Interdisciplinarity in biodiversity project evaluation: a work in progress
Ross Cullen A and Piran C. L. White B CA Faculty of Commerce, Lincoln University, PO Box 85084, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand.
B Environment Department, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom.
C Corresponding author. Email: piran.white@york.ac.uk
Wildlife Research 40(2) 163-168 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12205
Submitted: 1 December 2012 Accepted: 1 May 2013 Published: 21 May 2013
Abstract
A range of methodological frameworks is available to assist decision-makers with evaluations of projects concerned with biodiversity conservation (the protection, management or restoration of biodiversity), but their uptake has been relatively limited. Some researchers suggest a lack of research interest to be one contributory factor, in particular in relation to the application of interdisciplinary approaches that integrate methods from the natural and social sciences, despite the insights that such approaches can bring. We evaluated this assertion by examining the provenance of some examples of current research in this area. Specifically, we compared two exemplar papers published in a conservation journal and one in an interdisciplinary ecological economics journal. We scored the cited references in each paper according to standard subject categories. These scores were then weighted and aggregated to give an overall quantified subject category distribution for each of the three focal papers. Comparison of the three papers revealed an expected dominance of subject categories most closely aligned with ecological science. However, there were different patterns of provenance in the three papers. One paper from the conservation journal was dominated by citations of other papers in the biodiversity conservation literature. The second paper from the conservation journal and the paper from the ecological economics journal displayed similar overall patterns of disciplinary provenance, although they diverged in disciplinary provenance for the less commonly cited disciplines, such as the social sciences. Our results suggest that research in biodiversity project evaluation may be developing along at least three, relatively distinct, pathways rather than as a genuinely interconnected research theme. This is likely to hinder progress in research but also in practical application of the techniques, in terms of reducing the likelihood of identifying inadequate, inappropriate or inefficient conservation investments. There is still considerable opportunity for further collaboration in the areas of biodiversity evaluation among researchers in a range of disciplines, including ecology, economics, statistics, forestry and wildlife management. Biodiversity conservation evaluation is a growing field, but its potential is unlikely to be fulfilled unless biodiversity researchers seek to develop a more integrated community, and particularly, to learn from researchers in other disciplines where evaluation has a longer history.
References
Baumgärtner, S., Becker, C., Faber, M., and Manstetten, R. (2006). Relative and absolute scarcity of nature. Assessing the roles of economics and ecology for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Economics 59, 487–498.| Relative and absolute scarcity of nature. Assessing the roles of economics and ecology for biodiversity conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bottrill, M. C., Hockings, M., and Possingham, H. P. (2011). In pursuit of knowledge: addressing barriers to effective conservation evaluation. Ecology and Society 16, 14.
Busch, J., and Cullen, R. (2009). Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of yellow-eyed penguin recovery. Ecological Economics 68, 762–776.
| Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of yellow-eyed penguin recovery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Butchart, S. H., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P., Almond, R. E., Baillie, J. E., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K. E., Carr, G. M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A. M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N. C., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J. N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R. D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J. F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M. A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Hernández Morcillo, M., Oldfield, T. E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J. R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S. N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T. D., Vié, J. C., and Watson, R. (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164–1168.
| Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXmsVGjsb0%3D&md5=b944e5c50d6f11e52acd4e45b6812177CAS | 20430971PubMed |
Cook, C. N., Hockings, M., and Carter, R. (2010). Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8, 181–186.
| Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Costanza, R., and Daly, H.E. (1992). Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology 6, 37–46.
| Natural capital and sustainable development.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cullen, R. (2013). Biodiversity protection prioritisation: a 25-year review. Wildlife Research 40, 108–116.
| Biodiversity protection prioritisation: a 25-year review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Daily, G. C., and Ehrlich, P. R. (1999). Managing earth’s ecosystems: an interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 2, 277–280.
| Managing earth’s ecosystems: an interdisciplinary challenge.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ferraro, P. J., and Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4, e105.
| Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16602825PubMed |
Grantham, H. S., Wilson, K. A., Moilanen, A., Rebelo, T., and Possingham, H. P. (2009). Delaying conservation actions for improved knowledge: how long should we wait? Ecology Letters 12, 293–301.
| Delaying conservation actions for improved knowledge: how long should we wait?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19243409PubMed |
Honey-Roses, J., Baylis, K., and Ramirez, I. (2011). Do our conservation programs work? A spatially explicit estimator of avoided forest loss. Conservation Biology 25, 1032–1043.
