Scientists, managers, and assisted colonization: Four contrasting perspectives entangle science and policy

Abstract

Assisted colonization is a contentious climate change adaptation strategy, but we have limited understanding of the bases of disagreement amongst scientists and far less has been done to understand the views of other stakeholders. To establish an initial empirical understanding of the terms of the debate, we conducted a Q method study of the views of scientists and resource managers, a key constituency because of their role in decisionmaking and implementation. We asked 24 forest managers in Ontario, Canada and 26 top-publishing ecologists and conservation biologists to evaluate their level of agreement with 33 statements about assisted colonization from the published literature and other relevant sources. The analysis revealed four main, contrasting perspectives, which we label Ecological Interventionist, Nativist Technocrat, Interventionist Technocrat, and Reluctant Interventionist; all but the Nativist Technocrats were open to assisted colonization. Disagreements between the four perspectives were defined by value-based and policy-strategic considerations at least as much as they were by varied understandings of technical issues. Assisted colonization as a climate adaptation strategy exists within the context of multiple competing and incompatible problem definitions even amongst these technical stakeholders. Based upon our findings and the relevant literature, we conclude that disputes surrounding assisted colonization will likely not be settled by additional scientific research. Rather, underlying non-technical considerations need to be brought to the fore and addressed.

Understanding the human dimensions of coexistence between carnivores and people: A case study in Namibia

“…In particular, statements that received the highest and lowest z-scores and that had statistical agreements and disagreements between factor groups were described using responses to the open-ended questions (Webler et al, 2009). The resulting narratives are a product of a holistic analysis of these data (Neff & Larson, 2014).…”

A productive role for science in assisted colonization policy

“…The prominence with which conservation authors feature the Torreya case study suggests another reason why assisted colonization has become so controversial: it demonstrates that management activities are not waiting for a consensus from the conservation biology community. A recent Q‐method study seeking to pinpoint the sources of controversy among conservation scientists and managers offers empirical evidence that scientists and managers are concerned about the locus of decision‐making for these management activities . That study found that central to the dispute are: questions of who has decision‐making authority, the extent to which the general public should participate in the process, and whether political jurisdictions need to rethink endangered species protection laws in order to facilitate this form of conservation management.…”

Reconstructing a deconstructed concept: Policy tools for implementing assisted migration for species and ecosystem management

“…Despite the fierce debate that AM has recently produced between opposing actors who see more risks than benefits in AM initiatives and those seeking to act in the face of climate change threats (see Neff and Larson, 2014 and references therein), AM could be nevertheless seen simply as an extension of the practices of translocation and reintroduction of endangered species. In fact, the distinction between translocations and AM is becoming increasingly artificial because climate change makes parts of the historic ranges of many species unsuitable as reintroduction recipient sites (Dalrymple et al, 2011).…”