Human Diets and Animal Welfare: the Illogic of the Larder

Few moral arguments have been made against vegetarian diets. One exception is the “Logic of the Larder:” We do animals a favor by purchasing their meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not purchase these products, fewer animals would exist. This argument fails because many farm animals have lives that are probably not worth living, while others prevent a significant number of wild animals from existing. Even if this were not so, the purchase of animal products uses resources that could otherwise be used to bring a much greater number of animals into existence.     

MODELING THE DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFUSE NITROGEN SOURCES AND SINKS IN THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN OF NORTH CAROLINA,USA1

This study quantified nonpoint source nitrogen (NPS‐N) sources and sinks across the 14,582 km² Neuse River Basin (NRB) located in North Carolina, to provide tabular data summaries and graphic overlay products to support the development of management approaches to best achieve established N reduction goals. First, a remote sensor derived, land cover classification was performed to support modeling needs. Modeling efforts included the development of a mass balance model to quantify potential N sources and sinks, followed by a precipitation event driven hydrologic model to effectively transport excess N across the landscape to individual stream reaches to support subsequent labeling of transported N values corresponding to source origin. Results indicated that agricultural land contributed 55 percent of the total annual NPS‐N loadings, followed by forested land at 23 percent (background), and urban areas at 21 percent. Average annual N source contributions were quantified for agricultural (1.4 kg/ha), urban (1.2 kg/ha), and forested cover types (0.5 kg/ha). Nonpoint source‐N contributions were greatest during the winter (40 percent), followed by spring (32 percent), summer (28 percent), and fall (0.3 percent). Seasonal total N loadings shifted from urban dominated and forest dominated sources during the winter, to agricultural sources in the spring and summer. A quantitative assessment of the significant NRB land use activities indicated that high (greater than 70 percent impervious) and medium (greater than 35 percent impervious) density urban development were the greatest contributors of NPS‐N on a unit area basis (1.9 and 1.6 kg/ha/yr, respectively), followed by row crops and pasture/hay cover types (1.4 kg/ha/yr).     

大学校园安全的技防与人防

论文结合现有文献分析了大学校园存在周边环境复杂、学生安全意识薄弱、未能落实安防制度和安全责任、安全设备运用不足等问题,提出大学校园的安全工作应遵循人防与技防相结合的原则,建议通过安全人防的岗位责任制、培训机制、安保部门和公安机关联动机制、奖励机制,以及技防的安防设备配置全面规划、意外安全事故风险防范、安防设备和技术的自主创新等方式,来改善大学校园的安全水平。     

矿山事故中人员不安全行为的风险分析与防范研究

矿山企业生产系统复杂、生产环节多、地质条件复杂多变、生产条件较为恶劣,要求其不断提高自身的应急管理水平和应急响应能力。本文首先对矿山生产事故的特性进行了分析,划分了人的不安全行为的类型,在此基础上建立了矿井事故致因模型,对事故情况下人员的行为特点、矿工的行为与井下应急场所的关系进行了深入探讨。最后,从安全管理和矿山救护队伍建设两个方面提出了控制矿山事故风险的对策。     

Food justice youth development: using Photovoice to study urban school food systems*

How do youth learn through participation in efforts to study and change the school food system? Through our participatory youth action research (YPAR) project, we move beyond the “youth as consumer” frame to a food justice youth development (FJYD) approach. We track how a group of youth learned about food and the public policy process through their efforts to transform their own school food systems by conducting a participatory evaluation of farm-to-school efforts in collaboration with university and community partners. We used the Photovoice research method, placing cameras in the hands of young people so that they themselves could document and discuss their concerns and perspectives. The research was designed to gain insight about youths’ knowledge of food, health, and community food systems. Drawing upon the youth group’s insights, we build a framework for building critical consciousness through FJYD.     

An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations

In a world of shrinking habitats and increasing competition for natural resources, potentially dangerous predators bring the challenges of coexisting with wildlife sharply into focus. Through interdisciplinary collaboration among authors trained in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, we reviewed current approaches to mitigating adverse human–predator encounters and devised a vision for future approaches to understanding and mitigating such encounters. Limitations to current approaches to mitigation include too much focus on negative impacts; oversimplified equating of levels of damage with levels of conflict; and unsuccessful technical fixes resulting from failure to engage locals, address hidden costs, or understand cultural (nonscientific) explanations of the causality of attacks. An emerging interdisciplinary literature suggests that to better frame and successfully mitigate negative human–predator relations conservation professionals need to consider dispensing with conflict as the dominant framework for thinking about human–predator encounters; work out what conflicts are really about (they may be human–human conflicts); unravel the historical contexts of particular conflicts; and explore different cultural ways of thinking about animals. The idea of cosmopolitan natures may help conservation professionals think more clearly about human–predator relations in both local and global context. These new perspectives for future research practice include a recommendation for focused interdisciplinary research and the use of new approaches, including human‐animal geography, multispecies ethnography, and approaches from the environmental humanities notably environmental history. Managers should think carefully about how they engage with local cultural beliefs about wildlife, work with all parties to agree on what constitutes good evidence, develop processes and methods to mitigate conflicts, and decide how to monitor and evaluate these. Demand for immediate solutions that benefit both conservation and development favors dispute resolution and technical fixes, which obscures important underlying drivers of conflicts. If these drivers are not considered, well‐intentioned efforts focused on human–wildlife conflicts will fail.     

