Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence

Sustaining wildlife populations, which provide both ecosystem services and disservices, represents a worldwide conservation challenge. The ecosystem services and Ostrom's social–ecological systems frameworks have been adopted across natural and social sciences to characterize benefits from nature. Despite their generalizability, individually they do not include explicit tools for addressing the sustainable management of many wildlife populations. For instance, Ostrom's framework does not specifically address competing perspectives on wildlife, whereas the ecosystem services framework provides a limited representation of the social and governance context wherein such competing perspectives are embedded. We developed a unified social–ecological framework of ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS) that advances both frameworks by explicitly acknowledging the importance of competing wildlife perspectives embedded in the social and governance contexts. The SEEDS framework emulates the hierarchical structure of Ostrom's social–ecological systems, but adds subsystems reflecting heterogeneous stakeholder views and experiences of wildlife-based services and disservices. To facilitate operationalizing SEEDS and further broader analyses across human–wildlife systems, we devised a list of variables to describe SEEDS subsystems, such as types and level of services and disservices, cost and benefit sharing, and social participation of stakeholders. Steps to implement SEEDS involve engaging local communities and stakeholders to define the subsystems, analyze interactions and outcomes, and identify leverage points and actions to remedy unwanted outcomes. These steps connect SEEDS with other existing approaches in social–ecological research and can guide analyses across systems or within individual systems to provide new insights and management options for sustainable human–wildlife coexistence.     

A Phylogenetic Approach to Conserving Amazonian Biodiversity

Abstract: Amazonia is a highly threatened rainforest that encompasses a major proportion of Earth's biological diversity. Our main goal was to establish conservation priorities for Amazonia's areas of endemism on the basis of measures of evolutionary distinctiveness. We considered two previously identified sets of areas of endemism. The first set consisted of eight large areas used traditionally in biogeographical studies: Belém, Tapajós, Xingu, Guiana, Rondônia, Imeri, Inambari, and Napo. The second set consisted of 16 smaller areas that were subdivisions of the larger areas. We assembled a data set of 50 phylogenies that represented 16 orders and 1715 distributional records. We identified priority conservation areas for the areas of endemism according to node‐based metrics of evolutionary distinctiveness. We contrasted these results with priority areas identified on the basis of raw species richness and species endemicity. For the larger areas, we identified Guiana and Inambari as the first‐ and second‐most important areas for conservation. The remaining areas in this first group scored half (e.g., Napo) or less than Guiana and Inambari on all indices. For the smaller areas, a subdivision of Guiana (i.e., Guyana and the Brazilian states of Roraima and Amazonas) was at the top of the ranking and was followed by a subdivision of Inambari (i.e., northwestern portion of Amazonas) and then another subdivision of Guiana (i.e., Suriname, French Guiana, and the Brazilian state of Amapá). The distinctiveness‐based rankings of the priority of areas correlated directly with those derived from species richness and species endemicity. Current conservation strategies in Amazonia, although they rely on many other criteria apart from phylogeny, are focusing on the most important areas for conservation we identified here.     

The role of psychology in determining human–predator conflict across southern Kenya

Conflict between people and carnivores can lead to the widespread killing of predators in retaliation for livestock loss and is a major threat to predator populations. In Kenya, a large, rural, pastoralist population comes into regular conflict with predators, which persist across southern Kenya. We explored the social and psychological backdrop to livestock management practices in this area in a process designed to be easy to use and suitable for use across large areas for the study of conflict and transboundary implementation of wildlife conflict reduction measures, focusing on community involvement and needs. We carried out fully structured interviews of livestock managers with a survey tool that examined how social and psychological factors may influence livestock management behavior. We compared survey responses on 3 sites across the study area, resulting in 723 usable responses. Efficacy of individuals’ livestock management varied between and within communities. This variation was partially explained by normative and control beliefs regarding livestock management. Individual livestock managers’ self-reported management issues were often an accurate reflection of their practical management difficulties. Psychological norms, control beliefs, and attitudes differed among sites, and these differences partially explained patterns associated with conflict (i.e., variation in livestock management behavior). Thus, we conclude that a one-size-fits-all approach to improving livestock management and reducing human–predator conflict is not suitable.     

Using Citizen Science Programs to Identify Host Resistance in Pest‐Invaded Forests

Abstract: Threats to native forests from non‐native insects and pathogens (pests) are generally addressed with methods such as quarantine, eradication, biological control, and development of resistant stock through hybridization and breeding. In conjunction with such efforts, it may be useful to have citizen scientists locate rare surviving trees that may be naturally pest resistant or tolerant. The degree of resistance of individual trees identified in this way can be tested under controlled conditions, and the most resistant individuals can be integrated into plant breeding programs aimed at developing pest‐resistant native stock. Involving citizen scientists in programs aimed at identifying rare trees that survive colonization by pests provides a low‐cost means of maximizing search efforts across wide geographic regions and may provide an effective supplement to existing management approaches.     

Trends in Deforestation and Forest Degradation after a Decade of Monitoring in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico

We used aerial photographs, satellite images, and field surveys to monitor forest cover in the core zones of the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico from 2001 to 2012. We used our data to assess the effectiveness of conservation actions that involved local, state, and federal authorities and community members (e.g., local landowners and private and civil organizations) in one of the world's most iconic protected areas. From 2001 through 2012, 1254 ha were deforested (i.e., cleared areas had <10% canopy cover), 925 ha were degraded (i.e., areas for which canopy forest decreased), and 122 ha were affected by climatic conditions. Of the total 2179 ha of affected area, 2057 ha were affected by illegal logging: 1503 ha by large‐scale logging and 554 ha by small‐scale logging. Mexican authorities effectively enforced efforts to protect the monarch reserve, particularly from 2007 to 2012. Those efforts, together with the decade‐long financial support from Mexican and international philanthropists and businesses to create local alternative‐income generation and employment, resulted in the decrease of large‐scale illegal logging from 731 ha affected in 2005–2007 to none affected in 2012, although small‐scale logging is of growing concern. However, dire regional social and economic problems remain, and they must be addressed to ensure the reserve's long‐term conservation. The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) overwintering colonies in Mexico—which engage in one of the longest known insect migrations—are threatened by deforestation, and a multistakeholder, regional, sustainable‐development strategy is needed to protect the reserve. Tendencias en la Deforestación y la Degradación de Forestal después de una Década de Monitoreo en la Reserva de la Biósfera de la Mariposa Monarca en México     

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy‐influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.