Exploring the emergence of a tipping point for conservation with increased recognition of social considerations

Despite a common understanding of the harmful impacts of Western conservation models that separate people from nature, widespread progress toward incorporating socioeconomic, political, cultural, and spiritual considerations in conservation practice is lacking. For some, the concept of nature-based solutions (NbS) is seen as an interdisciplinary and holistic pathway to better integrate human well-being in conservation. We examined how conservation practitioners in the United States view NbS and how social considerations are or are not incorporated in conservation adaptation projects. We interviewed 28 individuals working on 15 different such projects associated with the Wildlife Conservation Society's Climate Adaptation Fund. We completed 2 rounds of iterative coding in NVivo 12.6.1 to identify in the full text of all interview responses an a priori set of themes related to our research questions and emergent themes. Many respondents saw this moment as a tipping point for the field (one in which the perceived values of social considerations are increasing in conservation practice) (76%) and that social justice concerns and the need to overcome racist and colonial roots of Western conservation have risen to the forefront. Respondents also tentatively agreed that NbS in conservation could support social and ecological outcomes for conservation, but that it was far from guaranteed. Despite individual intention and awareness among practitioners to incorporate social considerations in conservation practice, structural barriers, including limited funding and inflexible grant structures, continue to constrain systemic change. Ultimately, systemic changes that address power and justice in policy and practice are required to leverage this moment to more fully address social considerations in conservation.

Power, politics, and culture of marine conservation technology in fisheries

The term conservation technology is applied widely and loosely to any technology connected to conservation. This overly broad understanding can lead to confusion around the actual mechanisms of conservation in a technological system, which can result in neglect and underdevelopment of the human dimensions of conservation technology. Ultimately, this hinders its effectiveness as technological fixes for conservation problems. Through a process of concept mapping based on key case studies and literature, I devised precise definitions of marine conservation technology and technological marine conservation system. Concerns about the use of marine conservation technologies included unintended consequences, halfway technologies that address the symptoms but not the causes of problems, and misguided techno-optimism (i.e., technology is a panacea that can solve any problem). Technology and technological systems can have power, politics, and culture, and these characteristics can influence the contextual fit of a technology, requiring that technology be thoughtfully created or adapted to the circumstances in which it will be used. Power, politics, and culture inherent in technology can also influence the distribution of conservation risks and benefits and potentially widen gaps in wealth, privilege, opportunities, and justice. Addressing these concerns can potentially be achieved through the better integration of social sciences in marine conservation technology and technological marine conservation system design and development and the application of the social-ecological-technological systems framework. This framework melds key concepts from the socioecological systems framework and science and technology studies. It recognizes as and elevates technology to be a central actor that can shape societies and the natural world. Such a framework incorporates broader understanding, so that the values and concerns of society are more effectively addressed in the creation and implementation of marine conservation technologies and technological marine conservation systems.

Conducting conservation social science surveys online

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is affecting the environment and conservation research in fundamental ways. Many conservation social scientists are now administering survey questionnaires online, but they must do so while ensuring rigor in data collection. Further, they must address a suite of unique challenges, such as the increasing use of mobile devices by participants and avoiding bots or other survey fraud. We reviewed recent literature on online survey methods to examine the state of the field related to online data collection and dissemination. We illustrate the review with examples of key methodological decisions made during a recent national study of people who feed wild birds, in which survey respondents were recruited through an online panel and a sample generated via a project participant list. Conducting surveys online affords new opportunities for participant recruitment, design, and pilot testing. For instance, online survey panels can provide quick access to large and diverse samples of people. Based on the literature review and our own experiences, we suggest that to ensure high-quality online surveys one should account for potential sampling and nonresponse error, design survey instruments for use on multiple devices, test the instrument, and use multiple protocols to identify data quality problems. We also suggest that research funders, journal editors, and policy makers can all play a role in ensuring high-quality survey data are used to inform effective conservation programs and policies.

