Search

Raptors are threatened by anthropogenic land modifications, but targeted quantitative assessment of these impacts is lacking. We conducted the first global quantitative evaluation of the impacts of human‐modified land on raptors. We used eBird data from 2001 to 2020 on 425 raptor species and occupancy models to assess the impacts of human‐modified land on raptor distribution. The mean spatiotemporal correlations of human settlement, cropland, and pasture with raptor occupancy probability were −0.048 (SE 0.031), −0.134 (0.032), and −0.145 (0.032), respectively. The mean sensitivity of raptor occupancy probability to settlement, cropland, and pasture was −5.760 (2.266), −3.128 (1.540), and −2.402 (1.551), respectively. The occupancy probability of raptors with a large body mass was more negatively correlated with cropland (phylogenetic generalized least squares regressions: slope = −0.052 [SE 0.022], t = −2.335, df = 1, 407, p = 0.020, λ = 0.006) and more positively correlated with pasture (slope = 0.047 [0.022], t = 2.118, df = 1, 407, p = 0.035, λ = 0.013). The occupancy probability of raptors with a more extensive range size was more positively correlated with cropland (slope = 0.002 [0.004], t = 0.399, df = 1, 407, p < 0.001, λ = 0.000). Raptors that prefer open habitats were more positively correlated with cropland (analysis of variance: F = 3.424, df = 2, p = 0.034, λ = 0.000) and pasture (F = 6.577, df = 2, p = 0.002, λ = 0.000). In Africa and South America, where raptor species are most abundant, raptor occupancy probability decreased over 20 years, most likely due to habitat fragmentation associated with human land modification. Although raptors with different ecological characteristics had different responses to human land modification, the impacts of settlement, cropland, and pasture on mean raptor occupancy probability were negative, regardless of space and time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The unlimited economic growth that fuels capitalism's metabolism has profoundly transformed a large portion of Earth. The resulting environmental destruction has led to an unprecedented rate of biodiversity loss. Following large‐scale losses of habitats and species, it was recognized that biodiversity is crucial to maintaining functional ecosystems. We sought to continue the debate on the contradictions between economic growth and biodiversity in the conservation science literature and thus invite scholars to engage in reversing the biodiversity crisis through acknowledging the impacts of economic growth. In the 1970s, a global agenda was set to develop different milestones related to sustainable development, including green–blue economic growth, which despite not specifically addressing biodiversity reinforced the idea that economic development based on profit is compatible with the planet's ecology. Only after biodiversity loss captured the attention of environmental sciences researchers in the early 2000s was a global biodiversity agenda implemented. The agenda highlights biodiversity conservation as a major international challenge and recognizes that the main drivers of biodiversity loss derive from economic activities. The post‐2000 biodiversity agendas, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the post‐2020 Convention on Biological Diversity Global Strategy Framework, do not consider the negative impacts of growth‐oriented strategies on biodiversity. As a result, global biodiversity conservation priorities are governed by the economic value of biodiversity and its assumed contribution to people's welfare. A large body of empirical evidence shows that unlimited economic growth is the main driver of biodiversity loss in the Anthropocene; thus, we strongly argue for sustainable degrowth and a fundamental shift in societal values. An equitable downscaling of the physical economy can improve ecological conditions, thus reducing biodiversity loss and consequently enhancing human well‐being. Article impact statement: Moving away from growth‐based socioeconomic metabolism of capitalism is required and essential for successful biodiversity conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ecotourism is developing rapidly in biodiversity hotspots worldwide, but there is limited and mixed empirical evidence that ecotourism achieves positive biodiversity outcomes. We assessed whether ecotourism influenced forest loss rates and trajectories from 2000 to 2017 in Himalayan temperate forests. We compared forest loss in 15 ecotourism hubs with nonecotourism areas in 4 Himalayan countries. We used matching statistics to control for local‐level determinants of forest loss, for example, population density, market access, and topography. None of the ecotourism hubs was free of forest loss, and we found limited evidence that forest‐loss trajectories in ecotourism hubs were different from those in nonecotourism areas. In Nepal and Bhutan, differences in forest loss rates between ecotourism hubs and matched nonecotourism areas did not differ significantly, and the magnitude of the estimated effect was small. In India, where overall forest loss rates were the lowest of any country in our analysis, forest loss rates were higher in ecotourism hubs than in matched nonecotourism areas. In contrast, in China, where overall forest loss rates were highest, forest loss rates were lower in ecotourism hubs than where there was no ecotourism. Our results suggest that the success of ecotourism as a forest conservation strategy, as it is currently practiced in the Himalaya, is context dependent. In a region with high deforestation pressures, ecotourism may be a relatively environmentally friendly form of economic development relative to other development strategies. However, ecotourism may stimulate forest loss in regions where deforestation rates are low. Article impact statement: Whether ecotourism protects forests is context dependent, and an important factor is the deforestation pressure overall on the landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land degradation is a global problem that seriously threatens human society. However, in China and elsewhere, ecological restoration still largely relies on a traditional approach that focuses only on ecological factors and ignores socioeconomic factors. To improve the effectiveness of ecological restoration and maximize its economic and ecological benefits, a more efficient approach is needed that provides support for policy development and land management and thereby promotes environmental conservation. We devised a framework for assessing the value of ecosystem services that remain after subtracting costs, such as the opportunity costs, costs of forest protection, and costs for the people who are affected by the program; that is, the net value of ecosystem services (NVES). To understand the difference between the value of a resource and the net value of the ecosystem service it provides, we used data