Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science–practice interface in ecology and conservation

The debate in the literature on the science–practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.     

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.     

Framing the ecosystem concept through a longitudinal study of developments in science and policy

This paper examines how scientific literature and policy documents frame the ecosystem concept and how these frames have shaped scientific dialogue and policy making over time. This was achieved by developing a frame typology, as a basis for organizing relevant value expressions, to assess how different frames have altered perspectives of the ecosystem concept. The frame typology and analysis is based on a semi‐grounded and longitudinal document analysis of scientific literature and policy documents using the ecosystem concept. Despite changing discourses and public priorities (e.g., cultural constructs of biodiversity) both science and policy documents are characterized by stable value systems that have not changed substantially since the 1930s. These value systems were defined based on ethical principles that delineate 6 core frames: humans first, dual systems, eco‐science, eco‐holism, animals first, and multicentrism. Specific crises (e.g., climate change) and cross‐disciplinary uptake and re‐uptake of, for example, the ecosystem services concept, have brought new perspectives to the forefront of public discourse. These developments triggered changes in the core frames that, rather than being value based, are based on how the ecosystem is conceptualized under fixed value systems and over time. Fourteen subframes were developed to reflect these longitudinal changes. There are as such clear framing effects in both scientific literature and in policy. Ecosystem research is for instance often characterized by unstated value judgments even though the scientific community does not make these explicit. In contrast, policy documents are characterized by clear value expressions but are principally management driven and human centered.     

Effects of uncertainty and variability on population declines and IUCN Red List classifications

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Categories and Criteria is a quantitative framework for classifying species according to extinction risk. Population models may be used to estimate extinction risk or population declines. Uncertainty and variability arise in threat classifications through measurement and process error in empirical data and uncertainty in the models used to estimate extinction risk and population declines. Furthermore, species traits are known to affect extinction risk. We investigated the effects of measurement and process error, model type, population growth rate, and age at first reproduction on the reliability of risk classifications based on projected population declines on IUCN Red List classifications. We used an age‐structured population model to simulate true population trajectories with different growth rates, reproductive ages and levels of variation, and subjected them to measurement error. We evaluated the ability of scalar and matrix models parameterized with these simulated time series to accurately capture the IUCN Red List classification generated with true population declines. Under all levels of measurement error tested and low process error, classifications were reasonably accurate; scalar and matrix models yielded roughly the same rate of misclassifications, but the distribution of errors differed; matrix models led to greater overestimation of extinction risk than underestimations; process error tended to contribute to misclassifications to a greater extent than measurement error; and more misclassifications occurred for fast, rather than slow, life histories. These results indicate that classifications of highly threatened taxa (i.e., taxa with low growth rates) under criterion A are more likely to be reliable than for less threatened taxa when assessed with population models. Greater scrutiny needs to be placed on data used to parameterize population models for species with high growth rates, particularly when available evidence indicates a potential transition to higher risk categories.     

Research methods and reporting practices in zoo and aquarium conservation-education evaluation

Zoos and aquariums are increasingly incorporating conservation education into their mission statements and visitor experiences to address global biodiversity loss. To advance knowledge and practice in the field, research is being conducted to evaluate the effect of zoo conservation-education experiences on visitor psychosocial outcomes (e.g., knowledge, attitude, emotions, motivations, behavior). Following recent discussions among scholars and practitioners concerning logistical and methodological challenges that likely undermine the conclusions of such research, we identified and reviewed the methods and reporting practices in peer-reviewed articles published in English from May 1998 to June 2016 that focused on adult visitor samples (47 articles, 48 studies). We examined elements of internal, external, construct, and statistical conclusion validity. Methodological quality of quantitative methods and reporting practices was determined using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. Each study was coded as either strong (no weak ratings), moderate (1 weak rating), or weak (≥2 weak ratings). The quantitative methods of 83.3% of studies were weak. The remaining 16.7% had methods of moderate quality. Using an existing checklist, we also assessed the quality and rigor of qualitative methods and reporting practices and found that some aspects of these methods were reported more comprehensively than others. For example, 69.6% of articles discussed methods for identifying key themes from the data, whereas only 34.8% reported how data verification was performed. We suggest increased application of intensive longitudinal methods (e.g., daily diary) to strengthen self-reported data, experimental and repeated-measures designs, and mixed-methods approaches. Our findings and recommendations could strengthen and guide the research and evaluation agenda for the field and ultimately enhance the contribution zoos make to global biodiversity conservation.     

