Conservation Biology最新文献

Most protected area impact research that uses counterfactuals draws heavily on quantitative methods, data, and knowledge types, making it valuable in producing generalizations but limited in temporal scope, historical detail, and habitat diversity and coverage of ecosystem services. We devised a methodological pluralistic approach, which supports social science qualitative methods, narratives, mixed methods, and interdisciplinarity, to fully unlock the potential of counterfactuals in ensuring a place-based and detailed understanding of the socioecological context and impacts of protected areas. We applied this approach to derive possible counterfactual conditions for the impact of a montane protected area on 40 years of vegetation change in the Cape Floristic Region—a global biodiversity hotspot and UNESCO World Heritage Site in South Africa. We incorporated diverse methods, knowledge, and information sources, drawing on before–after protected area comparisons for inside and outside the protected area. A significant increase in shrubland vegetation (17–30%) was observed and attributed primarily to a decline in frequent burning for grazing. This also occurred outside the protected area and was driven by socioeconomic drivers and not by concerns over biodiversity conservation or land degradation. Had the protected area not been established the area would have seen intensification of cultivation and increased road networks, buildings, and water storage in dams. Our approach increased historical temporal coverage of socioecological change and contextualized assumptions around causality. Protected area impact evaluation should reengage in place-based research that fully incorporates pluralism in methodologies for constructing counterfactuals in a way that builds regional and global understanding from the local level upward. We devised 10 key principles for deriving counterfactuals grounded in methodological pluralism, covering aspects of collaboration, cocreation, inter- and transdisciplinarity, diverse values and lived experiences, multiple knowledge types, multiple possible causal mechanisms, social science qualitative methods, perceptions, perspectives, and narratives.

Recent ethical debate about compassionate conservation has invoked moral theories to oppose or support traditional practices of killing animals to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. The debate has featured the mainstream moral theories of consequentialism and utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. We identify problematic applications and critique of these moral theories in conservation discussions. Problems include a lack of clarity when invoking moral theories, misunderstanding and mischaracterizing theories, and overlooking features and circumstances affecting a theory's application. A key omission in the debate is a detailed discussion of the moral significance of animals and nature. We then examine the role of moral theory as such in ethical discussion, contrasting moral theory with ethical outlooks that center, for example, forms of love and care. Our aim is to advance the ethical debate about harming animals in conservation.

We examined the entanglement of biodiversity conservation, human–animal interactions, zootherapy, and local beliefs among Sumatran Healers and their local community by completing an ethnography of 43 Indigenous Healers across 8 tribes in Bengkulu Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. Data collection tools were interviews, observations, videos, photographs, and a researcher journal. Of the 43 Healers, 30 used animals and mentioned 62 species. Of the animals identified, the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List lists 34% (n = 21) as endangered, decreasing, or vulnerable, including Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae), Sumatran elephant (Elephas maximus sumatranus), and Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis). Of the 30 Healers using animals, 50% (n = 15) practiced healing with at least one endangered, decreasing, or vulnerable animal. We defined 3 personas: Healer self-persona, Healer-imposed persona, and community-imposed persona. A persona represented a group's opinions and sentiments related to Healers killing animals for medicinal purposes. Using an iterative data analysis process, we grouped the data across the 3 personas into 5 themes: ease of killing and preparing animals, emotions related to killing animals, animal value, relationship to religion, and Healers are tricksters. The complexity of merging the identities of Healers and the community within an actor-network embodies the relationality of actions, interactions, and feelings among Healers, between Healers and animals, and between Healers and the community. Conservationists should be cognizant of Healers’ medicinal use of animals, views of human–animal interactions, and zootherapy from all social and emotional perspectives. The data led to defining Indigenous Healer ecological knowledge components of zootherapy, human–animal interactions, and biodiversity conservation.

Advancing transformative change for sustainability requires population-wide behavior change. Yet, many behavioral interventions tackling environmental problems only examine average effects on the aggregate, overlooking the heterogeneous effects in a population. We developed and preregistered a novel audience segmentation approach to test the diverse impact of conservation messaging on reducing demand for exotic pets (private action - i.e., desire to own exotic pets or visit wildlife entertainment places) and fostering citizen engagement for system-wide change (civic action - e.g., signing a petition or participating in a protest against the exotic pet trade). Through an online survey with US participants (n = 2953), we identified 4 population segments (early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards), representing varying levels of commitment to wildlife conservation and then randomly assigned each segment to one of 3 messaging conditions. Messages highlighting negative consequences of the exotic pet trade and the power of collective action for system change effectively promoted private action among all segments except early adopters (η_p² = 0.005). Among civic actions, only the collective action message motivated early adopters and the early majority to sign petitions (φ_C = 0.193 and φ_C = 0.097, respectively). Furthermore, the 4 segments showed distinct reasoning for action and inaction on wildlife conservation, with certain relational values, such as care, serving as both motivations and barriers to action. These findings highlight the need for targeted behavioral interventions across diverse populations.

Understanding the global patterns of human and wildlife spatial associations is essential for pragmatic conservation implementation, yet analytical foundations and indicator-based assessments that would further this understanding are lacking. We integrated the global distributions of 30,664 terrestrial vertebrates and human pressures to map human–nature index (HNI) categories that indicate the extent and intensity of human–wildlife interactions. Along the 2 dimensions of biodiversity and human activity, the HNI allowed placement of terrestrial areas worldwide in one of 4 HNI categories: anthropic (human-dominated areas), wildlife-dominated (little human influence and rich in wildlife), co-occurring (substantial presence of humans and wildlife), and harsh-environment (limited presence of humans and wildlife) areas. The HNI varied considerably among taxonomic groups, and the leading driver of HNI was global climate patterns. Co-occurring regions were the most prevalent (35.9%), and wildlife-dominated and anthropic regions encompassed 26.45% and 6.50% of land area, respectively. Our results highlight the necessity for customizing conservation strategies to regions based on human–wildlife spatial associations and the distribution of existing protected area networks. Human activity and biodiversity should be integrated for complementary strategies to support conservation toward ambitious and pragmatic 30×30 goals.

Target 3 in the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) calls for protecting at least 30% of the world's lands and waters in area-based conservation approaches by 2030. This ambitious 30×30 target has spurred great interest among policy makers, practitioners, and researchers in defining and measuring the effectiveness of these types of approaches. But along with this broad interest, there has also been a proliferation of terms and their accompanying abbreviations used to describe different types of conservation areas and their governance, planning, management, and monitoring. The lack of standard terms is hindering the use and assessment of area-based approaches to conserve the world's biodiversity. It is difficult to track progress toward GBF Target 3 or to share learning with other practitioners if different groups of people are using different words to describe the same concept or similar words to talk about different concepts. To address this problem, the International Union for Conservation of Nature's World Commission on Protected Areas commissioned a task force to review existing terms and recommend a standard English-language lexicon for this field based on key criteria. The results were definitions of 37 terms across 6 categories, including types of protected and additional conservation areas (e.g., protected area, additional conservation area), sets of these areas (protected area network, protected area system), their governance and management (governance, rightsholders), assessment (effectiveness, equitability), spatial planning (key biodiversity area), and action planning (value, outcome, objective). Our standard lexicon can provide a common language for people who want to use it and a shared reference point that can be used to translate various terms used by different groups. The common understanding provided by the lexicon can serve as a foundation for collaborative efforts to improve the policies, implementation, assessments, research, and learning about this important set of conservation approaches.