No abstract

The Natura 2000 network is regarded as one of the conservation success stories in the global effort to protect biodiversity. However, significant challenges remain in Natura 2000 implementation, owing to its rapid expansion, and lack of a coherent vision for its future. Scientific research is critical for identifying conservation priorities, setting management goals, and reconciling biodiversity protection and society in the complex political European landscape. Thus, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive evaluation of published Natura 2000 research to highlight prevalent research themes, disciplinary approaches, and spatial entities. We conducted a systematic review of 572 scientific articles and conference proceedings focused on Natura 2000 research, published between 1996 and 2014. We grouped these articles into ‘ecological’ and ‘social and policy’ categories. Using a novel application of network analysis of article keywords, we found that Natura 2000 research forms a cohesive small-world network, owing to the emphasis on ecological research (79% of studies, with a strong focus on spatial conservation planning), and the underrepresentation of studies addressing ‘social and policy’ issues (typically focused on environmental impact assessment, multi-level governance, agri-environment policy, and ecosystem services valuation). ‘Ecological’ and ‘social and policy’ research shared only general concepts (e.g., Natura 2000, Habitats Directive) suggesting a disconnection between these disciplines. The UK and the Mediterranean basin countries dominated Natura 2000 research, and there was a weak correlation between number of studies and proportion of national territory protected. Approximately 40% of ‘social and policy’ research and 26% of ‘ecological’ studies highlighted negative implications of Natura 2000, while 21% of studies found positive social and biodiversity effects. We emphasize the need for designing inter- and transdisciplinary research in order to promote a social-ecological understanding of Natura 2000, and advance EU conservation policies.

Achieving coexistence between large carnivores and humans in human‐dominated landscapes (HDLs) is a key challenge for societies globally. This challenge cannot be adequately met with the current sectoral approaches to HDL governance and an academic community largely dominated by disciplinary sectors. Academia (universities and other research institutions and organizations) should take a more active role in embracing societal challenges around conservation of large carnivores in HDLs by facilitating cross‐sectoral cooperation to mainstream coexistence of humans and large carnivores. Drawing on lessons from populated regions of Europe, Asia, and South America with substantial densities of large carnivores, we suggest academia should better embrace the principles and methods of sustainability sciences and create institutional spaces for the implementation of transdisciplinary curricula and projects; reflect on research approaches (i.e., disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary) they apply and how their outcomes could aid leveraging institutional transformations for mainstreaming; and engage with various institutions and stakeholder groups to create novel institutional structures that can respond to multiple challenges of HDL management and human–large carnivore coexistence. Success in mainstreaming this coexistence in HDL will rest on the ability to think and act cooperatively. Such a conservation achievement, if realized, stands to have far‐reaching benefits for people and biodiversity.

No abstract

Summary Large carnivore management is often contentious, particularly in jurisdictions where hunting and conservation efforts collide. Regulated hunting is a common management tool, yet relevant decisions are commonly taken in the absence of reliable population data and are driven by factors other than biological considerations. We used European large carnivore (brown bear Ursus arctos, wolf Canis lupus and Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx) management to evaluate the biological plausibility of reported population estimates used in hunting decisions. We used Romania as a test case as this region is not only data‐poor, but the public and private game managers are beneficiaries of revenue from hunting activities. We assessed the following: (i) how population growth rates calculated from reported abundances between 2005 and 2012 compared to published growth rates empirically derived from European and North American populations; (ii) whether biological unrealism compounded through time by testing whether reported estimates fell within the bounds of biologically plausible trajectories; and (iii) the relationship between the occurrence of biologically unrealistic estimates and financial incentives (amount of hunting). For U. arctos, which generates high revenue, estimated annual population growth rates were frequently greater than maximum published growth rates (up to 1·5 for reported versus 1·136 in the literature). Reported estimates were greater than maximum simulated populations in 32% of cases, and the difference was positively correlated with hunting (rs = 0·576). Population growth rates for C. lupus overshot the maximum published growth rate (1·35) less frequently, reported estimates were within the bounds of biologically plausible estimates (91% of cases), and there was a weak correlation between hunting and biologically unrealistic estimates (rs = 0·182). L. lynx population growth rates derived from reported estimates were lower than minimum simulated populations (60% of cases), and there was a weak correlation between hunting and biologically unrealistic estimates (rs = 0·164). Synthesis and applications. Our study suggests that comparing population estimates used by management agencies to demographic data obtained through rigorous peer‐reviewed studies is a useful approach for evaluating the biological plausibility of wildlife data in data‐poor systems, especially when management decisions might be influenced by non‐scientific incentives.