Conservation geopolitics

We reviewed recent work concerning the impact of geopolitics on wildlife conservation (and vice versa) and identified future priorities in conservation geopolitics research. Geopolitics is understood as both an analytical focus on geopolitical practices (especially concerning the behavior) of countries with respect to territory and national security and a set of theories developed to explain and predict those behaviors. We developed a typology of core geopolitical practices of relevance to conservation: territorial practices of colonization and the management of migrations and borders, and security practices relating to military, economic, and environmental security. We identified research that considers how these practices affect conservation situations and outcomes, noting the recent emergence of conceptual developments such as “environmental geopolitics” and “geopolitical ecology” that draw on multiple fields within the social sciences to theorize the links between geopolitics and environmental management. We defined a "geopolitical perspective" as a focus on geopolitical practices combined with an explicit engagement with geopolitical theory and identified conservation situations where this perspective could contribute to analytical clarity. We suggest the most pressing questions in conservation research to which the geopolitical perspective might contribute are how political and economic differences between countries affect biodiversity outcomes, how geopolitical practices to address those differences facilitate or frustrate conservation efforts, how national borders and human and wildlife movements can be better managed for the benefit of both, and how the most effective conservation strategies can be best selected to suit existing (and future) geopolitical realities.     

Hunting for common ground between wildlife governance and commons scholarship

Wildlife hunting is essential to livelihoods and food security in many parts of the world, yet present rates of extraction may threaten ecosystems and human communities. Thus, governing sustainable wildlife use is a major social dilemma and conservation challenge. Commons scholarship is well positioned to contribute theoretical insights and analytic tools to better understand the interface of social and ecological dimensions of wildlife governance, yet the intersection of wildlife studies and commons scholarship is not well studied. We reviewed existing wildlife-hunting scholarship, drawing on a database of 1,410 references, to examine the current overlap with commons scholarship through multiple methods, including social network analysis and deductive coding. We found that a very small proportion of wildlife scholarship incorporated commons theories and frameworks. The social network of wildlife scholarship was densely interconnected with several major publication clusters, whereas the wildlife commons scholarship was sparse and isolated. Despite the overarching gap between wildlife and commons scholarship, a few scholars are studying wildlife commons. The small body of scholarship that bridges these disconnected literatures provides valuable insights into the understudied relational dimensions of wildlife and other overlapping common-pool resources. We suggest increased engagement among wildlife and commons scholars and practitioners to improve the state of knowledge and practice of wildlife governance across regions, particularly for bushmeat hunting in the tropics, which is presently understudied through a common-pool resource lens. Our case study of the Republic of Congo showed how the historical context and interrelationships between hunting and forest rights are essential to understanding the current state of wildlife governance and potential for future interventions. A better understanding of the interconnections between wildlife and overlapping common-pool resource systems may be key to understanding present wildlife governance challenges and advancing the common-pool resource research agenda.     

Government to Citizens (G2C) communication and use of social media in the post-disaster reconstruction phase

Post-disaster reconstruction (PDR) poses specific and complex challenges that government agencies have to deal with. Existing crisis management and communication models as well as literature on social media adoption by public organisations tend to focus on the critical stage, neglecting the issues that arise when the social, physical and cultural environments affected by a disaster have to be rebuilt. Conversely, this paper presents some preliminary findings on the Government to Citizen (G2C) communications and social media usage in PDR settings. The PDR process that followed the earthquakes in Emilia-Romagna (Northern Italy) in 2012 was used as a case study. Data derived from field notes and multiple-choice questionnaires revealed that government agencies provided information mainly about housing and infrastructure and financing and that they addressed this information to all citizens, although information was sometimes targeted specifically to business people, homeowners and members of community-based groups. Government officers gave preference to face-to-face contacts, Web portals and printed material. Social media were used predominantly as additional means of communication of PDR-related information, thus underrating their potential for community engagement and G2C bidirectional communication. In the discussions, findings are integrated into and validated against literature and communication theories.     

