Diogo Veríssimo

Scientific Evidence Supports a Ban on Microbeads

Chelsea M. Rochman,*,†,‡ Sara M. Kross,†,§ Jonathan B. Armstrong,†,∥,@ Michael T. Bogan,†,⊥,@ Emily S. Darling,†,#,@ Stephanie J. Green,†,¶,@ Ashley R. Smyth,†,▲,@ and Diogo Verissimo†,▼,@ †David H. Smith Conservation Research Program, Society for Conservation Biology, Washington, DC 20001, United States ‡School of Veterinary Medicine, Aquatic Health Program, University of California Davis, Davis, California 95616, United States Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, University of California Davis, Davis, California 95616-8627, United States USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, United States Department of Environmental Science, Management and Policy, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720-3114, United States Marine Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York 10460-1099, United States Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, United States Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062, United States Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Department of Economics, Georgia State University, 33 Gilmer Street SE, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, United States

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to societys understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers-ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity-to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy-influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science-one that includes the natural and social sciences-will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.

The effectiveness of celebrities in conservation marketing

Celebrities are frequently used in conservation marketing as a tool to raise awareness, generate funding and effect behaviour change. The importance of evaluating effectiveness is widely recognised in both marketing and conservation but, to date, little research into the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement as a tool for conservation marketing has been published. Using a combination of interviews and an online choice survey instrument, we investigated the extent to which a sample of UK-based conservation organisations, and other charities, evaluate their own usage of celebrity endorsement, and then carried out an experimental evaluation of a hypothetical marketing campaign. This experiment compared participants willingness-to-engage (WTE) with, and recall of, a conservation message presented in versions of an advert featuring one of three prominent UK celebrities (David Beckham, Chris Packham or HRH Prince William) or a non-celebrity control treatment (featuring Crawford Allan, a director of TRAFFIC USA). We find that the organisations we interviewed did not routinely evaluate their marketing campaigns featuring celebrities. Furthermore, our experiment provides evidence that celebrity endorsement can produce both positive and negative effects. Participants were more willing to engage when presented with an advert featuring one of the three celebrities than the non-celebrity control, and WTE varied according to the characteristics of the celebrity and the respondent. However, celebrities were less effective at generating campaign message recall than non-celebrities. These findings suggest that celebrity endorsement should be used carefully. Further work is required to fully understand the role celebrity endorsers can play in conservation but, drawing on best practice from the field of marketing, this study introduces an approach to evaluation which could be applied more widely to improve the effectiveness of conservation marketing.

First record of Cercosaura eigenmanni (Griffin, 1917) (Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae) for the state of Acre, Brazil

A female specimen of Cercosaura eigenmanni (Griffin, 1917) was found during fieldwork in the Extractive Reserve Chico Mendes, municipality of Brasileia, state of Acre, Brazil. This is the first record of the species for this state, extending the known distribution of the species by 465 km.

Does It Work for Biodiversity? Experiences and Challenges in the Evaluation of Social Marketing Campaigns:

There is a growing realization among conservationists that human behavior is the main driver of all key threats to biodiversity and the environment. This realization has led to an escalation of the efforts to influence human behavior toward the adoption of more sustainable alternatives, more recently through the use of social marketing theory and tools. However, these initiatives have traditionally suffered from a lack of robust impact evaluation, which limits not only accountability but also a practitioner’s ability to learn and improve over time. We evaluated three social marketing campaigns conducted in the Philippines, which aimed at increasing the sustainability of local fisheries. To achieve this, we used the results not only from questionnaire surveys but also from biological and enforcement data. We found that although there is some evidence of impact around human behavior and perceptions of conservation results, those changes did not translate into biological outcomes during the 2-year time frame considered in this evaluation. We discuss many of the barriers to causal inference that still remain, particularly if causal links between outcomes and specific interventions are to be drawn, but also showcase how this current methodology can help us go further than the more basic approaches to impact evaluation commonly used. Lastly, we highlight a number of lessons learned from this experience in seeking a practical, ethical, and effective approach to impact evaluation.

