Recognizing reflexivity among conservation practitioners.

When deciding how to conserve biodiversity, practitioners navigate diverse missions, sometimes conflicting approaches, and uncertain trade-offs. These choices are based not only on evidence, funders' priorities, stakeholders' interests, and policies, but also on practitioners' personal experiences, backgrounds, and values. Calls for greater reflexivity-an individual or group's ability to examine themselves in relation to their actions and interactions with others-have appeared in the conservation science literature. But what role does reflexivity play in conservation practice? We explored how self-reflection can shape how individuals and groups conserve nature. To provide examples of reflexivity in conservation practice, we conducted a year-long series of workshop discussions and online exchanges. During these, we examined cases from the peer-reviewed and gray literature, our own experiences, and conversations with 10 experts. Reflexivity among practitioners spanned individual and collective levels and informal and formal settings. Reflexivity also encompassed diverse themes, including practitioners' values, emotional struggles, social identities, training, cultural backgrounds, and experiences of success and failure. Reflexive processes also have limitations, dangers, and costs. Informal and institutionalized reflexivity requires allocation of limited time and resources, can be hard to put into practice, and alone cannot solve conservation challenges. Yet, when intentionally undertaken, reflexive processes might be integrated into adaptive management cycles at multiple points, helping conservation practitioners better reach their goals. Reflexivity could also play a more transformative role in conservation by motivating practitioners to reevaluate their goals and methods entirely. Reflexivity might help the conservation movement imagine and thus work toward a better world for wildlife, people, and the conservation sector itself.

Reconocimiento de la reflexividad entre los practicantes de la conservación Resumen Cuando se decide cómo conservar la biodiversidad, quienes la practican sortean varias misiones, algunas veces con enfoques contrastantes y compensaciones inciertas. Estas elecciones no se basan solamente en las evidencias, prioridades de los financiadores, los intereses de los actores y las políticas, sino también en las experiencias personales, formación y valores de los practicantes. En la literatura sobre las ciencias de la conservación han surgido llamados para una mayor reflexividad - la habilidad individual o grupal para examinarse a sí mismo en relación con sus acciones e interacciones con otros. Pero ¿cuál es el papel de la reflexividad en la práctica de la conservación? Para responder esto, exploramos cómo la autorreflexión puede determinar cómo ocurre la conservación individual y grupal de la naturaleza. Realizamos una serie de talleres de discusión e intercambios virtuales durante un año para ejemplificar la reflexividad en la práctica de la conservación. Durante estas sesiones examinamos casos de la literatura gris y revisada por pares, nuestras propias experiencias y conversaciones con diez expertos. La reflexividad de los practicantes abarcó niveles individuales y colectivos y escenarios formales e informales. La reflexividad también comprendió diferentes aspectos de los practicantes, como los valores, conflictos emocionales, identidad social, preparación, contexto cultural y experiencias exitosas y fallidas. Los procesos reflexivos también tienen limitaciones, riesgos y costos. La reflexividad informal e institucionalizada requiere la distribución de tiempo y recursos limitados, puede ser difícil de poner en práctica y no puede resolver los retos de conservación por sí sola. Aun así, cuando se realizan intencionalmente, los procesos reflexivos pueden integrarse a los ciclos de manejo adaptativo en varios puntos, lo que ayuda a quienes practican la conservación a lograr sus metas de mejor manera. La reflexividad también podría tener un papel transformador en la conservación al motivar a los practicantes a reevaluar completamente sus metas y métodos. La reflexividad podría ayudar al movimiento de conservación a imaginar, y por lo tanto trabajar para tener, un mundo mejor para la vida silvestre, las personas y el propio sector de la conservación.

The minimum land area requiring conservation attention to safeguard biodiversity.

Ambitious conservation efforts are needed to stop the global biodiversity crisis. In this study, we estimate the minimum land area to secure important biodiversity areas, ecologically intact areas, and optimal locations for representation of species ranges and ecoregions. We discover that at least 64 million square kilometers (44% of terrestrial area) would require conservation attention (ranging from protected areas to land-use policies) to meet this goal. More than 1.8 billion people live on these lands, so responses that promote autonomy, self-determination, equity, and sustainable management for safeguarding biodiversity are essential. Spatially explicit land-use scenarios suggest that 1.3 million square kilometers of this land is at risk of being converted for intensive human land uses by 2030, which requires immediate attention. However, a sevenfold difference exists between the amount of habitat converted in optimistic and pessimistic land-use scenarios, highlighting an opportunity to avert this crisis. Appropriate targets in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to encourage conservation of the identified land would contribute substantially to safeguarding biodiversity.

