Moving towards public policy-ready science: philosophical insights on the social-ecological systems perspective for conservation science

The social-ecological systems (SES) perspective stems from the need to rethink the ways humans relate to the environment, given the evidence that conventional conservation and management approaches are often ineffective in dealing with complex socio-environmental problems. The SES approach conceives non-scientific and scientific knowledge as equally necessary in the process of management and public policy formation. Thus, the adoption of the SES approach must also serve to make better decisions about what kind of science and technology would be ‘public policy-ready’ (as well as also ‘policy-relevant’); that is, a science oriented and conceived to provide concrete solutions to societal needs and demands. Here we review and reinterpret the SES perspective as a real paradigm change for conservation science. Under the lenses of philosophy, we try to untangle some weak points of the SES approach in order to advance to a conservation science closer to the process of science-based public policy creation and to enhance the intertwining with other types of knowledge. In this sense, we discuss how co-production of knowledge and decision-making process under the SES perspective are a huge step forward towards fulfilling the need to bring increasingly closer the spheres of science and policy, narrowing its interface.Fil: Sala, Juan Emilio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto de Biología de Organismos Marinos; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia "San Juan Bosco"; ArgentinaFil: Torchio, Gabriela María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto de Biología de Organismos Marinos; Argentin

Wild Animals in Our Backyard. A Contextual Approach to the Intrinsic Value of Animals

As a reflection on recent debates on the value of wild animals we examine the question of the intrinsic value of wild animals in both natural and man-made surroundings. We examine the concepts being wild and domesticated. In our approach we consider animals as dependent on their environment, whether it is a human or a natural environment. Stressing this dependence we argue that a distinction can be made between three different interpretations of a wild animal’s intrinsic value: a species-specific, a naturalistic, and an individualistic interpretation. According to the species-specific approach, the animal is primarily considered as a member of its species; according to the naturalistic interpretation, the animal is seen as dependent on the natural environment; and according to the individualistic approach, the animal is seen in terms of its relationship to humans. In our opinion, the species-specific interpretation, which is the current dominant view, should be supplemented—but not replaced by—naturalistic and individualistic interpretations, which focus attention on the relationship of the animal to the natural and human environments, respectively. Which of these three interpretations is the most suitable in a given case depends on the circumstances and the opportunity for the animal to grow and develop according to its nature and capabilities

From little things, big things grow: trends and fads in 110 years of Australian ornithology

Publishing histories can reveal changes in ornithological effort, focus or direction through time. This study presents a bibliometric content analysis of Emu (1901–2011) which revealed 115 trends (long-term changes in publication over time) and 18 fads (temporary increases in publication activity) from the classification of 9,039 articles using 128 codes organised into eight categories (author gender, author affiliation, article type, subject, main focus, main method, geographical scale and geographical location). Across 110 years, private authorship declined, while publications involving universities and multiple institutions increased; from 1960, female authorship increased. Over time, question-driven studies and incidental observations increased and decreased in frequency, respectively. Single species and ‘taxonomic group’ subjects increased while studies of birds at specific places decreased. The focus of articles shifted from species distribution and activities of the host organisation to breeding, foraging and other biological/ecological topics. Site- and Australian-continental-scales slightly decreased over time; non-Australian studies increased from the 1970s. A wide variety of fads occurred (e.g. articles on bird distribution, 1942–1951, and using museum specimens, 1906–1913) though the occurrence of fads decreased over time. Changes over time are correlated with technological, theoretical, social and institutional changes, and suggest ornithological priorities, like those of other scientific disciplines, are temporally labil

An examination of multiple factors affecting community structure in an aquatic amphibian community

The potential effects of multiple factors structuring certain larval amphibian communities were studied using a pen experiment in a natural pond. Potential factors (predation and competition from other species) were allowed to act in a stepwise fashion such that their relative importance could be evaluated. Based on a previous study, it was hypothesized that predation by Ambystoma salamander larvae on other larval amphibian species would be the most important factor. Survival of Ambystoma jeffersonianum salamander larvae and Rana sylvatica tadpoles was significantly depressed only by Ambystoma opacum predation. Survival of Ambystoma maculatum salamander larvae was significantly greater in the absence of both A. opacum and A. jeffersonianum predators. The virtual elimination of Hyla chrysoscelis larvae in all treatments also can be largely attributed to Ambystoma predation. Thus, Ambystoma predation was the dominant factor determining larval survival of four amphibian prey species in the experimental communities.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/47785/1/442_2004_Article_BF00324643.pd