Integration of social and ecological sciences for natural resource decision making: challenges and opportunities.

The last 25 years have witnessed growing recognition that natural resource management decisions depend as much on understanding humans and their social interactions as on understanding the interactions between non-human organisms and their environment. Decision science provides a framework for integrating ecological and social factors into a decision, but challenges to integration remain. The decision-analytic framework elicits values and preferences to help articulate objectives, and then evaluates the outcomes of alternative management actions to achieve these objectives. Integrating social science into these steps can be hindered by failing to include social scientists as more than stakeholder-process facilitators, assuming that specific decision-analytic skills are commonplace for social scientists, misperceptions of social data as inherently qualitative, timescale mismatches for iterating through decision analysis and collecting relevant social data, difficulties in predicting human behavior, and failures of institutions to recognize the importance of this integration. We engage these challenges, and suggest solutions to them, helping move forward the integration of social and biological/ecological knowledge and considerations in decision-making.

Linking knowledge to action in collaborative conservation.

Authors have documented a "research-implementation gap" in conservation. Research intended to inform conservation practice often does not, and practice often is not informed by the best science. We used the literature on policy learning (i.e., literature attributing policy change to learning) to structure a study of how practice is informed by science in collaborative conservation. We studied implementation by U.S. states of state wildlife action plans. On the basis of 60 interviews with government and nongovernmental organization representatives, we identified 144 implementation initiatives for State Wildlife Action Plans that were collaborative. We conducted case studies of 6 of these initiatives, which included interviews of key individuals and analysis of written documents. We coded interview transcripts and written documents to identify factors that influence availability and use of scientific information. We integrated these factors into a model of collaborative conservation. Although tangible factors such as funding and labor directly affected the availability of scientific information, practitioners' ability and willingness to use the information depended on less tangible factors such as the quality of interpersonal relationships and dialogue. Our work demonstrates empirically that relationships and dialogue led to: (1) the sharing of resources, such as funding and labor, that were needed to carry out research and produce information and (2) agreement among researchers and practitioners on conservation objectives, which was necessary for that new information to inform action. Our findings can be understood in the context of broader concepts articulated in the policy-learning literature, which establishes that social learning (improving relationships and dialogue) provides the foundation for conceptual learning (setting objectives) and technical learning (determining how to achieve these objectives).

Resumen: Diferentes autores han documentado un "vacío de investigación-implementación" en la conservación. La investigación que intenta informar a la práctica de la conservación a menudo no lo hace, y la práctica a menudo no es informada por la mejor ciencia. Utilizamos la literatura sobre aprendizaje de políticas (i.e., literatura que atribuye cambios en políticas al aprendizaje) para estructurar un estudio de cómo la práctica es informada por la ciencia en conservación colaborativa. Estudiamos la implementación de planes de acción para vida silvestre en estados de E.U.A. Con base en 60 entrevistas con representantes de organizaciones gubernamentales y no gubernamentales, identificamos 144 iniciativas de implementación de Planes de Acción Estatales para Vida Silvestre que fueron colaborativas. Realizamos estudios de caso de 6 de estas iniciativas, que incluían entrevistas a individuos clave y el análisis de documentos escritos. Codificamos las transcripciones de las entrevistas y los documentos escritos para identificar factores que influyen en la variabilidad y uso de la información científica. Integramos estos factores en un modelo de investigación colaborativa. Aunque factores tangibles, como el financiamiento y labor, directamente afectaron la disponibilidad de información científica, la habilidad y disponibilidad de practicantes para utilizar la información dependió de factores menos tangible como la calidad de relaciones interpersonales y de diálogo. Nuestro trabajo demuestra empíricamente que las relaciones y el diálogo llevaron a: (1) compartir recursos, como el financiamiento y la labor, que fueron necesarios para llevar a cabo el proyecto y producir información y (2) acuerdos sobre objetivos de conservación entre investigadores y practicantes, lo cual fue necesario para que la información nueva informe a la acción. Nuestros hallazgos pueden ser entendidos en el contexto de conceptos más amplios articulados en la literatura de aprendizaje de políticas, que establece que el aprendizaje social (mejora de relaciones y diálogo) proporciona el fundamento del aprendizaje conceptual (fijar objetivos) y el aprendizaje técnico (determinación de cómo alcanzar esos objetivos).

Public understanding of One Health messages: The role of temporal framing.

Building on research in motivated reasoning and framing in science communication, we examine how messages that vary attribution of responsibility (human vs animal) and temporal orientation (now vs in the next 10 years) for wildlife disease risk influence individuals' conservation intentions. We conducted a randomized experiment with a nationally representative sample of US adults ( N = 355), which revealed that for people low in biospheric concern, messages that highlighted both human responsibility for and the imminent nature of the risk failed to enhance conservation intentions compared with messages highlighting animal responsibility. However, when messages highlighting human responsibility placed the risk in a temporally distal frame, conservation intentions increased among people low in biospheric concern. We assess the underlying mechanism of this effect and discuss the value of temporal framing in overcoming motivated skepticism to improve science communication.