Why do people donate to conservation? Insights from a ‘real world’ campaign

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play a key role in biodiversity conservation. The majority of these organisations rely on public donations to fund their activities, and therefore fundraising success is a determinant of conservation outcomes. In spite of this integral relationship, the key principals for fundraising success in conservation are still guided by expert opinion and anecdotal evidence, with very few quantitative studies in the literature. Here we assessed the behaviour of monetary donors across twenty-five different species-focused conservation campaigns organised by an NGO conservation and environmental society. The Australian Geographic Society (AGS) carried out fundraising campaigns over a five and half year period using an identical methodology in thirty-four of its country-wide network of outlet shops. AGS owns and operates these shops that sell toys and games related to science and nature. We tested how the following factors influenced monetary donations from members of the public:1) campaign duration, 2) appeal and familiarity of species, 3) species geographic distribution relative to the fundraising location, 4) level of income and education of potential donors, 5) age and gender profile of potential donors. Contrary to past research, we found most of these factors did not significantly influence the amount of donations made to each campaign by members of the public. Larger animals did elicit a significantly higher amount donated per transaction than smaller animals, as did shops located in poorer neighbourhoods. Our study findings contrast with past research that has focused largely on hypothetical donations data collected via surveys, and demonstrates the complexity and case-specific nature of relationships between donor characteristics and spending patterns. The study highlights the value of assessing real-world fundraising campaigns, and illustrates how collaboration between academia and NGOs could be used to better tailor fundraising campaigns to maximise donations from individual citizens.

Investigating the impact of media on demand for wildlife: A case study of Harry Potter and the UK trade in owls.

In recent decades, a substantial number of popular press articles have described an increase in demand for certain species in the pet trade due to films such as “Finding Nemo”, “Ninja turtles”, and “Harry Potter”. Nevertheless, such assertions are largely supported only by anecdotal evidence. Given the role of the wildlife trade in the spread of pathogens and zoonosis, the introduction of invasive species, the overexploitation of biodiversity, and the neglect of animal welfare, it is crucial to understand what factors drive demand for a species. Here, we investigate the effect the movie industry may have on wildlife trade by examining the relationship between the “Harry Potter” cultural phenomenon and the trade in owls within the United Kingdom (UK). We gathered data from the UK box office, book sales, and newspaper mentions, and examined their relationship with data from three independent sources reflecting the legal ownership of owls in the UK, which is likely to involve several thousands of animals. Additionally, we conducted a questionnaire survey with UK animal sanctuaries to study the presumed mass abandonment of pet owls when the film series ended. Counter to common assertions, we find no evidence that the “Harry Potter” phenomenon increased the legal trade in owls within the UK, even when possible time-lag effects were taken into account. Only one indicator, the number of movie tickets sold, showed a weak but contradictory relationship with demand for owls, with a recorded drop of 13% (95% CI: 3–27%) per 1 SD in tickets sold in the original analysis but an increase of 4% (95% CI: 0–8%) with a one-year lag. In addition, our results suggest that the end of the Harry Potter series did not have a noticeable impact on the number of owls abandoned in UK wildlife sanctuaries, as only two of the 46 animal sanctuaries we contacted independently stated they had seen an increase in owls received and believed this was due to the Harry Potter series. We highlight the importance of further research on the drivers of demand for wildlife to better manage this global trade, and discuss the potential to use films to positively influence behaviour.

Correction to Scientific Evidence Supports a Ban on Microbeads.

We made a transcription error in a calculation used in our Viewpoint article titled “Scientific Evidence Supports a Ban on Microbeads”. As a result, the following corrections should be made. Page 10759. In the beginning of the last paragraph it should read, “WWTPs in the United States are collectively capable of treating >160 billion L of water everyday. Using a conservative estimate, assuming all WWTPs operate at half capacity (i.e., treating 80 billion L/. . .”. Page 10760. In the figure, the first text box on the far right should read, “We estimate that 808 billion microbeads. . .”, the middle text box on the top should read, “We estimate that 8 billion microbeads. . .”, and the bottom text box should read, “Sludge is often land-applied as fertilizer and the remaining 800 billion microbeads. . .”. In addition, the figure should not have any citations/references. Page 10760. The first paragraph should read, “we calculate that 8 billion microbeads per day are emitted into aquatic habitats in the United States (Figure 1). This equals 2.9 trillion beads per year. If you line these microbeads up end to end, assuming they are 100 μm spheres, the United States emits enough microbeads to wrap around the planet >7 times. If we assume 99% of microbeads are captured during sedimentation, the remaining 800 billion microbeads settle into the sludge.”.