A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame

Stakeholders’ nonmaterial desires, needs, and values often critically influence the success of conservation projects. These considerations are challenging to articulate and characterize, resulting in their limited uptake in management and policy. We devised an interview protocol designed to enhance understanding of cultural ecosystem services (CES). The protocol begins with discussion of ecosystem‐related activities (e.g., recreation, hunting) and management and then addresses CES, prompting for values encompassing concepts identified in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and explored in other CES research. We piloted the protocol in Hawaii and British Columbia. In each location, we interviewed 30 individuals from diverse backgrounds. We analyzed results from the 2 locations to determine the effectiveness of the interview protocol in elucidating nonmaterial values. The qualitative and spatial components of the protocol helped characterize cultural, social, and ethical values associated with ecosystems in multiple ways. Maps and situational, or vignette‐like, questions helped respondents articulate difficult‐to‐discuss values. Open‐ended prompts allowed respondents to express a diversity of ecosystem‐related values and proved sufficiently flexible for interviewees to communicate values for which the protocol did not explicitly probe. Finally, the results suggest that certain values, those mentioned frequently throughout the interview, are particularly salient for particular populations. The protocol can provide efficient, contextual, and place‐based data on the importance of particular ecosystem attributes for human well‐being. Qualitative data are complementary to quantitative and spatial assessments in the comprehensive representation of people's values pertaining to ecosystems, and this protocol may assist in incorporating values frequently overlooked in decision making processes.     

Linking ecosystem services and human‐values theory

Understanding why people make the decisions they do remains a fundamental challenge facing conservation science. Ecosystem service (ES) (a benefit people derive from an ecosystem) approaches to conservation reflect efforts to anticipate people's preferences and influence their environmental behavior. Yet, the design of ES approaches seldom includes psychological theories of human behavior. We sought to alleviate this omission by applying a psychological theory of human values to a cross‐cultural ES assessment. We used interviews and focus groups with fish workers from 28 coral reef fishing communities in 4 countries to qualitatively identify the motivations (i.e., human values) underlying preferences for ES; quantitatively evaluate resource user ES priorities; and identify common patterns among ES motivations and ES priorities (i.e., trade‐offs and synergies). Three key findings are evident that align with human values theory. First, motivations underlying preferences for individual ESs reflected multiple human values within the same value domain (e.g., self‐enhancement). Second, when averaged at community or country scales, the order of ES priorities was consistent. However, the order belied significant variation that existed among individuals. Third, in line with human values theory, ESs related to one another in a consistent pattern; certain service pairs reflected trade‐off relationships (e.g., supporting and provisioning), whereas other service pairs reflected synergistic relationships (e.g., supporting and regulating). Together, these findings help improve understanding of when and why convergence and trade‐offs in people's preferences for ESs occur, and this knowledge can inform the development of suitable conservation actions.     

A pattern for partnership between LMDH and Perhutani to enhance local community prosperity and preserve the forest: a case study at RPH Besowo,Kediri Regency,Indonesia

The deforestation in Indonesia is already alarming. One of the strategies used by the government to overcome forest deforestation is social forestry. This program is called PHBM (Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat/Joint Forest Management) which is basically a partnership program. This study aims at describing the partnership program between a local organization (i.e. LMDH) and a government unit (i.e. RPH of Perhutani) within the PHBM program. The objectives of this study are to (a) describe the model of partnerships between LMDH and RPH Besowo for sustainable forest management and local community empowerment; (b) determine the contribution of the forest to the national economy and rural household income; and (c) determine the obstacles commonly found in Besowo forest that have to be faced during the implementation of the partnerships. The study shows that with good partnership between these two units, the prosperity of the local community can be enhanced and the forest preservation can be maintained. The model of the partnerships in this particular area in Indonesia is expected to be applicable as well in other rural areas in Indonesia, as well as in other developing countries.     