Effects of ecotourism on forest loss in the Himalayan biodiversity hotspot based on counterfactual analyses

Ecotourism is developing rapidly in biodiversity hotspots worldwide, but there is limited and mixed empirical evidence that ecotourism achieves positive biodiversity outcomes. We assessed whether ecotourism influenced forest loss rates and trajectories from 2000 to 2017 in Himalayan temperate forests. We compared forest loss in 15 ecotourism hubs with nonecotourism areas in 4 Himalayan countries. We used matching statistics to control for local-level determinants of forest loss, for example, population density, market access, and topography. None of the ecotourism hubs was free of forest loss, and we found limited evidence that forest-loss trajectories in ecotourism hubs were different from those in nonecotourism areas. In Nepal and Bhutan, differences in forest loss rates between ecotourism hubs and matched nonecotourism areas did not differ significantly, and the magnitude of the estimated effect was small. In India, where overall forest loss rates were the lowest of any country in our analysis, forest loss rates were higher in ecotourism hubs than in matched nonecotourism areas. In contrast, in China, where overall forest loss rates were highest, forest loss rates were lower in ecotourism hubs than where there was no ecotourism. Our results suggest that the success of ecotourism as a forest conservation strategy, as it is currently practiced in the Himalaya, is context dependent. In a region with high deforestation pressures, ecotourism may be a relatively environmentally friendly form of economic development relative to other development strategies. However, ecotourism may stimulate forest loss in regions where deforestation rates are low.     

Association of reproductive traits with captive- versus wild-sourced birds in trade

The wildlife trade is a billion-dollar global business, involving millions of people, thousands of species, and hundreds of millions of individual organisms. Unravelling whether trade targets reproductively distinct species and whether this preference varies between captive- and wild-sourced species is a crucial question. We used a comprehensive list of all bird species traded, trade listings and records kept in compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and a suite of avian reproductive parameters to examine whether wildlife trade is associated with particular facets of life history and to examine the association between life-history traits and captive- and wild-sourced traded volumes over time. Across all trade, CITES listing, and CITES trade, large birds were more likely to be traded and listed, but their longevity and age at maturity were not associated with CITES listing or trade. We found species across almost the full range of trait values in both captive and wild trade between 2000 and 2020. Captive trade volumes clearly associated with relatively longer lived and early-maturing species; these associations remained stable and largely unchanged over time. Trait–volume associations in wild-sourced trade were more uncertain. Only body mass had a clear association, and it varied from negative to positive over time. Although reproductive traits were important in captive-sourced trade, species-level variation dominated trade, with even congeneric species varying greatly in volume despite similar traits. The collection and incorporation of trait data into sustainability assessments of captive breeding facilities are crucial to ensure accurate quotas and guard against laundering.     

Revisiting two dogmas of conservation science

Conservation science is a morally motivated field, with implicit and explicit values built into its practice. As such, conservationists must engage with conservation ethics to interrogate underlying values. We examine cutting-edge ecological science and contemporary ethics to revisit two conservation norms that have become dogmatic in the field: ecological collectives, but not individual animals, are valuable and anthropomorphism should be staunchly avoided. Emerging studies demonstrate that individuals and their intraspecific variation can be instrumentally valuable for conservation science, and there is an emerging consensus within environmental philosophy around the moral worth of individuals. Thus, we suggest conservation science should explicitly recognize the value of individuals. We also argue that avoiding anthropomorphism is detrimental to conservation because critical anthropomorphism enables a more nuanced scientific approach—allowing conservationists to ask enlightened questions with creativity and compassion. We provide evidence that both dogmatic norms are scientifically and morally outdated and propose new normative values to push conservation towards more robust science and ethical practice.     

Global trends in research output by zoos and aquariums

Zoos and aquaria, often regarded as preservation-cum-entertainment enterprises, are also actors in the effort to curb the biodiversity crisis: raising awareness, supporting conservation, and conducting research. We assessed trends in zoo and aquaria research topics and study organisms over time worldwide. For the zoos and aquaria registered in the Species360's Zoological Information Management System and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, we compiled metadata on their research published in the peer-reviewed literature indexed in Scopus and carried out a keyword frequency analysis. The production of scientific papers by zoos increased at a much faster rate than the average accrual of scientific papers in the literature. Evolution of research themes ran parallel to that of biological sciences (e.g., development of molecular genetics or increased awareness about conservation). The focus of 48.5% of zoo-led research was on vertebrates, of which mammal research was 33.7%. Whether zoos are effectively contributing to conservation may still be debatable, but our results highlight their institutional efforts to increase knowledge about the species in their care.     

Environmental solutions sparked by environmental history

Environmental solutions require a decision-making process that is ultimately political, in that they involve decisions with uncertain outcomes and stakeholders with conflicting viewpoints. If this process seeks broad alignment between the government and public, then reconciling conflicting viewpoints is a key to the legitimacy of these decisions. We show that ecological baselines can be particularly powerful tools for creating a common understanding for public support (legitimacy) and conformity to new rules or regulations (legality) that enable the solution. They are powerful because they move the discussion of solutions from the abstract to the concrete by providing a conceptual model for a common expectation (e.g., restoring habitat). They provide narratives of the past (ecological histories) that readjust the future expectations of individuals on how to perceive and respond to new policy. While ecological baselines offer scientists benchmarks for reinstating ecological functions, they also normalize public and government discussion of solutions. This social normalization of public issues may assist government policy and influence social views, practices, and behaviors that adopt the policy. For science to more effectively inform conservation, we encourage interdisciplinary thinking (science- and human-centered) because it can provide public support and government legitimacy for investing in environmental solutions.