The relative importance of COVID-19 pandemic impacts on biodiversity conservation globally.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on almost all aspects of human society and endeavor; the natural world and its conservation have not been spared. Through a process of expert consultation, we identified and categorized, into 19 themes and 70 subthemes, the ways in which biodiversity and its conservation have been or could be affected by the pandemic globally. Nearly 60% of the effects have been broadly negative. Subsequently, we created a compendium of all themes and subthemes, each with explanatory text, and in August 2020 a diverse group of experienced conservationists with expertise from across sectors and geographies assessed each subtheme for its likely impact on biodiversity conservation globally. The 9 subthemes ranked highest all have a negative impact. These were, in rank order, governments sidelining the environment during their economic recovery, reduced wildlife-based tourism income, increased habitat destruction, reduced government funding, increased plastic and other solid waste pollution, weakening of nature-friendly regulations and their enforcement, increased illegal harvest of wild animals, reduced philanthropy, and threats to survival of conservation organizations. In combination, these impacts present a worrying future of increased threats to biodiversity conservation but reduced capacity to counter them. The highest ranking positive impact, at 10, was the beneficial impact of wildlife-trade restrictions. More optimistically, among impacts ranked 11-20, 6 were positive and 4 were negative. We hope our assessment will draw attention to the impacts of the pandemic and, thus, improve the conservation community's ability to respond to such threats in the future.

La pandemia de COVID-19 ha tenido un impacto enorme sobre casi todos los aspectos de la sociedad humana y sus proyectos; el mundo natural y su conservación no han sido la excepción. Por medio de un proceso de consultas a expertos, identificamos y categorizamos en 19 temas y 70 subtemas las maneras en las que la biodiversidad y su conservación han sido o podrían ser afectadas mundialmente por la pandemia. Casi el 60% de los efectos han sido claramente negativos. Posteriormente, creamos un compendio de todos los temas y subtemas, cada uno con textos explicativos, para que en agosto de 2020 un grupo diverso de conservacionistas experimentados con conocimiento de todos los sectores y geografías evaluara cada subtema de acuerdo con su probabilidad de impactar sobre la conservación de la biodiversidad en todo el mundo. Los nueve subtemas con la clasificación más alta tienen un impacto negativo. Estos temas son, en orden de clasificación: los gobiernos dejando de lado al ambiente durante su recuperación económica, reducción de los ingresos basados en el turismo de fauna, incremento en la destrucción de hábitat, financiamiento reducido del gobierno, aumento de la contaminación por plásticos y otros desechos sólidos, debilitamiento de las regulaciones en pro de la naturaleza y su aplicación, incremento en la captura ilegal de animales, disminución de la filantropía y amenazas para la supervivencia de las organizaciones de conservación. La combinación de estos impactos representa un futuro preocupante lleno de amenazas para la conservación de la biodiversidad y una capacidad reducida para contrarrestarlas. El impacto positivo con la clasificación más alta, el 10, fue el impacto benéfico de las restricciones en el mercado de fauna. De manera más optimista, entre los impactos clasificados de los lugares del 11 al 20, seis fueron positivos y cuatro fueron negativos. Esperamos que nuestra evaluación enfoque la atención hacia los impactos de la pandemia y así mejore la habilidad de la comunidad conservacionista para responder a tales amenazas en el futuro. Importancia Relativa de los Impactos de la Pandemia de COVID-19 sobre la Conservación Mundial de la Biodiversidad.

Order of meals at the counter and distance between options affect student cafeteria vegetarian sales.

Altering the order in which meals are presented at cafeteria counters has been proposed as a way of lowering meat consumption, but remains largely untested. To address this, we undertook two experimental studies involving 105,143 meal selections in the cafeterias of a British university. Placing vegetarian options first on the counter consistently increased their sales when choices were widely separated (>1.5 m; vegetarian sales as a percentage of total meal sales increased by 4.6 and 6.2 percentage points) but there was no evidence of an effect when the options were close together (<1.0 m). This suggests that order effects depend on the physical distance between options.

Impact of increasing vegetarian availability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias.

Shifting people in higher income countries toward more plant-based diets would protect the natural environment and improve population health. Research in other domains suggests altering the physical environments in which people make decisions ("nudging") holds promise for achieving socially desirable behavior change. Here, we examine the impact of attempting to nudge meal selection by increasing the proportion of vegetarian meals offered in a year-long large-scale series of observational and experimental field studies. Anonymized individual-level data from 94,644 meals purchased in 2017 were collected from 3 cafeterias at an English university. Doubling the proportion of vegetarian meals available from 25 to 50% (e.g., from 1 in 4 to 2 in 4 options) increased vegetarian meal sales (and decreased meat meal sales) by 14.9 and 14.5 percentage points in the observational study (2 cafeterias) and by 7.8 percentage points in the experimental study (1 cafeteria), equivalent to proportional increases in vegetarian meal sales of 61.8%, 78.8%, and 40.8%, respectively. Linking sales data to participants' previous meal purchases revealed that the largest effects were found in the quartile of diners with the lowest prior levels of vegetarian meal selection. Moreover, serving more vegetarian options had little impact on overall sales and did not lead to detectable rebound effects: Vegetarian sales were not lower at other mealtimes. These results provide robust evidence to support the potential for simple changes to catering practices to make an important contribution to achieving more sustainable diets at the population level.

