An official website of the United States government
Abstract Increasingly intensive strategies to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function are being deployed in response to global anthropogenic threats, including intentionally introducing and eradicating species via assisted migration, rewilding, biological control, invasive species eradications, and gene drives. These actions are highly contentious because of their potential for unintended consequences. We conducted a global literature review of these conservation actions to quantify how often unintended outcomes occur and to elucidate their underlying causes. To evaluate conservation outcomes, we developed a community assessment framework for systematically mapping the range of possible interaction types for 111 case studies. Applying this tool, we quantified the number of interaction types considered in each study and documented the nature and strength of intended and unintended outcomes. Intended outcomes were reported in 51% of cases, a combination of intended outcomes and unintended outcomes in 26%, and strictly unintended outcomes in 10%. Hence, unintended outcomes were reported in 36% of all cases evaluated. In evaluating overall conservations outcomes (weighing intended vs. unintended effects), some unintended effects were fairly innocuous relative to the conservation objective, whereas others resulted in serious unintended consequences in recipient communities. Studies that assessed a greater number of community interactions with the target species reported unintended outcomes more often, suggesting that unintended consequences may be underreported due to insufficient vetting. Most reported unintended outcomes arose from direct effects (68%) or simple density‐mediated or indirect effects (25%) linked to the target species. Only a few documented cases arose from more complex interaction pathways (7%). Therefore, most unintended outcomes involved simple interactions that could be predicted and mitigated through more formal vetting. Our community assessment framework provides a tool for screening future conservation actions by mapping the recipient community interaction web to identify and mitigate unintended outcomes from intentional species introductions and eradications for conservation.
more »
« less
Whose intentions? What consequences? Interrogating “Intended Consequences” for conservation with environmental biotechnology
Abstract Novel genetic interventions may offer innovative solutions to environmental conservation challenges, but they also represent new kinds of risks and concerns for diverse publics. Yet, by focusing on potential negative outcomes of emerging technologies like gene editing, their potential utility in species protection could lead to overblown fears of unknown and unanticipated consequences. In response, Revive and Restore organized a workshop in June 2020 entitled, “Intended Consequences,” to highlight conservation successes in the discourse and governance of genomic interventions. This article argues that if we seek to emphasize Intended Consequences to embolden innovative conservation efforts, we must simultaneously query whose intentions are included and what consequences are considered to ensure that environmental goals are accompanied by the goals of responsibility, democracy, and justice. These questions reveal that the governance and management of conservation interventions always rest upon value judgements. Inspired and informed by the Responsible Research and Innovation framework, we encourage anticipation of potential outcomes, reflection on assumptions and intentions, inclusion of diverse stakeholders and perspectives, and a commitment to responding thoughtfully to concerns and preferences of communities and broader publics.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1632670
- PAR ID:
- 10452415
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Conservation Science and Practice
- Volume:
- 3
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 2578-4854
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract In response to calls for public engagement on human genome editing (HGE), which intensified after the 2018 He Jiankui scandal that resulted in the implantation of genetically modified embryos, we detail an anticipatory approach to the governance of HGE. By soliciting multidisciplinary experts’ input on the drivers and uncertainties of HGE development, we developed a set of plausible future scenarios to ascertain publics values—specifically, their hopes and concerns regarding the novel technology and its applications. In turn, we gathered a subset of multidisciplinary experts to propose governance recommendations for HGE that incorporate identified publics’ values. These recommendations include: (1) continued participatory public engagement; (2) international harmonization and transparency of multiple governance levers such as professional and scientific societies, funders, and regulators; and (3) development of a formal whistleblower framework.more » « less
-
ABSTRACT Reducing human–wildlife conflict is critical for global biodiversity conservation and supporting livelihoods in landscapes where people and wildlife co‐occur. Interventions intended to reduce conflicts and their negative outcomes are diverse and widespread, yet there is often a dearth of empirical evidence regarding effectiveness, particularly at appropriate spatiotemporal scales. We investigate an underappreciated question relevant to large carnivore–livestock systems globally regarding spillover effects of anti‐conflict interventions: Do fortified livestock enclosures modify carnivore predation on livestock for neighbors who lack such interventions? We use ca. 25,000 monthly reports from agropastoralists in an East African landscape critical for large carnivore conservation. Results from Bayesian multilevel statistical models demonstrate robust effects of fortified livestock enclosures in reducing reported predation not only in target households, but also in neighboring households that lack such fortification—a beneficial spillover effect. Results provide empirical evidence for policy and practice regarding tools to reduce large carnivore conflicts while pointing to the important role of complex‐systems processes in determining coexistence outcomes.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Research on the ecology of fear has highlighted the importance of perceived risk from predators and humans in shaping animal behavior and physiology, with potential demographic and ecosystem-wide consequences. Despite recent conceptual advances and potential management implications of the ecology of fear, theory and conservation practices have rarely been linked. Many challenges in animal conservation may be alleviated by actively harnessing or compensating for risk perception and risk avoidance behavior in wild animal populations. Integration of the ecology of fear into conservation and management practice can contribute to the recovery of threatened populations, human–wildlife conflict mitigation, invasive species management, maintenance of sustainable harvest and species reintroduction plans. Here, we present an applied framework that links conservation interventions to desired outcomes by manipulating ecology of fear dynamics. We discuss how to reduce or amplify fear in wild animals by manipulating habitat structure, sensory stimuli, animal experience (previous exposure to risk) and food safety trade-offs to achieve management objectives. Changing the optimal decision-making of individuals in managed populations can then further conservation goals by shaping the spatiotemporal distribution of animals, changing predation rates and altering risk effects that scale up to demographic consequences. We also outline future directions for applied research on fear ecology that will better inform conservation practices. Our framework can help scientists and practitioners anticipate and mitigate unintended consequences of management decisions, and highlight new levers for multi-species conservation strategies that promote human–wildlife coexistence.more » « less
-
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has justifiably captured the attention of people around the world since late 2019. It has produced in many people a new perspective on or, indeed, a new realization about our potential vulnerability to emerging infectious diseases. However, our species has experienced numerous catastrophic disease pandemics in the past, and in addition to concerns about the harm being produced during the pandemic and the potential long-term sequelae of the disease, what has been frustrating for many public health experts, anthropologists, and historians is awareness that many of the outcomes of COVID-19 are not inevitable and might have been preventable had we actually heeded lessons from the past. We are currently witnessing variation in exposure risk, symptoms, and mortality from COVID-19, but these patterns are not surprising given what we know about past pandemics. We review here the literature on the demographic and evolutionary consequences of the Second Pandemic of Plague (ca. fourteenth–nineteenth centuries C.E.) and the 1918 influenza pandemic, two of the most devastating pandemics in recorded human history. These both provide case studies of the ways in which sociocultural and environmental contexts shape the experiences and outcomes of pandemic disease. Many of the factors at work during these past pandemics continue to be reproduced in modern contexts, and ultimately our hope is that by highlighting the outcomes that are at least theoretically preventable, we can leverage our knowledge about past experiences to prepare for and respond to disease today.more » « less
