Integrating Social Justice into Higher Education Conservation Science.

Because biodiversity loss has largely been attributed to human actions, people, particularly those in the Global South, are regularly depicted as threats to conservation. This context has facilitated rapid growth in green militarization, with fierce crackdowns against real or perceived environmental offenders. We designed an undergraduate course to assess student perspectives on biodiversity conservation and social justice and positioned those students to contribute to a human heritage-centered conservation (HHCC) initiative situated in Uganda. We evaluated changes in perspectives using pre- and postcourse surveys and reflection instruments. Although the students started the course prioritizing biodiversity conservation, even when it was costly to human well-being, by the end of the course, they were recognizing and remarking on the central importance of social justice within conservation. We present a framework for further integration of HHCC approaches into higher education courses so as to conserve the integrity of coupled human and natural systems globally.

The efficacy of interventions to protect crops from raiding elephants.

Both African elephants (Loxodonta spp.) and the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) across their range come into conflict with people because of their crop-raiding behavior, which presents profound impediments to farmer livelihoods. In response, a series of interventions, designed to reduce elephant crop raiding have been applied. Based on an extensive review of elephant crop-raiding studies published over a 31-year period, we identified four primary categories of interventions including: (i) detection efforts; (ii) preemptive measures; (iii) fencing and trenches; and (iv) deterrent techniques. The interventions reported to be most effective involved chili peppers (i.e., fences, spray, and briquettes) and crop guarding coupled with deterrents. The extent to which these interventions can be applied more widely is unclear as only two studies examined efficacy across sites in more than one country. Thus, future inquiry should evaluate the ability of effective interventions, or indeed a combination of interventions, to be applied across the range of elephants to reduce crop raiding at scale.

Positioning human heritage at the center of conservation practice.

Conservation projects subscribing to a community-based paradigm have predominated in the 21st century. We examined the context in which the phrase was coined and traced its growth over time. Community-based conservation first appeared in the literature in the early 1990s; but grew little until after the 5th World Parks Congress in 2003. Thereafter, publications describing community-based conservation approaches increased exponentially. The conference theme was Benefits Beyond Boundaries, and its goal was to provide an economic model based on revenue accrued from conservation fundraising and ecotourism to support ecosystems, wildlife, and people, particularly in the Global South. Such models tended not to incorporate, as a core principle, the heritage of local human communities. Human heritage varies substantially over time and space making generalization of conservation principles across scales challenging. Pitfalls that have grown out of the community-based conservation approaches in the Global South include fortress conservation, conservation militarism, consumptive and nonconsumptive ecotourism, and whiz-bang solutions. We propose 10 tenets in a human heritage-centered conservation framework (e.g., engage in conservation practices using local languages, thoughtfully propose and apply solutions consistent with human heritage, provide clear professional development pathways for individuals from local communities, and promote alternative revenue-generating programs centered in local communities, among others). Progressive philosophies can derive from authentic and ethical integration of local communities in conservation practice.

Los proyectos de conservación que siguen un paradigma basado en la comunidad han predominado en el siglo XXI. Examinamos el contexto en el cual se acuñó la frase y rastreamos su crecimiento con el tiempo. La frase conservación basada en la comunidad apareció por primera vez en la literatura a principios de la década de 1990; casi no creció hasta después del quinto Congreso Mundial de Parques en 2003. Después de esto, las publicaciones que describen estrategias de conservación basadas en la comunidad incrementaron exponencialmente. El tema de dicha conferencia fue Beneficios Más Allá de las Fronteras y su objetivo era proporcionar un modelo económico basado en las ganancias acumuladas por la recaudación de fondos para la conservación y el ecoturismo para apoyar a los ecosistemas, la fauna y a las personas, particularmente en el hemisferio sur. Dichos modelos tuvieron la tendencia de no incorporar, como principio nuclear, el patrimonio de las comunidades humanas locales. El patrimonio humano varía sustancialmente con el tiempo y en el espacio, lo que complica la generalización de los principios de conservación en todas las escalas. Algunos obstáculos que han surgido de las estrategias de conservación basadas en la comunidad en el hemisferio sur son la conservación en fortalezas, el militarismo por la conservación, ecoturismo consumible y no consumible y las soluciones estrepitosas. Proponemos diez principios para un marco de trabajo de conservación centrado en el patrimonio humano (p. ej.: participar en prácticas de conservación con el uso de lenguajes locales, proponer y aplicar cuidadosamente soluciones consistentes con el patrimonio humano, proporcionar vías de desarrollo profesional claras para los individuos de las comunidades locales y promover programas alternativos de generación de ingresos centrados en las comunidades locales, entre otros). Las filosofías progresivas pueden derivar de una integración auténtica y ética de las comunidades locales dentro de la práctica de la conservación.

The many faces of fear: a synthesis of the methodological variation in characterizing predation risk.

Predators affect prey by killing them directly (lethal effects) and by inducing costly antipredator behaviours in living prey (risk effects). Risk effects can strongly influence prey populations and cascade through trophic systems. A prerequisite for assessing risk effects is characterizing the spatiotemporal variation in predation risk. Risk effects research has experienced rapid growth in the last several decades. However, preliminary assessments of the resultant literature suggest that researchers characterize predation risk using a variety of techniques. The implications of this methodological variation for inference and comparability among studies have not been well recognized or formally synthesized. We couple a literature survey with a hierarchical framework, developed from established theory, to quantify the methodological variation in characterizing risk using carnivore-ungulate systems as a case study. Via this process, we documented 244 metrics of risk from 141 studies falling into at least 13 distinct subcategories within three broader categories. Both empirical and theoretical work suggest risk and its effects on prey constitute a complex, multi-dimensional process with expressions varying by spatiotemporal scale. Our survey suggests this multi-scale complexity is reflected in the literature as a whole but often underappreciated in any given study, which complicates comparability among studies and leads to an overemphasis on documenting the presence of risk effects rather than their mechanisms or scale of influence. We suggest risk metrics be placed in a more concrete conceptual framework to clarify inference surrounding risk effects and their cascading effects throughout ecosystems. We recommend studies (i) take a multi-scale approach to characterizing risk; (ii) explicitly consider 'true' predation risk (probability of predation per unit time); and (iii) use risk metrics that facilitate comparison among studies and the evaluation of multiple competing hypotheses. Addressing the pressing questions in risk effects research, including how, to what extent and on what scale they occur, requires leveraging the advantages of the many methods available to characterize risk while minimizing the confusion caused by variability in their application.