Fairness and transparency are required for the inclusion of privately protected areas in publicly accessible conservation databases

There is a growing recognition of the contribution that privately-owned land makes to conservation efforts, and governments are increasingly counting privately protected areas (PPAs) towards their international conservation commitments. The public availability of spatial data on countries\u27 conservation estates is important for broad-scale conservation planning and monitoring and for evaluating progress towards targets. Yet there has been limited consideration of how PPA data is reported to national and international protected area databases, particularly whether such reporting is transparent and fair (i.e., equitable) to the landholders involved. Here we consider PPA reporting procedures from three countries with high numbers of PPAs-Australia, South Africa, and the United States-illustrating the diversity within and between countries regarding what data is reported and the transparency with which it is reported. Noting a potential tension between landholder preferences for privacy and security of their property information and the benefit of sharing this information for broader conservation efforts, we identify the need to consider equity in PPA reporting processes. Unpacking potential considerations and tensions into distributional, procedural, and recognitional dimensions of equity, we propose a series of broad principles to foster transparent and fair reporting. Our approach for navigating the complexity and context-dependency of equity considerations will help strengthen PPA reporting and facilitate the transparent integration of PPAs into broader conservation efforts

A manifesto for predictive conservation

If efforts to tackle biodiversity loss and its impact on human wellbeing are to be successful, conservation must learn from other fields which use predictive methods to foresee shocks and pre-empt their impacts in the face of uncertainty, such as military studies, public health and finance. Despite a long history of using predictive models to understand the dynamics of ecological systems and human disturbance, conservationists do not systematically apply predictive approaches when designing and implementing behavioural interventions. This is an important omission because human behaviour is the underlying cause of current widespread biodiversity loss. Here, we critically assess how predictive approaches can transform the way conservation scientists and practitioners plan for and implement social and behavioural change among people living with wildlife. Our manifesto for predictive conservation recognises that social-ecological systems are dynamic, uncertain and complex, and calls on conservationists to embrace the forward-thinking approach which effective conservation requires

We have a steak in it: Eliciting interventions to reduce beef consumption and its impact on biodiversity

Beef production is a major driver of biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions globally, and multiple studies recommend reducing beef production and consumption. Although there have been significant efforts from the biodiversity conservation sector toward reducing beef-production impacts, there has been comparatively much less engagement in reducing beef consumption. As a first step to address this gap and identify leverage points, we conducted a policy Delphi expert elicitation. We asked 16 multidisciplinary experts from research and practitioner backgrounds to propose interventions for reducing beef consumption in the United States. Experts generated and critiqued 20 interventions, creating a qualitative dataset that was thematically analyzed to allow the interventions to be prioritized. Effective, feasible interventions included changing perceived social norms, targeting food providers, and increasing the availability and quality of beef alternatives. This work introduces a conservation research agenda for reducing beef consumption and explores a structured process for prioritizing behavioral interventions

Messaging matters: A systematic review of the conservation messaging literature

Changing human behavior and attitudes are key to conserving global biodiversity. Despite evidence from other disciplines that strategic messaging can influence behavior and attitudes, it remains unclear how to best design messages to benefit biodiversity. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the status of conservation messaging research, and to evaluate whether studies address essential elements of message design and theory from other disciplines. We show that academic interest in conservation messaging is growing rapidly. However, our results suggest that conservation scientists are not effectively drawing from the long-standing expertise of disciplines with well-established messaging techniques. Many studies do not draw on established behavior change theories or audience segmentation techniques. Given the urgent need to address the loss of biodiversity, we discuss how conservation messaging can draw on existing empirical and theoretical knowledge, with a focus on the application of established techniques used in messaging for pro-environmental behavior

Identifying and prioritizing human behaviors that benefit biodiversity

The conservation profession is increasingly seeking effective ways to reduce societal impact on biodiversity, including through targeted behavior change interventions. Multiple conservation behavior change programs exist, but there is also great uncertainty regarding which behaviors are most strategic to target. Behavioral prioritization is a tool that has been used effectively to support behavior change decision‐making in other environmental disciplines and more recently for a small sub‐set of biodiversity behavior change challenges. Here, we use behavioral prioritization to identify individual behaviors that could be modified to achieve biodiversity benefits in the state of Victoria, Australia. We use an adapted nominal group technique method to identify potential biodiversity behaviors and, for each behavior, estimate the corresponding plasticity (or capacity for change) and positive impact on biodiversity outcomes. We elicited 27 behaviors that individuals could undertake to benefit or reduce their negative impact on biodiversity. This list was then used to prioritize 10 behaviors as determined by their likely effect(s) on biodiversity, plasticity, and current prevalence in Victoria. We take a first step in outlining a list of behaviors that can direct Victorian decision‐makers toward increasing positive and reducing negative impacts of society on biodiversity, guide motivated individuals to reduce their own biodiversity footprint, and more broadly, develop a behavior change research agenda for behaviors most likely to benefit biodiversity