservation easement occurrence than logistic regression and highlight the importance of integrating variable and incomplete reporting of participation in empirical analysis of conservation initiatives. Failure to do so can lead to emphasizing the wrong social, institutional, and environmental factors that enable conservation and underestimating conservation opportunities in landscapes where social norms or institutional constraints inhibit reporting.     

A framework for allocating conservation resources among multiple threats and actions

Land managers decide how to allocate resources among multiple threats that can be addressed through multiple possible actions. Additionally, these actions vary in feasibility, effectiveness, and cost. We sought to provide a way to optimize resource allocation to address multiple threats when multiple management options are available, including mutually exclusive options. Formulating the decision as a combinatorial optimization problem, our framework takes as inputs the expected impact and cost of each threat for each action (including do nothing) and for each overall budget identifies the optimal action to take for each threat. We compared the optimal solution to an easy to calculate greedy algorithm approximation and a variety of plausible ranking schemes. We applied the framework to management of multiple introduced plant species in Australian alpine areas. We developed a model of invasion to predict the expected impact in 50 years for each species-action combination that accounted for each species’ current invasion state (absent, localized, widespread); arrival probability; spread rate; impact, if present, of each species; and management effectiveness of each species-action combination. We found that the recommended action for a threat changed with budget; there was no single optimal management action for each species; and considering more than one candidate action can substantially increase the management plan's overall efficiency. The approximate solution (solution ranked by marginal cost-effectiveness) performed well when the budget matched the cost of the prioritized actions, indicating that this approach would be effective if the budget was set as part of the prioritization process. The ranking schemes varied in performance, and achieving a close to optimal solution was not guaranteed. Global sensitivity analysis revealed a threat's expected impact and, to a lesser extent, management effectiveness were the most influential parameters, emphasizing the need to focus research and monitoring efforts on their quantification.     

Using long-term data for a reintroduced population to empirically estimate future consequences of inbreeding

Inbreeding depression is an important long-term threat to reintroduced populations. However, the strength of inbreeding depression is difficult to estimate in wild populations because pedigree data are inevitably incomplete and because good data are needed on survival and reproduction. Predicting future population consequences is especially difficult because this also requires projecting future inbreeding levels and their impacts on long-term population dynamics, which are subject to many uncertainties. We illustrate how such projections can be derived through Bayesian state-space modeling methods based on a 26-year data set for North Island Robins (Petroica longipes) reintroduced to Tiritiri Matangi Island in 1992. We used pedigree data to model increases in the average inbreeding level (F ) over time based on kinship of possible breeding pairs and to estimate empirically N_e/N (effective/census population size). We used multiple imputation to model the unknown components of inbreeding coefficients, which allowed us to estimate effects of inbreeding on survival for all 1458 birds in the data set while modeling density dependence and environmental stochasticity. This modeling indicated that inbreeding reduced juvenile survival (1.83 lethal equivalents [SE 0.81]) and may have reduced subsequent adult survival (0.44 lethal equivalents [0.81]) but had no apparent effect on numbers of fledglings produced. Average inbreeding level increased to 0.10 (SE 0.001) as the population grew from 33 (0.3) to 160 (6) individuals over the 25 years, giving a ratio of 0.56 (0.01). Based on a model that also incorporated habitat regeneration, the population was projected to reach a maximum of 331–1144 birds (median 726) in 2130, then to begin a slow decline. Without inbreeding, the population would be expected stabilize at 887–1465 birds (median 1131). Such analysis, therefore, makes it possible to empirically derive the information needed for rational decisions about inbreeding management while accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty.