Search

Abstract Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) presents a persistent challenge for global biodiversity conservation. Yet, focusing on conflict alone may obscure the complex drivers of positive and negative interactions between people and wildlife coinhabiting the same geographies. In India's Uttarakhand Himalayan region, van panchayat (VP) community forests support agro‐pastoralist livelihoods and forest protection. While the governance and livelihood dimensions of the VP are well documented, their engagement with wildlife is sparsely investigated, despite that community forests are important spaces of human–wildlife interaction in shared landscapes. Enabling community forests to contribute effectively to wildlife management requires understanding what local factors drive stewardship while reducing conflict. Informed by interviews conducted in 2019–2020 and household surveys collected in 2021 in 15 villages in Pithoragarh District, Uttarakhand, we explore the nature of human–wildlife relations in VPs. We report on qualitative and quantitative analyses to consider community forest users' perceptions of living with wildlife—mediated by cultural norms, livelihood demands, and everyday encounters—and investigate beliefs about (1) lethal control as a response to conflict and (2) responsibilities for managing and protecting wildlife. Our findings indicate high prevalence of HWC and associated hardships (mentioned by 71% of survey participants), alongside high expressed ethics of care, tolerance, and responsibility for wild animals (60%). Most participants rejected killing wildlife in circumstances of conflict as acceptable based on moral prohibitions and the availability of alternative options while adopting significant responsibility for their protection. Characterizing community forests as important sites of interaction and coexistence, residents identified community‐led forest conservation as a primary strategy for mitigating HWC. These multifaceted human–wildlife relationships, shaped by encounters in a shared landscape, inform communities' decisions and coping strategies for coexisting with their wild neighbours. Approaches to mitigating conflict that prioritize separating people from wildlife and emphasize the state's responsibilities for wildlife management may undermine communities' roles as conservation actors. Conversely, legal recognition and support for the role of community forests in wildlife management could enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of management decisions. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract Among factors that threaten wild populations of African megafauna, wildlife trade has gained prominence as a global policy issue, with concerted international campaigns aiming to influence the trade of species such as elephants, rhinos and lions. Trade policy is strongly contested, confounding attempts to develop coherent approaches across jurisdictions and through international mechanisms such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This undermines conservation efforts. Understanding the drivers of such conflict may help to address this problem. Scholars of political science increasingly recognise the power of ideas as drivers within policy processes. Guided by this literature, we developed an analytical framework and conducted a thematic analysis to examine the ideas driving wildlife trade policy conflict. Our nested case study approach examined debates over trade policy toward African elephants, rhinos and lions at two levels: the international policy arena of CITES and within a single country, South Africa. Informed by earlier literature, we tracked the evolution of international trade policy debates over a 4‐year period (2016–2019) and analysed submissions to a national policy review process in South Africa that took place during 2020. During the study period, state and non‐state actors contributed to vigorous trade policy debates within seven key thematic issues across the case study species. Arguments were driven by both cognitive ideas, which specify cause‐and‐effect relationships, and normative ideas, which are values‐based and especially salient elements of anti‐trade stances. Fusing these cognitive and normative ideational elements, we identified three distinct overarching narratives relating to wildlife trade policy. These three narratives align with broader environmental policy and political narratives and elucidate inherent tensions within the CITES arena. They also reveal differing ethical interpretations and perceptions of risk and precaution. Policy implications. Wildlife trade policy conflict is driven at least in part by competing ideological visions, which may be entrenched by the CITES Appendix listing system. The structural role of CITES in perpetuating this polarisation—and the consequences thereof—warrants further research. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract There is a need to synthesize the vast amount of empirical case study research on social‐ecological systems (SES) to advance theory. Innovative methods are needed to identify patterns of system interactions and outcomes at different levels of abstraction. Many identifiable patterns may only be relevant to small sets of cases, a sector or regional context, and some more broadly. Theory needs to match these levels while still retaining enough details to inform context‐specific governance. Archetype analysis offers concepts and methods for synthesizing and explaining patterns of interactions across cases. At the most basic level, there is a need to identify two and three independent variable groupings (i.e. dyads and triads) as a starting point for archetype identification (i.e. as theoretical building blocks). The causal explanations of dyads and triads are easier to understand than larger models, and once identified, can be used as building blocks to construct or explain larger theoretical models. We analyse the recurrence of independent variable interactions across 71 quantitative SES models generated from qualitative case study research applying Ostrom's SES framework and examine their relationships to specific outcomes (positive or negative, social or ecological). We use hierarchical clustering, principal component analysis and network analysis tools to identify the frequency and recurrence of dyads and triads across models of different sizes and outcome groups. We also measure the novelty of model composition as models get larger. We support our quantitative model findings with illustrative visual and narrative examples in four case study boxes covering deforestation in Indonesia, pollution in the Rhine River, fisheries management in Chile and renewable wind energy management in Belgium. Findings indicate which pairs of two (dyads) and three (triads) variables are most frequently linked to either positive or negative, social or ecological outcomes. We show which pairs account for most of the variation of interactions across all the models (i.e. the optimal suite). Both the most frequent and optimal suite sets are good starting points for assessing how dyads and triads can fulfil the role of explanatory archetype candidates. We further discuss challenges and opportunities for future SES modelling and synthesis research using archetype analysis. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract Hydrogen‐bonded organic frameworks (HOFs) are emerging porous materials that show high structural flexibility, mild synthetic conditions, good solution processability, easy healing and regeneration, and good recyclability. Although these properties give them many potential multifunctional applications, their frameworks are unstable due to the presence of only weak and reversible hydrogen bonds. In this work, the development history and synthesis methods of HOFs are reviewed, and categorize their structural design concepts and strategies to improve their stability. More importantly, due to the significant potential of the latest HOF‐related research for addressing energy and environmental issues, this work discusses the latest advances in the methods of energy storage and conversion, energy substance generation and isolation, environmental detection and isolation, degradation and transformation, and biological applications. Furthermore, a discussion of the coupling orientation of HOF in the cross‐cutting fields of energy and environment is presented for the first time. Finally, current challenges, opportunities, and strategies for the development of HOFs to advance their energy and environmental applications are discussed.

Abstract Green infrastructure (GI) is increasingly used in policymaking to promote biodiversity and enhance ecosystem services through the protection, creation, restoration and connection of natural and man‐made green areas. The EU Commission adopted in 2013, the concept as a strategy. When member states apply the policy, it is translated into specific bureaucratic and political systems, creating different ‘policy assemblages’ of ideas and institutional features. We analyse the Swedish GI policy to draw conclusions about how it has been assembled in one particular member state and what that particular assemblage will imply for biodiversity conservation. In combination with understanding policies as assemblages, we use the ‘What's the problem represented to be’‐approach as method. We show that the Swedish GI policy assemblage consists of a mix of policy ideas developed in Sweden and the EU. Despite the current strong focus on biodiversity conservation, the notion of land's multifunctionality, characterizing the EU strategy and the possibility to conserve biodiversity on land used for purposes other than conservation increasingly influence the Swedish policy as it is formed. Although the policy has the potential to mainstream biodiversity conservation measures across different sectors, based on our analysis of current discourse, its implementation will likely promote GI measures less disruptive to existing land use activities, making its capacity to halt biodiversity loss marginal. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract Finance is a precondition for many of the activities that harm ecosystems, but how to address this underlying driver of biodiversity loss remains a topic of debate. This paper reviews the Task Force on Nature‐Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), a corporate‐led effort that aims to identify how changes to biodiversity may create financial risks for companies and investors. This approach is also promoted as a strategy for managing the impact of business on biodiversity, with the assumption that risk disclosure will more effectively price biodiversity‐harming activities. We assess the potential of the TNFD toward this end, and invite conservation scientists, practitioners, and policymakers to engage critically with its theory of change. We find that the relationship between disclosing biodiversity risk and redirecting finance away from environmental degradation is tenuous and unproven, making this mechanism insufficient for addressing the impact of the financial sector on nature. We question the embrace of another industry‐led mechanism that implies that a lack of information is the greatest barrier to stopping biodiversity loss. Further, there are risks that this financial sector approach to biodiversity will reinforce the highly unequal concentration of power and wealth, which is itself inimical to transformative change, as called for by the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Abstract The need to effectively govern and manage communal rangeland resources has become more important over the past two decades, given the extent of biodiversity loss caused by a myriad of drivers interacting at different scales. Using in‐depth interviews, participant observations and historical information from organisational records, we analysed the application of governance objectives between 1947 and 2017 and their corresponding rangeland condition outcome in Machubeni (South Africa) communal lands. The results show that while the application of governance objectives varied through time, there has been a steady degradation of local rangeland resources since apartheid, due to internal and external drivers of change. This reveals a disconnection between management and resource conditions, suggesting that a return to effective governance alone will not necessarily result in improved rangeland condition in Machubeni, but that more radical steps such as prolonged periods of resting, reseeding and building individual and group agency, are needed. These findings can help practitioners working in post‐colonial territories to design effective rangeland management models. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract Environmental governance scholars have overlooked philanthropic foundations as influential non‐state actors. This omission, along with the continued growth in funding from private foundations for conservation issues, presents important questions about what foundations do in governance spaces. To address this gap, we examine The David and Lucile Packard Foundation's involvement in Fiji and Palau in the context of the Foundation's “Western Pacific Program”—a series of coastal and marine‐related investments made from 1998 to 2020. We describe and analyze six governance roles that the Packard Foundation contributed to: funding, influencing agendas, capacity‐building, convening and coordinating, facilitating knowledge, and rule‐making and regulation. In documenting the Packard Foundation's governance roles, we provide scholars and practitioners a conceptual framework to more systematically and strategically think about foundations as more than funders. This research helps move the conversation around conservation philanthropy beyond binary conceptions of “good” versus “bad,” and, instead, toward deeper considerations about what foundations currently do within governance systems, how they engage with diverse practitioners, as well as what they can and should do to advance conservation goals.

Abstract Faced with budget cutbacks, state and local governments struggle to adequately fund public parks and support land conservation. “Support nonprofits” are charitable organizations soliciting voluntary contributions of money, property, and service to protect parks and natural systems (Gazley, 2015). From 2000 to 2015, the number of support nonprofits increased by 188% and total nonprofit revenue increased by 263%, outpacing growth in public charities nationwide (NCCS). The rapid growth in support nonprofits prompts key questions about access and equity: Which communities benefit from support nonprofits? Do support nonprofits advocate for public land conservation? Using a novel national dataset pairing large nonprofits with the counties they serve, the article has three key findings: (1) counties in metropolitan areas with well‐educated, liberal residents are more likely to have a support nonprofit fundraising for public land, and (2) there is no correlation between public funding for parks and support nonprofit presence. In addition to philanthropy, (3) counties with support nonprofits are more likely to pass ballot initiatives funding public land conservation. It is imperative that policy‐makers and conservation advocates consider how nonprofit philanthropy maps on to—and augments—existing inequality in access to parks and natural resource conservation.

Abstract Land‐use change and political–economic shifts have shaped hunting patterns globally, even as traditional hunting practices endure across many local socio‐cultural contexts. The widespread expansion of oil palm cultivation, and associated urbanization, alters land‐use patterns, ecological processes, economic relationships, access to land and social practices. In particular, we focus on the socio‐ecological dynamics between Kadazandusun‐Murut (KDM) hunters in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo, and bearded pigs (Sus barbatus; Malay: ‘babi hutan’), the favoured game animal for non‐Muslim communities throughout much of Borneo. We conducted 38 semi‐structured interviews spanning over 50 hr with bearded pig hunters, asking them about contemporary hunting practices and motivations, changes in hunting practices, changes in pig behaviour, and patterns of animal protein consumption in village and urban contexts. Amidst widespread land‐use change, primarily driven by oil palm expansion, respondents reported substantially different characteristics of hunting in oil palm plantations as compared to hunting in forests. Additionally, 17 of 38 hunters—including 71% (10/14) of hunters who started hunting before 1985, compared to 26% (6/23) of hunters who started hunting in 1985 or later—mentioned that bearded pigs are behaving in a more skittish or fearful way as compared to the past. Our respondents also reported reductions in hunting frequency and wild meat consumption in urban contexts as compared to rural contexts. However, despite these substantial changes in hunting and dietary practices, numerous KDM hunting motivations, hunting techniques and socio‐cultural traditions have endured over the last several decades. For some, bearded pig meat remains deeply tied to food provision, gifting and sharing customs, and cultural components of celebrations and feasts. Oil palm has cultivated new hunting practices that differ from those in forests, and has potentially contributed to altered bearded pig behaviour due to increased hunting accessibility. Together, oil palm and urbanization are helping reshape the KDM‐bearded pig socio‐ecological system. In light of these reshaped connections, we recommend location‐specific management approaches that ensure fair access to the dietary and social benefits of bearded pig hunting while preserving the critical conservation needs of bearded pig populations and habitat. These twin goals are particularly urgent given the confirmed outbreak of African Swine Fever (ASF), and mass deaths of domestic pigs and wild bearded pigs, in Sabah and Kalimantan in 2021. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Abstract Conflicts over the management of wildlife species that impact human livelihoods are increasingly frequent. In Spanish farmland areas, the European rabbit, one of the most important game species, can cause considerable crop damage. Tensions typically emerge between farmers who advocate rabbit reduction and hunters who are responsible for controlling populations when crop damage occurs but wish for healthy rabbit populations for shooting. In this study, we used in‐depth interviews and small group discussions with farmers, hunters and representatives of the governmental environmental and agricultural agencies to assess their positions in this conflict. Our results showed tensions between and within groups, and that the conflict is influenced by leadership, distrust and past decision‐making issues, and by differences in beliefs among groups. Positions of farmers and hunters are also relatively rigid, which may make difficult their engagement in collaborative processes. To be effective, such processes would demand that local leaders were empowered and likely also that external neutral mediators were involved. Our study highlights the complexity and dynamic nature of the conflicts associated with wildlife species causing damage to human livelihoods and provides new insights that may be useful to facilitate dialogue and negotiation between stakeholders and to aid management and governance. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Abstract Net outcome‐type biodiversity policies are proliferating globally as perceived mechanisms to reconcile economic development and conservation objectives. The UK government's Environment Bill will mandate that most new developments in England demonstrate that they deliver a biodiversity net gain (BNG) to receive planning permission, representing the most wide‐ranging net outcome type policy globally. However, as with many nascent net‐outcome policies, the likely outcomes of mandatory BNG have not been explored empirically. We assemble all BNG assessments (accounting for ∼6% of England's annual housebuilding and other infrastructure) submitted from January 2020 to February 2021 in six early‐adopter councils who are implementing mandatory no net loss or BNG requirements in advance of the national adoption of mandatory BNG, and analyze the aggregate habitat changes proposed. Our sample is associated with a 34% reduction in the area of nonurban habitats, generally compensated by commitments to deliver smaller areas of higher quality habitat years later in the development project cycle. Ninety‐five percent of biodiversity units delivered in our sample come from habitats within or directly‐adjacent to the development footprint managed by the developers. However, we find that these gains fall within a governance gap whereby they risk being unenforceable, a challenge that is shared with other net outcome type policies implemented internationally.

Abstract Many countries allow lawsuits to hold responsible parties liable for the environmental harm they cause. Such litigation remains largely untested in most biodiversity hotspots and is rarely used in response to leading drivers of biodiversity loss, including illegal wildlife trade. Yet, liability litigation is a potentially ground‐breaking conservation strategy to remedy harm to biodiversity by seeking legal remedies such as species rehabilitation, public apologies, habitat conservation and education, with the goal of making the injured parties ‘whole’. However, precedent cases, expert guidance, and experience to build such conservation lawsuits is nascent in most countries. We propose a simplified framework for developing conservation lawsuits across countries and conservation contexts. We explain liability litigation in terms of three dimensions: (1) defining the harm that occurred, (2) identifying appropriate remedies to that harm, and (3) understanding what remedies the law and courts will allow. We illustrate the framework via a hypothetical lawsuit against an illegal orangutan trader in Indonesia. We highlight that conservationists’ expertise is essential to characterizing harm and identifying remedies, and could more actively contribute to strategic, science‐based litigation. This would identify priority contexts, target defendants responsible for egregious harm, propose novel and meaningful remedies, and build new transdisciplinary collaborations.

Abstract Invasive alien species (IAS) constitute a major threat to global biological diversity. In order to control their spread, a detailed understanding of the factors influencing their distribution is essential. Although international trade is regarded as a major force structuring spatial patterns of IAS, the role of other social factors remains unclear. Despite studies highlighting the importance of strong governance in slowing drivers of biodiversity loss such as logging, deforestation, and agricultural intensification, no study has yet analyzed its contribution to the issue of IAS. Using estimates of governance quality and comprehensive spatiotemporal IAS data, we performed multiple linear regressions to investigate the effect of governance quality upon the distribution of species listed under “100 of the worst” IAS in 38 Eurasian countries as defined by DASIE. Our model suggested that for countries with higher GDP, stronger governance was associated with a greater number of the worst IAS; in contrast, for the lowest GDP countries under analysis, stronger governance was associated with fewer of these IAS. We elucidate how the quality of governance within a country has implications for trade, tourism, transport, legislation, and economic development, all of which influence the spread of IAS. While our findings support the common assumption that strengthening governance benefits conservation interventions in countries of smaller economy, we find that this effect is not universal. Stronger governance alone cannot adequately address the problem of IAS, and targeted action is required in relatively high‐GDP countries in order to stem the influx of IAS associated with high volumes of trade.

Abstract In October 2016, the international community made history by adopting the world's largest marine protected area in the Ross Sea, Antarctica—by consensus. Achieving this feat required trade‐offs and compromise among the 24‐Member States (plus the European Union) comprising the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. The process took 5 years of intense international negotiations and more than 10 years of scientific planning. Based on interviews with national delegations and other stakeholders, 5 years of participatory observation of Commission meetings (2012–2016), and analysis of hundreds of documents, we present unique insights that explain the conditions that stalled or facilitated the adoption of the Ross Sea MPA. These included economic interests, geopolitics, an erosion of trust, high‐level diplomacy, and the compromises that were ultimately necessary. We reflect on lessons learned as the world considers how to achieve future large‐scale conservation successes in the global commons.