When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research.

Understanding human perspectives is critical in a range of conservation contexts, for example, in overcoming conflicts or developing projects that are acceptable to relevant stakeholders. The Q methodology is a unique semiquantitative technique used to explore human perspectives. It has been applied for decades in other disciplines and recently gained traction in conservation. This paper helps researchers assess when Q is useful for a given conservation question and what its use involves. To do so, we explained the steps necessary to conduct a Q study, from the research design to the interpretation of results. We provided recommendations to minimize biases in conducting a Q study, which can affect mostly when designing the study and collecting the data. We conducted a structured literature review of 52 studies to examine in what empirical conservation contexts Q has been used. Most studies were subnational or national cases, but some also address multinational or global questions. We found that Q has been applied to 4 broad types of conservation goals: addressing conflict, devising management alternatives, understanding policy acceptability, and critically reflecting on the values that implicitly influence research and practice. Through these applications, researchers found hidden views, understood opinions in depth and discovered points of consensus that facilitated unlocking difficult disagreements. The Q methodology has a clear procedure but is also flexible, allowing researchers explore long-term views, or views about items other than statements, such as landscape images. We also found some inconsistencies in applying and, mainly, in reporting Q studies, whereby it was not possible to fully understand how the research was conducted or why some atypical research decisions had been taken in some studies. Accordingly, we suggest a reporting checklist.

Understanding conservationists' perspectives on the new-conservation debate.

A vibrant debate about the future direction of biodiversity conservation centers on the merits of the so-called new conservation. Proponents of the new conservation advocate a series of positions on key conservation ideas, such as the importance of human-dominated landscapes and conservation's engagement with capitalism. These have been fiercely contested in a debate dominated by a few high-profile individuals, and so far there has been no empirical exploration of existing perspectives on these issues among a wider community of conservationists. We used Q methodology to examine empirically perspectives on the new conservation held by attendees at the 2015 International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). Although we identified a consensus on several key issues, 3 distinct positions emerged: in favor of conservation to benefit people but opposed to links with capitalism and corporations, in favor of biocentric approaches but with less emphasis on wilderness protection than prominent opponents of new conservation, and in favor of the published new conservation perspective but with less emphasis on increasing human well-being as a goal of conservation. Our results revealed differences between the debate on the new conservation in the literature and views held within a wider, but still limited, conservation community and demonstrated the existence of at least one viewpoint (in favor of conservation to benefit people but opposed to links with capitalism and corporations) that is almost absent from the published debate. We hope the fuller understanding we present of the variety of views that exist but have not yet been heard, will improve the quality and tone of debates on the subject.

The social implications of using drones for biodiversity conservation.

Unmanned aerial vehicles, or 'drones', appear to offer a flexible, accurate and affordable solution to some of the technical challenges of nature conservation monitoring and law enforcement. However, little attention has been given to their possible social impacts. In this paper, I review the possible social impacts of using drones for conservation, including on safety, privacy, psychological wellbeing, data security and the wider understanding of conservation problems. I argue that negative social impacts are probable under some circumstances and should be of concern for conservation for two reasons: (1) because conservation should follow good ethical practice; and (2) because negative social impacts could undermine conservation effectiveness in the long term. The paper concludes with a call for empirical research to establish whether the identified social risks of drones occur in reality and how they could be mitigated, and for self-regulation of drone use by the conservation sector to ensure good ethical practice and minimise the risk of unintended consequences.

Value plurality among conservation professionals.

Debate on the values that underpin conservation science is rarely based on empirical analysis of the values conservation professionals actually hold. We used Q methodology to investigate the values held by international conservation professionals who attended the annual Student Conference in Conservation Science at the University of Cambridge (U.K.) in 2008 and 2009. The methodology offers a quantitative means of examining human subjectivity. It differs from standard opinion surveys in that individual respondents record the way they feel about statements relative to other statements, which forces them to focus their attention on the issues they believe are most important. The analysis extracts the diverse viewpoints of the respondents, and factor analysis is used to reduce the viewpoints to a smaller set of factors that reflect shared ways of thinking. The junior conservation professionals attending the conference did not share a unifying set of core values; rather, they held a complex series of ideas and a plurality of opinions about conservation and how it should be pursued. This diversity of values empirically challenges recent proposals for conservation professionals to unite behind a single philosophy. Attempts to forge an artificial consensus may be counterproductive to the overall goals conservation professionals are pursuing.