Conservation Biology最新文献

Globally, protected areas associated with sacred sites and cemeteries are an emerging area of research. However, they are biased toward terrestrial systems. In Fiji, funerary protected areas (FPAs) in freshwater and marine systems are culturally protected by Indigenous Fijians following the burial of a loved one on clan land. First documented in the 1800s, FPAs in Fiji have not been researched despite more than 30 years of conservation efforts and countrywide comanagement of natural resources. We sought to bridge this knowledge gap by elucidating 8 socioecological attributes of Indigenous FPAs through stratified, purposive, semistructured interviews of 201 key informants across Fiji's 189 districts. Seventy-three districts actively implemented FPAs; another 34 were not being implemented because of low FPA awareness, FPA exclusion from comanagement plans, and conflicts in chief selection. Thirty-three percent of districts established FPAs for chiefs only, and 20% established FPAs for any clan member, resulting in the establishment of numerous FPAs annually. From the 1960s to 2019, 188 FPAs were established. Forty-four percent of FPAs were protected for 100 nights, and 47% protected all resources and associated ecosystems in the FPA. Only 25% of districts harvested edible fish and invertebrates; another 22% harvested edible fish only. For some chiefs’ funeral rites, only turtles were harvested, which are protected by law, thereby requiring government exemption for traditional use. The FPA harvest provisions varied from engaging whole communities to engaging specific clans, such as traditional fishers or those who performed the burial. Our results showed that practices associated with FPAs in Fiji are diverse, organically evolving, and more socially nuanced and complex than the fisheries and food provisioning focus they are known for. Erosion of Indigenous knowledge and practices associated with FPAs and FPA exclusion from conservation planning will negatively affect social and ecological resilience, resulting in vulnerable communities.

Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) is a critical challenge to human development and well-being and threatens biodiversity conservation. Ideally, HWC mitigation should benefit both wildlife and communities and limit the costs associated with living alongside wildlife. However, place- and context-dependent realizations of conflict are often overlooked in HWC mitigation. Social and systemic dimensions of human–wildlife relationships often receive limited consideration in HWC as a concept and in mitigation strategies implemented globally. In recognizing our collective symmetries as a diverse group of researchers, we pose the idea of constellations of coexistence, based on Atallah et al.’s “constellation of co-resistance.” Building on literature and our interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral experiences of working with diverse species inhabiting different sociocultural, sociopolitical, and socioeconomic landscapes, we considered evidence of cultural nuances (e.g., sociocultural dimensions of human–elephant and human–lion interactions in East Africa and India) in HWC mitigation and argue that failing to incorporate them in mainstream practices poses a myriad of ethical and practical consequences. Locally situated but globally relevant, participation of local and Indigenous communities in HWC mitigation activities produces better conservation outcomes. Centering communities in the ideation, implementation, and evaluation of HWC mitigation promotes more equitable and sustainable management strategies for long-term human–wildlife coexistence.

Conservation faces a chronic shortage of resources, including time, funding, mental capacity, and human capital. Efforts to make the expenditure of these resources more efficient should, therefore, support more equitable and effective conservation prioritization. To achieve this, it is necessary to ensure the integration of the knowledge and perceptions of local stakeholders into larger scale conservation decisions. We used fuzzy cognitive mental modeling to assess the perceptions of mangroves and the prioritization of ecosystem services across 3 groups of stakeholders: representatives from 3 coastal Fijian villages, the national office of an international nongovernmental organization (NGO), and the US office of that same NGO. We found different topologies and valuations among the resultant mental models, with the US NGO office having the most terms. However, when comparing models from local villages with the US NGO office, scale-dependent perceptions shifted, including the relative devaluation of locally important cultural valuations of mangroves. Despite these variations in perceptions, however, 3 key components of the mental models—women's livelihoods, men's livelihoods, and fisheries supplementation—all appeared as consistently important in multiple models, suggesting areas around which potential collaboration among stakeholders could be forged. By focusing on system-wide, rather than stakeholder-specific, optimal solutions within the system, new opportunities for collaboration may emerge. In doing so, these system-wide solutions may increase efficiency and collaboration. Moreover, we found that boundary-spanning organizations, such as the national-level conservation organizations, played a role in facilitating information transfer and mediating conservation goals in a culturally appropriate fashion. Finally, although the specific example used here is mangrove conservation, our methodologies and findings are broadly applicable across a variety of conservation scenarios.

Engaging youth in early and sustained conservation education has important implications for promoting positive attitudes and behaviors in those who will become the future of conservation and management. Toward this goal, visual narratives (comic books, graphic novels) are an increasingly popular method used by conservation scientists to educate young people due to their approachable use of art and narrative storytelling. However, no studies have directly assessed how visual narratives compare with more traditional forms of conservation education for youth. We asked, how does education about biodiversity through visual narrative affect student perceptions and knowledge of science content relative to a traditional resource, and is there a novelty effect when using visual narrative versus traditional resources? To assess our questions, we utilized a semistructured approach to develop a biodiversity education program. Specifically, we developed an original graphic novel (visual narrative treatment) and a slideshow presentation (traditional treatment) with the same content to educate children about wetland biodiversity. We recruited, trained, and randomized 26 third-grade teachers to deliver either the visual narrative or traditional resource in their classrooms. Students completed pretest, posttest, and follow-up surveys assessing their perceptions of science and knowledge of the lesson content. Students in the visual narrative treatment held more positive perceptions of science (by 3.79%, p = 0.001), whereas students in the traditional treatment performed better on content quizzes (by 7.97%, p = 0.002). We found evidence for a novelty bias when using the visual narrative but not the traditional resource. These findings point to the importance of understanding the target audience and clearly defining educational goals. Overall, our results contribute to broader understanding of the relative benefits and limitations of conservation education through nontraditional means and of practices for successfully delivering effective, accessible, and rewarding conservation education to educators and youth.