| 21902720PubMed |
Howe, C., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2012a). Evaluating indices of conservation success: a comparative analysis of outcome- and output-based indices. Animal Conservation 15, 217–226.
| Evaluating indices of conservation success: a comparative analysis of outcome- and output-based indices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Howe, C., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2012b). The view from the office is not all bad: conservation evaluation as a ‘sexy’ research goal. Animal Conservation 15, 231–232.
| The view from the office is not all bad: conservation evaluation as a ‘sexy’ research goal.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Innes, J., Lee, W. G., Burns, B., Campbell-Hunt, C., Watts, C., Phipps, H., and Stephens, T. (2012). Role of predator-proof fences in restoring New Zealand’s biodiversity: a response to Scofield et al. (2011). New Zealand Journal of Ecology 36, 232–238.
IUCN (2012) ‘The IUCN Red List.’ Available at http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/our_work/the_iucn_red_list/ [verified October 2012].
Laycock, H., Moran, D., Smart, J., Raffaelli, D., and White, P. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending. Ecological Economics 70, 1789–1796.
| Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Laycock, H. F., Moran, D., Raffaelli, D. G., and White, P. C. L. (2013). Biological and operational determinants of the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation programs. Wildlife Research 40, 142–152.
| Biological and operational determinants of the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation programs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lowe, P., Whitman, G., and Phillipson, J. (2009). Ecology and the social sciences. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 297–305.
| Ecology and the social sciences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McCarthy, D., Donald, P. F., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Buchana, G. M., Balmford, A., Green, J. M. H., Bennun, L. A., Burgess, N. D., Fishpool, L. D. C., Garnett, S. T., Leonard, D. L., Maloney, R. F., Morling, P., Schaefer, H. M., Symes, A., Weidenfeld, D. A., and Butchart, S. H. M. (2012). Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs. Science 338, 946–949.
| Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38Xhs1GntL7K&md5=97728c0f0fdbff848cd8e32e54954dbeCAS | 23065904PubMed |
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). ‘Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses: Findings of the Responses Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.’ (Island Press: Washington, DC.).
Murdoch, W., Polasky, S., Wilson, K. A., Possingham, H. P., Kareiva, P., and Shaw, R. (2007). Maximizing return on conservation investment. Biological Conservation 139, 375–388.
| Maximizing return on conservation investment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Phillipson, J., Lowe, P., Proctor, A., and Ruto, E. (2012). Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. Journal of Environmental Management 95, 56–65.
| Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22115511PubMed |
Possingham, H. P. (2012). How can we sell evaluating, analyzing and synthesizing to young scientists? Animal Conservation 15, 229–230.
| How can we sell evaluating, analyzing and synthesizing to young scientists?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M., Stone, D. A., and Charman, K. (2004). Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation 119, 245–252.
| Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417–2431.
| Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Salafsky, N., and Margoluis, R. (1999). Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation Biology 13, 830–841.
| Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Scofield, P., and Cullen, R. (2012). Fenced sanctuaries need critical evaluation: a reply to Innes et al. (2012). New Zealand Journal of Ecology 36, 239–242.
Scofield, P., Cullen, R., and Wang, M. (2011). Are predator proof fences the answer to New Zealand’s terrestrial faunal biodiversity crisis? New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35, 312–317.
Shwiff, S. A., Sterner, R. T., Turman, J. W., and Foster, B. D. (2005). Ex post economic analysis of reproduction-monitoring and predator-removal variables associated with protection of the endangered California least tern. Ecological Economics 53, 277–287.
| Ex post economic analysis of reproduction-monitoring and predator-removal variables associated with protection of the endangered California least tern.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M., and Knight, T. M. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, 305–308.
| The need for evidence-based conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tisdell, C. A. (1991). ‘Economics of Environmental Conservation.’ (Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK.)
Walsh, J. C., Wilson, K. A., Benshemesh, J., and Possingham, H. P. (2012). Unexpected outcomes of invasive predator control: the importance of evaluating conservation management actions. Animal Conservation 15, 319–328.
| Unexpected outcomes of invasive predator control: the importance of evaluating conservation management actions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
White, P. C. L., Cinderby, S., Raffaelli, D., de Bruin, A., Holt, A., and Huby, M. (2009). Enhancing the effectiveness of policy-relevant integrative research in rural areas. Area 41, 414–424.
| Enhancing the effectiveness of policy-relevant integrative research in rural areas.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