Desert pastoralists’ negative and positive effects on rare wildlife in the Gobi

In arid regions of the developing world, pastoralists and livestock commonly inhabit protected areas, resulting in human–wildlife conflict. Conflict is inextricably linked to the ecological processes shaping relationships between pastoralists and native herbivores and carnivores. To elucidate relationships underpinning human–wildlife conflict, we synthesized 15 years of ecological and ethnographic data from Ikh Nart Nature Reserve in Mongolia's Gobi steppe. The density of argali (Ovis ammon), the world's largest wild sheep, at Ikh Nart was among the highest in Mongolia, yet livestock were >90% of ungulate biomass and dogs >90% of large‐carnivore biomass. For argali, pastoral activities decreased food availability, increased mortality from dog predation, and potentially increased disease risk. Isotope analyses indicated that livestock accounted for >50% of the diet of the majority of gray wolves (Canis lupus) and up to 90% of diet in 25% of sampled wolves (n = 8). Livestock composed at least 96% of ungulate prey in the single wolf pack for which we collected species‐specific prey data. Interviews with pastoralists indicated that wolves annually killed 1–4% of Ikh Nart's livestock, and pastoralists killed wolves in retribution. Pastoralists reduced wolf survival by killing them, but their livestock were an abundant food source for wolves. Consequently, wolf density appeared to be largely decoupled from argali density, and pastoralists had indirect effects on argali that could be negative if pastoralists increased wolf density (apparent competition) or positive if pastoralists decreased wolf predation (apparent facilitation). Ikh Nart's argali population was stable despite these threats, but livestock are increasingly dominant numerically and functionally relative to argali. To support both native wildlife and pastoral livelihoods, we suggest training dogs to not kill argali, community insurance against livestock losses to wolves, reintroducing key native prey species to hotspots of human–wolf conflict, and developing incentives for pastoralists to reduce livestock density.     

Developing an interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral community of practice in the domain of forests and livelihoods

Although significant resources are being spent researching and fostering the relationship between forests and livelihoods to promote mutually beneficial outcomes, critical gaps in understanding persist. A core reason for such gaps is that researchers, practitioners, and policy makers lack the structured space to interact and collaborate, which is essential for effective, interdisciplinary research, practice, and evaluation. Thus, scientific findings, policy recommendations, and measured outcomes have not always been synthesized into deep, systemic understanding; learning from practice and implementation does not easily find its way into scientific analyses, and science often fails to influence policy. Communities of practice (CofPs) are dynamic sociocultural systems that bring people together to share and create knowledge around a common topic of interest. They offer participants a space and structure within which to develop new, systemic approaches to multidimensional problems on a common theme. Uniquely informed by a systems‐thinking perspective and drawing from the scientific and gray literatures and in‐depth interviews with representatives of established CofPs in the natural resource management and development domain, we argue that a well‐designed and adequately funded CofP can facilitate interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral relationships and knowledge exchange. Well‐designed CofPs integrate a set of core features and processes to enhance individual, collective, and domain outcomes; they set out an initial but evolving purpose, encourage diverse leadership, and promote collective‐identity development. Funding facilitates effective communication strategies (e.g., in person meetings). We urge our colleagues across sectors and disciplines to take advantage of CofPs to advance the domain of forests and livelihoods.     

Understanding conservationists’ perspectives on the new‐conservation debate

A vibrant debate about the future direction of biodiversity conservation centers on the merits of the so‐called new conservation. Proponents of the new conservation advocate a series of positions on key conservation ideas, such as the importance of human‐dominated landscapes and conservation's engagement with capitalism. These have been fiercely contested in a debate dominated by a few high‐profile individuals, and so far there has been no empirical exploration of existing perspectives on these issues among a wider community of conservationists. We used Q methodology to examine empirically perspectives on the new conservation held by attendees at the 2015 International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). Although we identified a consensus on several key issues, 3 distinct positions emerged: in favor of conservation to benefit people but opposed to links with capitalism and corporations, in favor of biocentric approaches but with less emphasis on wilderness protection than prominent opponents of new conservation, and in favor of the published new conservation perspective but with less emphasis on increasing human well‐being as a goal of conservation. Our results revealed differences between the debate on the new conservation in the literature and views held within a wider, but still limited, conservation community and demonstrated the existence of at least one viewpoint (in favor of conservation to benefit people but opposed to links with capitalism and corporations) that is almost absent from the published debate. We hope the fuller understanding we present of the variety of views that exist but have not yet been heard, will improve the quality and tone of debates on the subject.     

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.