on VES, timber sales, and afforestation costs from China's massive national afforestation programs to calculate the net value of forest ecosystem services in China. Accounting for the abovementioned costs revealed an NVES of ¥6.1 × 1012 for forests in 2014, which was 35.9% less than the value calculated without accounting for costs. As a result, the NVES associated with afforestation was 55.9% less than the NVES of natural forests. In some regions, NVES was negative because of the huge costs of human‐made plantations, high evapotranspiration rates (thus, high water opportunity costs), and low forest survival rates. To maximize the ecological benefits of conservation, it is necessary to account for as many costs as possible so that management decisions can be based on NVES, thereby helping managers choose projects that maximize both economic and ecological benefits. Article impact statement: Accounting for the effects of costs on the value of ecosystem services provides a net value that more strongly supports policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globally, deforestation continues, and although protected areas effectively protect forests, the majority of forests are not in protected areas. Thus, how effective are different management regimes to avoid deforestation in non-protected forests? We sought to assess the effectiveness of different national forest-management regimes to safeguard forests outside protected areas. We compared 2000-2014 deforestation rates across the temperate forests of 5 countries in the Himalaya (Bhutan, Nepal, China, India, and Myanmar) of which 13% are protected. We reviewed the literature to characterize forest management regimes in each country and conducted a quasi-experimental analysis to measure differences in deforestation of unprotected forests among countries and states in India. Countries varied in both overarching forest-management goals and specific tenure arrangements and policies for unprotected forests, from policies emphasizing economic development to those focused on forest conservation. Deforestation rates differed up to 1.4% between countries, even after accounting for local determinants of deforestation, such as human population density, market access, and topography. The highest deforestation rates were associated with forest policies aimed at maximizing profits and unstable tenure regimes. Deforestation in national forest-management regimes that emphasized conservation and community management were relatively low. In India results were consistent with the national-level results. We interpreted our results in the context of the broader literature on decentralized, community-based natural resource management, and our findings emphasize that the type and quality of community-based forestry programs and the degree to which they are oriented toward sustainable use rather than economic development are important for forest protection. Our cross-national results are consistent with results from site- and regional-scale studies that show forest-management regimes that ensure stable land tenure and integrate local-livelihood benefits with forest conservation result in the best forest outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The allocation of land to biological diversity conservation competes with other land uses and the needs of society for development, food, and extraction of natural resources. Trade-offs between biological diversity conservation and alternative land uses are unavoidable, given the realities of limited conservation resources and the competing demands of society. We developed a conservation-planning assessment for the South African province of KwaZulu-Natal, which forms the central component of the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany biological diversity hotspot. Our objective was to enhance biological diversity protection while promoting sustainable development and providing spatial guidance in the resolution of potential policy conflicts over priority areas for conservation at risk of transformation. The conservation-planning assessment combined spatial-distribution models for 646 conservation features, spatial economic-return models for 28 alternative land uses, and spatial maps for 4 threats. Nature-based tourism businesses were competitive with other land uses and could provide revenues of >US$60 million/year to local stakeholders and simultaneously help meeting conservation goals for almost half the conservation features in the planning region. Accounting for opportunity costs substantially decreased conflicts between biological diversity, agricultural use, commercial forestry, and mining. Accounting for economic benefits arising from conservation and reducing potential policy conflicts with alternative plans for development can provide opportunities for successful strategies that combine conservation and sustainable development and facilitate conservation action. Negocios de Conservación y Planificación de la Conservación en un Sitio de Importancia para la Biodiversidad [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Declining rural security and pressures to reduce public-sector expenditures in the late 1990s spurred efforts to develop alternative funding models for Uganda's Kibale National Park (KNP). The Wild Coffee Project, established in 1999 with support from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the World Bank, and the Ford Foundation, sought to develop a market for wild coffee that had been harvested traditionally from areas within today's KNP. The Kibale Forest Foundation, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization, was created to legalize harvests, obtain third-party wild and organic certification, and coordinate management between KNP, the coffee industry, and local communities. Although the project was successful in legalizing, harvesting, and processing the world's first certified wild and organic coffee, efforts to gain entry into the international marketplace failed. Chief among the lessons learned from this project is that for many wild-grown products, the value of “the story”—in both human and conservation terms—is likely to far exceed actual product values. This value differential should be captured through high-value niche markets to avoid low commodity pricing and subsequent pressures to improve financial returns through over harvesting. In addition, local producers should hold significant assets in whatever brands are developed, creating a shared-equity approach that serves social responsibility goals, fosters project sustainability, and ensures a steady stream of positive stories for use in marketing to build brand value. Shared equity—in this case ownership interest in the intellectual property embodied in the brand—provides a second incentive beyond transactional profits that can only be realized if resource conservation is maintained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community-based