Practitioner insights as a means of setting a context for conservation

Abstract

A key obstacle to conservation success is the tendency of conservation professionals to tackle each challenge individually rather than collectively and in context. We sought to prioritize barriers to conservation previously described in the conservation literature. We undertook an online survey of 154 practitioners from over 70 countries to ascertain the most important barriers to conservation they faced. We used statistical analyses to identify the key impediments to conservation success and to examine whether these were affected by organizational attributes. Twenty-one barriers were identified. The importance ascribed to those was influenced by continent of operation and organization size, but not by organization age or autonomy (from larger parent organizations). We found the most important barriers to consider when undertaking conservation action were wider issues (e.g., population growth, consumerism, favoring development, and industrial-scale activity), operating environment (e.g., lack of political will, ineffective law enforcement, weak governments, corruption, safety and security), community attributes (e.g., dynamics, conflicts, and education levels), and the way conservation is undertaken (overconfidence, lack of funding, and externally set agendas). However, we advise against applying a one-size-fits-all approach. We propose that conservationists account for the complex socioecological systems they operate in if they are to achieve success.

Mechanisms underlying altitudinal and horizontal range contraction: The western black crested gibbon

“…Fortunately, most gibbon populations and their habitats in Yunnan, China are within protected areas. Eliminating hunting and designing monitoring methods to evaluate and subsequently refine law enforcement in and around protected area, especially in lower altitude area is an urgent need (Fan et al., 2014; Sanders et al., 2019).…”

Using Theory of Change to improve post‐2020 conservation: A proposed framework and recommendations for use

“…Therefore, while “enablers” will be highly context‐specific, numerous scholars and practitioners, including the post‐2020 GBF, have highlighted several conservation “enablers” (see Table S2). These conservation “enablers” include, among others, the presence of collective recognition of a conservation problem, such as a degraded natural resource; political will and enabling legislation recognizing local and indigenous community institutions; promoting gender equality and empowerment, empowerment of actors to make, enforce and change rules (or at the least participate in these processes); equitable benefit‐sharing; high levels of alignment of the intervention with local context and priorities; and legitimately perceived “nested” institutional partnerships providing financial and technical support (Biggs et al, 2019; Sanders et al, 2019; CBD, 2020a; see Table S2 further). Finally, the presence of willing and motivated actors is a key enabler and overarching causal assumption.…”

“…Notwithstanding the potentially enabling “environment” produced by the presence of causal assumptions, “counter pressures” may result in “at‐risk” assumptions and their continued absence (Mayne, 2017a, p. 157). For example, high levels of poverty, elite‐capture of benefits, and a lack of political will commonly affect the causal assumptions made, and may even derail a conservation ToC pathway (Biggs et al, 2017; Sanders et al, 2019). Therefore, continuous evaluation of causal assumptions is required to reformulate actions, that is, Step (e) (Béné, Riba, & Wilson, 2020; Romero & Putz, 2018).…”

“…Therefore, while an intervention's actions influence the likely realization of a desired result, external influences can either enable or constrain this result. Common constraining external influences include a lack of scientific legitimacy toward the chosen conservation approach, a lack of political will or supporting policy, and a weak and/or corrupt government (Larrosa et al, 2016; Sanders et al, 2019). In contrast, commitments to international agreements such as the post‐2020 GBF may legitimize and stimulate national and local action.…”

“…Achieving desired temporal (and spatial) ecological outcomes is particularly challenging as these are frequently only feasible in the long term (Wilson et al, 2016). Furthermore, short‐term conservation project funding cycles have implications for conservation ToCs (Biggs et al, 2019; Sanders et al, 2019). Designing an appropriate temporal scale and addressing the contradictions between short‐term and long‐term goals is therefore of eminent importance.…”