Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation

Effective conservation management interventions must combat threats and deliver benefits at costs that can be achieved within limited budgets. Considerable effort has focused on measuring the potential benefits of conservation interventions, but explicit quantification of the financial costs of implementation is rare. Even when costs have been quantified, haphazard and inconsistent reporting means published values are difficult to interpret. This reporting deficiency hinders progress toward a collective understanding of the financial costs of management interventions across projects and thus limits the ability to identify efficient solutions to conservation problems or attract adequate funding. We devised a standardized approach to describing financial costs reported for conservation interventions. The standards call for researchers and practitioners to describe the objective and outcome, context and methods, and scale of costed interventions, and to state which categories of costs are included and the currency and date for reported costs. These standards aim to provide enough contextual information that readers and future users can interpret the cost data appropriately. We suggest these standards be adopted by major conservation organizations, conservation science institutions, and journals so that cost reporting is comparable among studies. This would support shared learning and enhance the ability to identify and perform cost‐effective conservation.     

Connectivity Planning to Address Climate Change

As the climate changes, human land use may impede species from tracking areas with suitable climates. Maintaining connectivity between areas of different temperatures could allow organisms to move along temperature gradients and allow species to continue to occupy the same temperature space as the climate warms. We used a coarse‐filter approach to identify broad corridors for movement between areas where human influence is low while simultaneously routing the corridors along present‐day spatial gradients of temperature. We modified a cost–distance algorithm to model these corridors and tested the model with data on current land‐use and climate patterns in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The resulting maps identified a network of patches and corridors across which species may move as climates change. The corridors are likely to be robust to uncertainty in the magnitude and direction of future climate change because they are derived from gradients and land‐use patterns. The assumptions we applied in our model simplified the stability of temperature gradients and species responses to climate change and land use, but the model is flexible enough to be tailored to specific regions by incorporating other climate variables or movement costs. When used at appropriate resolutions, our approach may be of value to local, regional, and continental conservation initiatives seeking to promote species movements in a changing climate. Planificación de Conectividad para Atender el Cambio Climático     

Incorporating Climate Science in Applications of the U.S. Endangered Species Act for Aquatic Species

Aquatic species are threatened by climate change but have received comparatively less attention than terrestrial species. We gleaned key strategies for scientists and managers seeking to address climate change in aquatic conservation planning from the literature and existing knowledge. We address 3 categories of conservation effort that rely on scientific analysis and have particular application under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA): assessment of overall risk to a species; long‐term recovery planning; and evaluation of effects of specific actions or perturbations. Fewer data are available for aquatic species to support these analyses, and climate effects on aquatic systems are poorly characterized. Thus, we recommend scientists conducting analyses supporting ESA decisions develop a conceptual model that links climate, habitat, ecosystem, and species response to changing conditions and use this model to organize analyses and future research. We recommend that current climate conditions are not appropriate for projections used in ESA analyses and that long‐term projections of climate‐change effects provide temporal context as a species‐wide assessment provides spatial context. In these projections, climate change should not be discounted solely because the magnitude of projected change at a particular time is uncertain when directionality of climate change is clear. Identifying likely future habitat at the species scale will indicate key refuges and potential range shifts. However, the risks and benefits associated with errors in modeling future habitat are not equivalent. The ESA offers mechanisms for increasing the overall resilience and resistance of species to climate changes, including establishing recovery goals requiring increased genetic and phenotypic diversity, specifying critical habitat in areas not currently occupied but likely to become important, and using adaptive management. Incorporación de las Ciencias Climáticas en las Aplicaciones del Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro para Especies Acuáticas     

Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation

Developments in CRISPR-based gene-editing technologies have generated a growing number of proposals to edit genes in wildlife to meet conservation goals. As these proposals have attracted greater attention, controversies have emerged among scientists and stakeholder groups over potential consequences and ethical implications of gene editing. Responsible governance cannot occur without consulting broader publics, yet little effort has been made to systematically assess public understandings and beliefs in relation to this new area of applied genetic engineering. We analyzed data from a survey of U.S. adults (n = 1600), collected by YouGov, and that examined respondents’ concerns about gene editing in animal and plant wildlife and how those concerns are shaped by cultural dispositions toward science and beliefs about the appropriateness of intervening in nature at the genetic level. On average, respondents perceived more risk than benefit in using these tools. Over 70% agreed that gene editing in wildlife could be “easily used for the wrong purposes.” When evaluating the moral acceptability of gene editing in wildlife, respondents evaluated applications to improve survival in endangered wildlife as more morally acceptable than applications to decrease abundance in a population or eliminate a population. Belief in the authority of scientific knowledge was positively related to favorable views of the benefits, risks, and moral acceptability of editing genes in wildlife. The belief that editing genes in wildlife inappropriately intervenes in nature predicted relatively more concern about risks and moral acceptability and skepticism about benefits. Given high levels of concern and skepticism about gene editing in wildlife for conservation among the U.S. public, a take-it-slow approach to making decisions about when or whether to use these tools is advisable. Early opinions, including those uncovered in this study, are likely to be provisional. Thus, consulting the public should be an ongoing process.     

Comparing wildlife habitat suitability models based on expert opinion with camera trap detections

Expert knowledge is used in the development of wildlife habitat suitability models (HSMs) for management and conservation decisions. However, the consistency of such models has been questioned. Focusing on 1 method for elicitation, the analytic hierarchy process, we generated expert-based HSMs for 4 felid species: 2 forest specialists (ocelot [Leopardus pardalis] and margay [Leopardus wiedii]) and 2 habitat generalist species (Pampas cat [Leopardus colocola] and puma [Puma concolor]). Using these HSMs, species detections from camera-trap surveys, and generalized linear models, we assessed the effect of study species and expert attributes on the correspondence between expert models and camera-trap detections. We also examined whether aggregation of participant responses and iterative feedback improved model performance. We ran 160 HSMs and found that models for specialist species showed higher correspondence with camera-trap detections (AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] >0.7) than those for generalists (AUC < 0.7). Model correspondence increased as participant years of experience in the study area increased, but only for the understudied generalist species, Pampas cat (β = 0.024 [SE 0.007]). No other participant attribute was associated with model correspondence. Feedback and revision of models improved model correspondence, and aggregating judgments across multiple participants improved correspondence only for specialist species. The average correspondence of aggregated judgments increased as group size increased but leveled off after 5 experts for all species. Our results suggest that correspondence between expert models and empirical surveys increases as habitat specialization increases. We encourage inclusion of participants knowledgeable of the study area and model validation for expert-based modeling of understudied and generalist species.     

Effect of decision rules in choice experiments on hunting and bushmeat trade

Providing insight on decisions to hunt and trade bushmeat can facilitate improved management interventions that typically include enforcement, alternative employment, and donation of livestock. Conservation interventions to regulate bushmeat hunting and trade have hitherto been based on assumptions of utility- (i.e., personal benefits) maximizing behavior, which influences the types of incentives designed. However, if individuals instead strive to minimize regret, interventions may be misguided. We tested support for 3 hypotheses regarding decision rules through a choice experiment in Tanzania. We estimated models based on the assumptions of random utility maximization (RUM) and pure random regret maximization (P-RRM) and combinations thereof. One of these models had an attribute-specific decision rule and another had a class-specific decision rule. The RUM model outperformed the P-RRM model, but the attribute-specific model performed better. Allowing respondents with different decision rules and preference heterogeneity within each decision rule in a class-specific model performed best, revealing that 55% of the sample used a P-RRM decision rule. Individuals using a P-RRM decision rule responded less to enforcement, salary, and livestock donation than did individuals using the RUM decision rule. Hence, 3 common strategies, enforcement, alternative income-generating activities, and providing livestock as a substitute protein, are likely less effective in changing the behavior of more than half of respondents. Only salary elicited a large (i.e. elastic) response, and only for one RUM class. Policies to regulate the bushmeat trade based solely on the assumption of individuals maximizing utility, may fail for a significant proportion of the sample. Despite the superior performance of models that allow both RUM and P-RRM decision rules there are drawbacks that must be considered before use in the Global South, where very little is known about the social–psychology of decision making.     