natural resource conservation programs in developing nations face many implementation challenges underpinned by social-psychological mechanisms. One challenge is garnering local support in an economically and socially sustainable fashion despite economic hardship and historical alienation from local resources. Unfortunately, conservationists' limited understanding of the social-psychological mechanisms underlying participatory conservation impedes the search for appropriate solutions. We address this issue by revealing key underlying social-psychological mechanisms of participatory conservation. Different administrative designs create social atmospheres that differentially affect endorsement of conservation goals. Certain forms of endorsement may be less effective motivators and less economically and socially sustainable than others. From a literature review we found that conservation initiatives endorsed primarily for nonautonomous instrumental reasons, such as to avoid economic fines or to secure economic rewards, are less motivating than those endorsed for autonomous reasons, such as for the opportunity for personal expression and growth. We suggest that successful participatory programs promote autonomous endorsement of conservation through an administrative framework of autonomy support—free and open democratic participation in management, substantive recognition and inclusion of local stakeholder identity, and respectful, noncoercive social interaction. This framework of the autonomy-supportive environment (self-determination theory) has important implications for future research into program design and incentive-based conservation and identifies a testable social-psychological theory of conservancy motivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Successful conservation efforts require understanding human behaviors that directly affect biodiversity. Choice of household location represents an observable behavior that has direct effects on biodiversity conservation, but no one has examined the sociocultural predictors of this choice relative to its environmental impacts. We conducted a case study of the Teton Valley of Idaho and Wyoming (U.S.A.) that (1) explored relationships between sociodemographic variables, environmental attitudes, and the environmental impact of household location choices, (2) assessed the potential for small household sizes in natural areas to multiply the environmental impacts of household location decisions, and (3) evaluated how length of residency predicted the environmental attitudes of people living in natural areas. We collected sociodemographic data, spatial coordinates, and land-cover information in a survey of 416 households drawn from a random sample of Teton Valley residents (95% compliance rate). Immigrants (respondents not born in the study area) with the lowest education levels and least environmentally oriented attitudes lived in previously established residential areas in disproportionately high numbers, and older and more educated immigrants with the most environmentally oriented attitudes lived in natural areas in disproportionately high numbers. Income was not a significant predictor of household location decisions. Those living in natural areas had more environmental impact per person because of the location and because small households (<3 people/household) were 4 times as likely in natural areas as large households. Longer residency in natural areas predicted less environmentally oriented attitudes, suggesting that living in natural areas does not foster more concern for nature. Because populaces are rapidly aging, growing more educated, and potentially growing more environmentally oriented, these patterns are troubling for biodiversity conservation. Our results demonstrate a need for environmentalists to make household location decisions that reflect their environmental attitudes and future research to address how interactions between education level, environmental attitudes, population aging, and household location choices influence biodiversity conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human population and development activities affect the rate of deforestation in biodiversity hotspots. We quantified the effect of human population growth and development on rates of deforestation and analyzed the relationship between these causal factors in the 1980s and 1990s. We compared the averages of population growth, human development index (HDI, which measures income, health, and education), and deforestation rate and computed correlations among these variables for countries that contain biodiversity hotspots. When population growth was high and HDI was low there was a high rate of deforestation, but when HDI was high, rate of deforestation was low, despite high population growth. The correlation among variables was significant for the 1990s but not for the 1980s. The relationship between population growth and HDI had a regional pattern that reflected the historical process of development. Based on the changes in HDI and deforestation rate over time, we identified two drivers of deforestation: policy choice and human-development constraints. Policy choices that disregard conservation may cause the loss of forests even in countries that are relatively developed. Lack of development in other countries, on the other hand, may increase the pressure on forests to meet the basic needs of the human population. Deforestation resulting from policy choices may be easier to fix than deforestation arising from human development constraints. To prevent deforestation in the countries that have such constraints, transfer of material and intellectual resources from developed countries may be needed. Popular interest in sustainable development in developed countries can facilitate the transfer of these resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental policy makers are embracing consensus-based approaches to environmental decision making in an attempt to enhance public participation in conservation and facilitate the potentially incompatible goals of environmental protection and economic growth. Although such approaches may produce positive results in immediate spatial and temporal contexts and under some forms of governance, their overuse has potentially dangerous implications for conservation within many democratic societies. We suggest that environmental decision making rooted in consensus theory leads to the dilution of socially powerful conservation metaphors and legitimizes current power relationships rooted in unsustainable social constructions of reality. We also suggest an argumentative model of environmental decision making rooted in ecology will facilitate progressive environmental policy by placing the environmental agenda on firmer epistemological ground and legitimizing challenges to current power hegemonies that dictate unsustainable practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]