Effects of Multiple Levels of Social Organization on Survival and Abundance

Abstract: Identifying how social organization shapes individual behavior, survival, and fecundity of animals that live in groups can inform conservation efforts and improve forecasts of population abundance, even when the mechanism responsible for group‐level differences is unknown. We constructed a hierarchical Bayesian model to quantify the relative variability in survival rates among different levels of social organization (matrilines and pods) of an endangered population of killer whales (Orcinus orca). Individual killer whales often participate in group activities such as prey sharing and cooperative hunting. The estimated age‐specific survival probabilities and survivorship curves differed considerably among pods and to a lesser extent among matrilines (within pods). Across all pods, males had lower life expectancy than females. Differences in survival between pods may be caused by a combination of factors that vary across the population's range, including reduced prey availability, contaminants in prey, and human activity. Our modeling approach could be applied to demographic rates for other species and for parameters other than survival, including reproduction, prey selection, movement, and detection probabilities.     

Hunting Down the Chimera of Multiple Disciplinarity in Conservation Science

The consensus is that both ecological and social factors are essential dimensions of conservation research and practice. However, much of the literature on multiple disciplinary collaboration focuses on the difficulties of undertaking it. This review of the challenges of conducting multiple disciplinary collaboration offers a framework for thinking about the diversity and complexity of this endeavor. We focused on conceptual challenges, of which 5 main categories emerged: methodological challenges, value judgments, theories of knowledge, disciplinary prejudices, and interdisciplinary communication. The major problems identified in these areas have proved remarkably persistent in the literature surveyed (c.1960–2012). Reasons for these failures to learn from past experience include the pressure to produce positive outcomes and gloss over disagreements, the ephemeral nature of many such projects and resulting lack of institutional memory, and the apparent complexity and incoherence of the endeavor. We suggest that multiple disciplinary collaboration requires conceptual integration among carefully selected multiple disciplinary team members united in investigating a shared problem or question. We outline a 9‐point sequence of steps for setting up a successful multiple disciplinary project. This encompasses points on recruitment, involving stakeholders, developing research questions, negotiating power dynamics and hidden values and conceptual differences, explaining and choosing appropriate methods, developing a shared language, facilitating on‐going communications, and discussing data integration and project outcomes. Although numerous solutions to the challenges of multiple disciplinary research have been proposed, lessons learned are often lost when projects end or experienced individuals move on. We urge multiple disciplinary teams to capture the challenges recognized, and solutions proposed, by their researchers while projects are in process. A database of well‐documented case studies would showcase theories and methods from a variety of disciplines and their interactions, enable better comparative study and evaluation, and provide a useful resource for developing future projects and training multiple disciplinary researchers. Cazando la Quimera de la Multidisciplina en la Ciencia de la Conservación     

Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management

The conservation community is increasingly focusing on the monitoring and evaluation of management, governance, ecological, and social considerations as part of a broader move toward adaptive management and evidence‐based conservation. Evidence is any information that can be used to come to a conclusion and support a judgment or, in this case, to make decisions that will improve conservation policies, actions, and outcomes. Perceptions are one type of information that is often dismissed as anecdotal by those arguing for evidence‐based conservation. In this paper, I clarify the contributions of research on perceptions of conservation to improving adaptive and evidence‐based conservation. Studies of the perceptions of local people can provide important insights into observations, understandings and interpretations of the social impacts, and ecological outcomes of conservation; the legitimacy of conservation governance; and the social acceptability of environmental management. Perceptions of these factors contribute to positive or negative local evaluations of conservation initiatives. It is positive perceptions, not just objective scientific evidence of effectiveness, that ultimately ensure the support of local constituents thus enabling the long‐term success of conservation. Research on perceptions can inform courses of action to improve conservation and governance at scales ranging from individual initiatives to national and international policies. Better incorporation of evidence from across the social and natural sciences and integration of a plurality of methods into monitoring and evaluation will provide a more complete picture on which to base conservation decisions and environmental management.