Conservation scientists work in diverse settings, sometimes requiring them to exist in spaces where they do not feel safe, included, or accepted. This is often the case for the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, and others) community, which is frequently marginalized in conservation spaces. We conducted an anonymous, semistructured, online survey of members and nonmembers of the LGBTQIA+ community of conservation students and professionals in North America to explore participants’ lived experiences in conservation. Our 737 responses (response rate 26.8%) included 10% who identified as genderqueer, gender nonconforming, questioning, nonspecific, genderfluid, transgender woman, agender, transgender man, 2-spirit Indigenous, or intersex (gender expansive), and 29% as bisexual, queer, lesbian, gay, asexual, pansexual, omnisexual, questioning, or nonheterosexual (queer+). We found that non-LGBTQIA+ respondents overestimated the degree to which LGBTQIA+ respondents felt included in the field of conservation by 5% (sexual orientation) and 18% (gender identity). Respondents’ feelings of safety and belonging were up to 50% lower in most work settings compared with non-LGBTQIA respondents; the lowest frequencies were reported by gender expansive respondents (40.9–64.4%). Contextual responses indicated that the lack of safety and belonging related to direct experiences of bullying (23 long-form descriptions out of 73 gender expansive respondents and 15 of 217 queer+ respondents), concerns around safety in rural settings (4 of 73 gender expansive respondents and 20 of 217 queer+ respondents), and concerns around not being able to express their authentic selves (7 of 73 gender expansive respondents and 5 of 217 queer+ respondents). The intersection between gender identity and race also played a role in feelings of safety, belonging, and disclosure of sexual orientation (1 of 73 gender expansive respondents, 6 of 217 queer+ respondents). The most frequent support resources used by LGBTQIA+ conservation scientists included one-on-one support from peers, mentors and external collaborators, support group, and wellness and counseling services outside of work.

Effective conservation requires a variety of perspectives that center on different ways of knowing. Disciplinary diversity and inclusion (DDI) offers an important means of integrating different ways of knowing into pressing conservation challenges. However, DDI means more than multiple disciplinary approaches to conservation; cognitive diversity and epistemic justice are key. In 2020, the Disciplinary Inclusion Task Force was formed via a grassroots movement of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) to assess the extent of DDI and to chart a path to increase DDI. First, we assessed past and present SCB governance documents. Next, we surveyed current SCB members (n = 577). Finally, we surveyed nonmember conservationists (n = 213). Members who were not biological scientists perceived SCB as less diverse (21.4% vs. 16%) and not equitable (21.8% vs. 161%), and, although the majority (44) of nonmembers reported that their work aligned reasonably well with the mission of the SCB, they thought the organization focused on biological sciences. Despite SCB's mission to be diverse and inclusive, realizing this mission will likely require diverse epistemological perspectives and shifting from top-down models of knowledge transfer. In centering on DDI, SCB can achieve its aspirations of connecting members across disciplines and ways of knowing to foster diverse perspectives and practices. We recommend that SCB and other organizations develop mechanisms to increase recruitment and retention of diverse members and leadership as well as expand strategic partnerships to flatten disciplinary hierarchies and promote inclusivity.

Maresh Nelson, S. B., C. A. Ribic, N. D. Niemuth, J. Bernath-Plaisted, and B. Zuckerberg. 2024. Grassland bird sensitivity to weather and climate variability in North America. Conservation Biology 38:e14143.

In the Acknowledgments, the text “The contents of this article and our findings and conclusions are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Climate Adaptation Science Center, the USGS, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” does not follow US Geological Survey policy. This should have read “The contents of this article and our findings and conclusions are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

Benjamin Zuckerberg

Email: [email protected]

In New Zealand, awareness regarding protection, enhancement, and regeneration of landscapes and biodiversity is growing as the relationship between functioning and diverse ecosystems and society's health is acknowledged. This relationship is especially important for Indigenous people, who hold strong genealogical and familial ties with nature. Significant biodiversity loss from anthropogenic factors is exacerbated by climate change, ecosystem degradation, and invasive species. Invasive species and other biological threats, such as native pathogens, are concerning for Māori communities, who hold cultural responsibilities to care for nature. Despite acknowledgment of the value of Indigenous perspectives in environmental management in New Zealand and globally, Indigenous participation still largely occurs within Western non-Indigenous paradigms. We highlight the value of Indigenous participation in biosecurity management and propose a shift from Western-based paradigms to paradigms that reflect Indigenous worldviews and relationships with place. Recognizing and including the value of Indigenous participation elevates Indigenous voices to the level of decision-making and leadership in the management of Indigenous lands. Given the genealogical relationships that Māori hold with the natural world and the intertwining of their health and well-being with that of place (land) and nature, biosecurity threats to native species and ecosystems also pose serious risks to community well-being. A holistic biosecurity approach is needed that encompasses cultural, social, economic, and environmental factors at multiple scales. We examined the New Zealand biosecurity context relative to biological threats to native plants and ecosystems and proposed a paradigm shift toward Indigenous place-based biosecurity management. Biosecurity science and science-based tools remain an important component, underscoring the complementary aspects of science and (Indigenous) culture.