When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research.

Understanding human perspectives is critical in a range of conservation contexts, for example, in overcoming conflicts or developing projects that are acceptable to relevant stakeholders. The Q methodology is a unique semiquantitative technique used to explore human perspectives. It has been applied for decades in other disciplines and recently gained traction in conservation. This paper helps researchers assess when Q is useful for a given conservation question and what its use involves. To do so, we explained the steps necessary to conduct a Q study, from the research design to the interpretation of results. We provided recommendations to minimize biases in conducting a Q study, which can affect mostly when designing the study and collecting the data. We conducted a structured literature review of 52 studies to examine in what empirical conservation contexts Q has been used. Most studies were subnational or national cases, but some also address multinational or global questions. We found that Q has been applied to 4 broad types of conservation goals: addressing conflict, devising management alternatives, understanding policy acceptability, and critically reflecting on the values that implicitly influence research and practice. Through these applications, researchers found hidden views, understood opinions in depth and discovered points of consensus that facilitated unlocking difficult disagreements. The Q methodology has a clear procedure but is also flexible, allowing researchers explore long-term views, or views about items other than statements, such as landscape images. We also found some inconsistencies in applying and, mainly, in reporting Q studies, whereby it was not possible to fully understand how the research was conducted or why some atypical research decisions had been taken in some studies. Accordingly, we suggest a reporting checklist.NM was funded by NERC grant (NE/R006946/1), Fondation Wiener Anspach and Scriven post-doctoral fellowship

Impacts of Climate Change on Small Pelagic Fish Catches in the Coastal Artisanal Fishers Communities of Tanzania

Climate-related effects occur across all regions in Tanzania, affecting primary sectors such as agriculture and fishing. This study investigated the impacts of climatic change on small pelagic catches in fishers in Kilindoni, Kipumbwi and Kilwa Kivinje villages along the Tanzanian coast. We studied how changes in rainfall, sea surface temperature, wind speed and chlorophyll a affect small pelagic fisheries using primary and secondary data. Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied. Primary data collection involved questionnaires, focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Secondary data was obtained from Tanzania Meteorological Agency and remote sensing from Modi's sensor. Results showed an increase in sea surface temperature (tau = 0.0151, 0.0121, 0.0238 for Kilindoni, Kilwa Kivinje and Kipumbwi, respectively) and unpredictable changes in rainfall patterns which affected small pelagic fisheries. The average rainfall was 284.6, 97.5 and 56.4 mm in Kilindoni, Kilwa Kivinje and Kipumbwi, respectively. In recent years, rain has been unreliable compared to the past 20 years. Unpredictable rainfall, increased sea surface temperature, wind speed and chlorophyll a had negatively impacted the small pelagic fishery. There was a strong relationship between the decline of small pelagic catches and climatic variables. The findings of this study have implications for coastal fisher's livelihood, income and food security. Keywords:  Coastal communities; small pelagic fishery; climate change; fisheries; livelihoo

Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision-making

1. Decision‐making is a complex process that typically includes a series of stages: identifying the issue, considering possible options, making judgements and then making a decision by combining information and values. The current status quo relies heavily on the informational aspect of decision‐making with little or no emphasis on the value positions that affect decisions. 2. There is increasing realization of the importance of adopting rigorous methods for each stage such that the information, views and judgements of stakeholders and experts are used in a systematic and repeatable manner. Though there are several methodological textbooks which discuss a plethora of social science techniques, it is hard to judge the suitability of any given technique for a given decision problem. 3. In decision‐making, the three critical aspects are “what” decision is to be made, “who” makes the decisions and “how” the decisions are made. The methods covered in this paper focus on “how” decisions can be made. We compare six techniques: Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Interviews, Q methodology, Multi‐criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi technique specifically in the context of biodiversity conservation. All of these techniques (with the exception of MCDA) help in understanding human values and the underlying perspectives which shape decisions. 4. Based on structured reviews of 423 papers covering all six methods, we compare the conceptual and logistical characteristics of the methods, and map their suitability for the different stages of the decision‐making process. While interviews and FGD are well‐known, techniques such the Nominal Group technique and Q methodology are relatively under‐used. In situations where conflict is high, we recommend using the Q methodology and Delphi technique to elicit judgements. Where conflict is low, and a consensus is needed urgently, the Nominal Group technique may be more suitable. 5. We present a nuanced synthesis of methods aimed at users. The comparison of the different techniques might be useful for project managers, academics or practitioners in the planning phases of their projects and help in making better informed methodological choices.N.M. was funded by the Fondation Wiener Anspach and the Scriven post doctoral fellowship. J.H. is funded by the Belgian National Fund for Research (FRS‐FNRS) and the KLIMOS‐ACROPOLIS project. N.T.O. was funded by Cambridge Overseas Trusts, The Wildlife Conservation Society, Wildlife Conservation Network and WildiZe Foundation. B.A.E. is funded by EU Horizon 2020 ESMERALDA Project, grant agreement no. 642007. W.J.S. is funded by Arcadia

Sustainability in a changing world: integrating human health and wellbeing, urbanisation, and ecosystem services

There is an urgent need to address interlinked sustainability issues in a world challenged by inequality, finite resources and unprecedented changes across Earth’s systems. As Future Earth Fellows, based on our collective expertise in a diverse range of sustainability issues, here we identify a specific need to recognise and respond appropriately to the nexus between human health and wellbeing, urbanisation, and ecosystem services (the ‘WUE nexus’). This nexus is a priority area for research, policy and practice. In particular, it provides a useful pathway to meet the challenges of successful implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In this brief, we present the following policy recommendations:1. By emphasising urban-rural linkages, foster an integrated approach to ensure food security, food safety, and health promotion;2. Secure resilient livelihoods for all, in particular for vulnerable groups; and3. Integrate co-production of knowledge in science for decision-making, including the co-design of implementation frameworks, and the adoption of a nexus approach.<br/

The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions.