Systematic map of conservation psychology

Conservation science and practice commonly draw on the theories and methods of social psychology to explain human cognition, emotion, and behavior germane to biodiversity conservation. We created a systematic map of the cross-disciplinary conservation science literature, which draws on social psychology concepts and methods in their application broadly described as conservation psychology. Established protocols were used to systematically collect and collate peer-reviewed research published in an explicit selection of multidisciplinary conservation journals. We sought to catalog the literature, elucidate trends and gaps, and critically reflect on the state of conservation psychology and its research practices that aim to influence conservation outcomes. The volume of publications per year and per decade increased from 1974 to 2016. Although a diversity of research designs and methods was applied, studies disproportionately focused on specific concepts (attitudes and beliefs), locations (North America and Europe), and contexts (terrestrial, rural). Studies also tended to be descriptive, quantitative, and atheoretical in nature. Our findings demonstrate that although conservation psychology has generally become more visible and prominent, it has done so within a limited space and suggest that disciplinary research principles and reporting standards must be more universally adopted by traditional and multidisciplinary conservation journals to raise the floor of empirical research.

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.

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.

Current practice and future prospects for social data in coastal and ocean planning

Coastal and ocean planning comprises a broad field of practice. The goals, political processes, and approaches applied to planning initiatives may vary widely. However, all planning processes ultimately require adequate information on both the biophysical and social attributes of a planning region. In coastal and ocean planning practice, there are well-established methods to assess biophysical attributes; however, less is understood about the role and assessment of social data. We conducted the first global assessment of the incorporation of social data in coastal and ocean planning. We drew on a comprehensive review of planning initiatives and a survey of coastal and ocean practitioners. There was significantly more incorporation of social data in multiuse versus conservation-oriented planning. Practitioners engaged a wide range of social data, including governance, economic, and cultural attributes of planning regions and human impacts data. Less attention was given to ecosystem services and social-ecological linkages, both of which could improve coastal and ocean planning practice. Although practitioners recognize the value of social data, little funding is devoted to its collection and incorporation in plans. Increased capacity and sophistication in acquiring critical social and ecological data for planning is necessary to develop plans for more resilient coastal and ocean ecosystems and communities. We suggest that improving social data monitoring, and in particular spatial social data, to complement biophysical data, is necessary for providing holistic information for decision-support tools and other methods. Moving beyond people as impacts to people as beneficiaries, through ecosystem services assessments, holds much potential to better incorporate the tenets of ecosystem-based management into coastal and ocean planning by providing targets for linked biodiversity conservation and human welfare outcomes.

Desires and management preferences of stakeholders regarding feral cats in the Hawaiian islands

Feral cats are abundant in many parts of the world and a source of conservation conflict. Our goal was to clarify the beliefs and desires held by stakeholders regarding feral cat abundance and management. We measured people's desired abundance of feral cats in the Hawaiian Islands and identified an order of preference for 7 feral cat management techniques. In 2011 we disseminated a survey to 5407 Hawaii residents. Approximately 46% of preidentified stakeholders and 20% of random residents responded to the survey (1510 surveys returned). Results from the potential for conflict index revealed a high level of consensus (86.9% of respondents) that feral cat abundance should be decreased. The 3 most common explanatory variables for respondents' stated desires were enjoyment from seeing feral cats (84%), intrinsic value of feral cats (12%), and threat to native fauna (73%). The frequency with which respondents saw cats and change in the perceived abundance of cats also affected respondent's desired abundance of cats; 41.3% of respondents stated that they saw feral cats daily and 44.7% stated that the cat population had increased in recent years. Other potential environmental impacts of feral cats had little affect on desired abundance. The majority of respondents (78%) supported removing feral cats from the natural environment permanently. Consensus convergence models with data from 1388 respondents who completed the relevant questions showed live capture and lethal injection was the most preferred technique and trap-neuter-release was the least preferred technique for managing feral cats. However, the acceptability of each technique varied among stakeholders. Our results suggest that the majority of Hawaii's residents would like to see effective management that reduces the abundance of feral or free-roaming cats.