Artelle et al. (2018) miss the science underlying North American wildlife management.

Artelle et al. (2018) conclude that "hallmarks of science" are largely missing from North American wildlife management based on a desk review of selected hunting management plans and related documents found through Internet searches and email requests to state and provincial wildlife agencies. We highlight three fundamental problems that compromise the validity of the conclusions posited: missing information to support selection of "hallmarks of science," confusion about the roles and nature of science and management, and failure to engage effectively with the scientists and managers actively managing wildlife populations in North America.

WILDLIFE HEALTH AND PUBLIC TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WILDLIFE RESOURCES.

A significant development in wildlife management is the mounting concern of wildlife professionals and the public about wildlife health and diseases. Concurrently, the wildlife profession is reexamining implications of managing wildlife populations as a public trust and the concomitant obligation to ensure the quality (i.e., health) and sustainability of wildlife. It is an opportune time to emphasize the importance of wildlife health, specifically to advocate for comprehensive and consistent integration of wildlife health in wildlife management. We summarize application of public trust ideas in wildlife population management in the US. We argue that wildlife health is essential to fulfilling public trust administration responsibilities with respect to wildlife, due to the central responsibility of trustees for ensuring the well-being of wildlife species (i.e., the core resources of the trust). Because both health of wildlife and risk perceptions regarding threats posed by wildlife disease to humans and domestic animals are issues of growing concern, managing wildlife disease and risk communication vis-à-vis wildlife health is critical to wildlife trust administration. We conclude that wildlife health professionals play a critical role in protecting the wildlife trust and that current conditions provide opportunities for important contributions by wildlife health professionals in wildlife management.

The role of one health in wildlife conservation: a challenge and opportunity.

Numerous emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) have arisen from or been identified in wildlife, with health implications for both humans and wildlife. In the practice of wildlife conservation, to date most attention has focused on the threat EIDs pose to biodiversity and wildlife population viability. In the popular media and public eye, however, wildlife is often only portrayed as the cause of EIDs and resultant human health impacts. There is little coverage on the roles of human-induced habitat destruction or wildlife population stress in EID spread, nor the negative impacts of disease on wildlife. Here, we focus on a little-studied and seldom discussed concern: how real and perceived risks of wildlife-associated diseases for human and companion animal health might erode public support for wildlife conservation. We believe that wildlife-associated EIDs and public perceptions of these risks are among the most important threats to wildlife conservation. In light of this concern, we explore the challenges and opportunities for addressing this situation in a One Health context that emphasizes the interdisciplinary collaboration and the inextricable nature of human and animal health and disease.

Understanding risk perceptions to enhance communication about human-wildlife interactions and the impacts of zoonotic disease.

Inclusion of wildlife in the concept of One Health is important for two primary reasons: (1) the physical health of humans, domesticated animals, and wildlife is linked inextricably through shared diseases, and (2) humans' emotional well-being can be affected by their perceptions of animal health. Although an explicit premise of the One Health Initiative is that healthy wildlife contribute to human health, and vice versa, the initiative also suggests implicitly that wildlife may pose threats to human health through zoonotic disease transmission. As people learn more about One Health, an important question surfaces: How will they react to communications carrying the message that human health and wildlife health are linked? In the absence of adequate relevant research data, we recommend caution in the production and dissemination of One Health messages because of possible unintended or collateral effects. Understanding how and why individuals perceive risks related to wildlife diseases is essential for determining message content that promotes public support for healthy wildlife populations, on the one hand, and, on the other, for identifying messages that might inadvertently increase concern about human health effects of diseased wildlife. To that end, we review risk perception research and summarize the few empirical studies that exist on perceived risk associated with zoonoses. We conclude with some research questions that need answering to help One Health practitioners better understand how the public will interpret their messages and thus how to communicate positively and without negative collateral consequences for wildlife conservation.

Social networks and community-based natural resource management.

We conducted case studies of three successful examples of collaborative, community-based natural resource conservation and development. Our purpose was to: (1) identify the functions served by interactions within the social networks of involved stakeholders; (2) describe key structural properties of these social networks; and (3) determine how these structural properties varied when the networks were serving different functions. The case studies relied on semi-structured, in-depth interviews of 8 to 11 key stakeholders at each site who had played a significant role in the collaborative projects. Interview questions focused on the roles played by key stakeholders and the functions of interactions between them. Interactions allowed the exchange of ideas, provided access to funding, and enabled some stakeholders to influence others. The exchange of ideas involved the largest number of stakeholders, the highest percentage of local stakeholders, and the highest density of interactions. Our findings demonstrated the value of tailoring strategies for involving stakeholders to meet different needs during a collaborative, community-based natural resource management project. Widespread involvement of local stakeholders may be most appropriate when ideas for a project are being developed. During efforts to exert influence to secure project approvals or funding, however, involving specific individuals with political connections or influence on possible sources of funds may be critical. Our findings are consistent with past work that has postulated that social networks may require specific characteristics to meet different needs in community-based environmental management.