Conservation policy decisions can suffer from a lack of evidence, hindering effective decision-making. In nature conservation, studies investigating why policy is often not evidence-informed have tended to focus on Western democracies, with relatively small samples. To understand global variation and challenges better, we established a global survey aimed at identifying top barriers and solutions to the use of conservation science in policy. This obtained the views of 758 people in policy, practice, and research positions from 68 countries across six languages. Here we show that, contrary to popular belief, there is agreement between groups about how to incorporate conservation science into policy, and there is thus room for optimism. Barriers related to the low priority of conservation were considered to be important, while mainstreaming conservation was proposed as a key solution. Therefore, priorities should focus on convincing the public of the importance of conservation as an issue, which will then influence policy-makers to adopt pro-environmental long-term policies

Fishers who rely on mangroves: Modelling and mapping the global intensity of mangrove-associated fisheries

Mangroves are critical nursery habitats for fish and invertebrates, providing livelihoods for many coastal communities. Despite their importance, there is currently no estimate of the number of fishers engaged in mangrove associated fisheries, nor on the fishing intensity associated with mangroves at a global scale. We address these gaps by developing a global model of mangrove associated fisher numbers and mangrove fishing intensity. To develop the model, we undertook a three-round Delphi process with mangrove fisheries experts to identify the key drivers of mangrove fishing intensity. We then developed a conceptual model of intensity of mangrove fishing using those factors identified both as being important and for which appropriate global data could be found or developed. These factors were non-urban population, distance to market, distance to mangroves and other fishing grounds, and storm events. By projecting this conceptual model using geospatial datasets, we were able to estimate the number and distribution of mangrove associated fishers and the intensity of fishing in mangroves. We estimate there are 4.1 million mangrove associated fishers globally, with the highest number of mangrove fishers found in Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Brazil. Mangrove fishing intensity was greatest throughout Asia, and to a lesser extent West and Central Africa, and Central and South America

Unravelling the Scientific Debate on How to Address Wolf-Dog Hybridization in Europe

Anthropogenic hybridization is widely perceived as a threat to the conservation of biodiversity. Nevertheless, to date, relevant policy and management interventions are unresolved and highly convoluted. While this is due to the inherent complexity of the issue, we hereby hypothesize that a lack of agreement concerning management goals and approaches, within the scientific community, may explain the lack of social awareness on this phenomenon, and the absence of effective pressure on decision-makers. By focusing on wolf x dog hybridization in Europe, we hereby (a) assess the state of the art of issues on wolf x dog hybridization within the scientific community, (b) assess the conceptual bases for different viewpoints, and (c) provide a conceptual framework aiming at reducing the disagreements. We adopted the Delphi technique, involving a three-round iterative survey addressed to a selected sample of experts who published at Web of Science listed journals, in the last 10 years on wolf x dog hybridization and related topics. Consensus was reached that admixed individuals should always be defined according to their genetic profile, and that a reference threshold for admixture (i.e., q-value in assignment tests) should be formally adopted for their identification. To mitigate hybridization, experts agreed on adopting preventive, proactive and, when concerning small and recovering wolf populations, reactive interventions. Overall, experts' consensus waned as the issues addressed became increasingly practical, including the adoption of lethal removal. We suggest three non-mutually exclusive explanations for this trend: (i) value-laden viewpoints increasingly emerge when addressing practical issues, and are particularly diverging between experts with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., ecologists, geneticists); (ii) some experts prefer avoiding the risk of potentially giving carte blanche to wolf opponents to (illegally) remove wolves, based on the wolf x dog hybridization issue; (iii) room for subjective interpretation and opinions result from the paucity of data on the effectiveness of different management interventions. These results have management implications and reveal gaps in the knowledge on a wide spectrum of issues related not only to the management of anthropogenic hybridization, but also to the role of ethical values and real-world management concerns in the scientific debate

Ten-year assessment of the 100 priority questions for global biodiversity conservation

In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity ?Sutherland et al. (2009) Conservation Biology, 23, 557?567?. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high?priority questions in the peer?reviewed literature. Here we take a first step toward re?examining the 100 questions and identify key knowledge gaps that still remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each of the 100 questions on the basis of two criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly?relevant questions as those which ? if answered ? would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation, while effort was quantified based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past ten years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled three major themes: the conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, the role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and the impacts of conservation interventions. We see these questions as important knowledge gaps that have so far received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritised in future research