Generation lengths of the world's birds and their implications for extinction risk

Birds have been comprehensively assessed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List more times than any other taxonomic group. However, to date, generation lengths have not been systematically estimated to scale population trends when undertaking assessments, as required by the criteria of the IUCN Red List. We compiled information from major databases of published life-history and trait data for all birds and imputed missing life-history data as a function of species traits with generalized linear mixed models. Generation lengths were derived for all species, based on our modeled values of age at first breeding, maximum longevity, and annual adult survival. The resulting generation lengths varied from 1.42 to 27.87 years (median 2.99). Most species (61%) had generation lengths <3.33 years, meaning that the period of 3 generations—over which population declines are assessed under criterion A—was <10 years, which is the value used for IUCN Red List assessments of species with short generation times. For these species, our trait-informed estimates of generation length suggested that 10 years is a robust precautionary value for threat assessment. In other cases, however, for whole families, genera, or individual species, generation length had a substantial impact on their estimated extinction risk, resulting in higher extinction risk in long-lived species than in short-lived species. Although our approach effectively addressed data gaps, generation lengths for some species may have been underestimated due to a paucity of life-history data. Overall, our results will strengthen future extinction-risk assessments and augment key databases of avian life-history and trait data.     

Use of standardized methods to improve extinction-risk classification

Standardized classification methods based on quantifiable risk metrics are critical for evaluating extinction threats because they increase objectivity, consistency, and transparency of listing decisions. Yet, in the United States, neither federal nor state agencies use standardized methods for listing species for legal protection, which could put listing decisions at odds with the magnitude of the risk. We used a recently developed set of quantitative risk metrics for California herpetofauna as a case study to highlight discrepancies in listing decisions made without standardized methods. We also combined such quantitative metrics with classification tree analysis to attempt to increase the transparency of previous listing decisions by identifying the criteria that had inherently been given the most weight. Federally listed herpetofauna in California scored significantly higher on the risk-metric spectrum than those not federally listed, whereas state-listed species did not score any higher than species that were not state listed. Based on classification trees, state endemism was the most important predictor of listing status at the state level and distribution trend (decline in a species’ range size) and population trend (decline in a species’ abundance at localized sites) were the most important predictors at the federal level. Our results emphasize the need for governing bodies to adopt standardized methods for assessing conservation risk that are based on quantitative criteria. Such methods allow decision makers to identify criteria inherently given the most weight in determining listing status, thus increasing the transparency of previous listing decisions, and produce an unbiased comparison of conservation threat across all species to promote consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the listing process.     

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.     

Campesino hunting and conservation in Latin America

Hunting presents a paradox for biodiversity conservation. It is both a problem and a solution to species declines and poverty. Yet, conservation scientists hold different assumptions about the significance and sustainability of hunting based on the cultures and identities of hunters. In Latin America, conservationists largely sort hunters as either indigenous or campesino. Indigenous hunters are often characterized as culturally driven stewards of wildlife sustainability. Campesino hunters, by contrast, are described as peasants—cultureless, uneducated, and uncaring toward wildlife sustainability. Although such ethnically fueled hunting discourse promotes hunting research, campesino hunters remain underrepresented in most comparative hunting reviews. Moreover, there are no targeted syntheses on the current state of knowledge about campesino hunting, nothing to guide conservation research and practice with and for the largest group of hunters in Latin America. We reviewed 334 articles published from 1937 to 2018 in English (55%) and Spanish (45%)—mostly published in 145 peer-reviewed journals—on the meanings, motivations, and sustainability of campesino hunting in Latin America. Although studies spanned 17 countries, 7 ecosystems, and >75 indigenous and nonindigenous demographics in 30 research contexts, they predominantly focused on nonindigenous campesinos for species-specific conservation and protected area management in tropical broadleaf forests of Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. Authors used 12 methods to collect campesino hunting data, primarily interviews, surveys, and questionnaires, and drew from 10 local and traditional knowledge themes about wildlife trends and uses. Eighteen drivers, 14 constraints, and 10 conflicts—mainly subsistence, income, ethics, regulations, and crop or livestock protection—shaped whether campesino hunters pursued 799 species, 70% of which were least concern species. Yet, only 25 studies (8%) empirically assessed sustainability. Our results show the need for increased interdisciplinary and geographic engagement with campesino hunting across Latin America.