Nibedita Mukherjee

The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation: applications and guidelines

Summary 1. Many areas of science, including conservation and environmental management, regularly require engaging stakeholders or experts to produce consensus or technical inputs. The Delphi technique is an iterative and anonymous participatory method used for gathering and evaluating such expert-based knowledge. 2. We outline the methodology of the Delphi technique and provide a taxonomy of its main variants. In addition, we refine the technique by providing suggestions to address common limitations (e.g. time consumption, attrition rate) in order to make the method more suitable for application in ecology and conservation. 3. A comprehensive search for studies that have applied the Delphi technique in conservation and environmental management resulted in 36 papers. The Delphi technique has been applied to a range of issues, including developing decision support systems and predicting ecological impacts of climate change. 4. The papers reviewed suggest that the Delphi technique is an efficient, inclusive, systematic and structured approach that can be used to address complex issues. A major strength compared to other group-based techniques is the reduced influence of social pressures among respondents. 5. The Delphi technique is relatively little used and seems undervalued. Given its wide range of possible applications, it could be applied more widely in evaluating evidence and providing expert judgments.

From Bathymetry to Bioshields: A Review of Post-Tsunami Ecological Research in India and its Implications for Policy

More than half a decade has passed since the December 26th 2004 tsunami hit the Indian coast leaving a trail of ecological, economic and human destruction in its wake. We reviewed the coastal ecological research carried out in India in the light of the tsunami. In addition, we also briefly reviewed the ecological research in other tsunami affected countries in Asia namely Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand and Maldives in order to provide a broader perspective of ecological research after tsunami. A basic search in ISI Web of Knowledge using keywords “tsunami” and “India” resulted in 127 peer reviewed journal articles, of which 39 articles were pertaining to ecological sciences. In comparison, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand and Maldives had, respectively, eight, four, 21 and two articles pertaining to ecology. In India, bioshields received the major share of scientific interest (14 out of 39) while only one study (each) was dedicated to corals, seagrasses, seaweeds and meiofauna, pointing to the paucity of research attention dedicated to these critical ecosystems. We noted that very few interdisciplinary studies looked at linkages between pure/applied sciences and the social sciences in India. In addition, there appears to be little correlation between the limited research that was done and its influence on policy in India. This review points to gap areas in ecological research in India and highlights the lessons learnt from research in other tsunami-affected countries. It also provides guidance on the links between science and policy that are required for effective coastal zone management.

Using expert knowledge and modeling to define mangrove composition, functioning, and threats and estimate time frame for recovery

Mangroves are threatened worldwide, and their loss or degradation could impact functioning of the ecosystem. Our aim was to investigate three aspects of mangroves at a global scale: (1) their constituents (2) their indispensable ecological functions, and (3) the maintenance of their constituents and functions in degraded mangroves. We focused on answering two questions: “What is a mangrove ecosystem” and “How vulnerable are mangrove ecosystems to different impacts”? We invited 106 mangrove experts globally to participate in a survey based on the Delphi technique and provide inputs on the three aspects. The outputs from the Delphi technique for the third aspect, i.e. maintenance of constituents and functions were incorporated in a modeling approach to simulate the time frame for recovery. Presented here for the first time are the consensus definition of the mangrove ecosystem and the list of mangrove plant species. In this study, experts considered even monospecific (tree) stands to be a mangrove ecosystem as long as there was adequate tidal exchange, propagule dispersal, and faunal interactions. We provide a ranking of the important ecological functions, faunal groups, and impacts on mangroves. Degradation due to development was identified as having the largest impact on mangroves globally in terms of spatial scale, intensity, and time needed for restoration. The results indicate that mangroves are ecologically unique even though they may be species poor (from the vegetation perspective). The consensus list of mangrove species and the ranking of the mangrove ecological functions could be a useful tool for restoration and management of mangroves. While there is ample literature on the destruction of mangroves due to aquaculture in the past decade, this study clearly shows that more attention must go to avoiding and mitigating mangrove loss due to coastal development (such as building of roads, ports, or harbors).

A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research

Interviews are a widely used methodology in conservation research. They are flexible, allowing in-depth analysis from a relatively small sample size and place the focus of research on the views of participants. While interviews are a popular method, several critiques have been raised in response to their use, including the lack of transparency in sampling strategy, choice of questions and mode of analysis. In this paper, we analyse the use of interviews in research aimed at making decisions for conservation. Through a structured review of 227 papers, we explore where, why and how interviews were used in the context of conservation decision making The review suggests that interviews are a widely used method for a broad range of purposes. These include gaining ecological and/or socio-economic information on specific conservation issues, understanding knowledge, values, beliefs or decision-making processes of stakeholders, and strengthening research design and output. The review, however, identifies a number of concerns. Researchers are not reporting fully on their interview methodology. Specifically, results indicate that researchers are: failing to provide a rationale as to why interviews are the most suitable method, not piloting the interviews (thus questions may be poorly designed), not outlining ethical considerations, not providing clear guides to analysis and not critically reviewing their use of interviews. Based on the results of the review, we provide a detailed checklist aimed at conservation researchers who wish to use interviews in their research (whether experienced in using the methodology or not), and journal editors and reviewers to ensure the robustness of interview methodology use. © 2018 The Authors. Methods in Ecology and Evolution © 2018 British Ecological Society

Policy windows for the environment: Tips for improving the uptake of scientific knowledge

(1) EU’s Seventh Framework Programme within the EU Biodiversity Observation Network (No. 308454) (2) Post-doctoral fellowship from Fondation Wiener Anspach, Belgium and the Scriven fellowship, (3) Cambridge Earth System Science NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1], (4) Austrian Science Fund (FWF), (5) Arcadia.

Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision‐making

1. Decision-making is a complex process that typically includes a series of stages: identifying the issue, considering possible options, making judgements and then making a decision by combining in ...

Comparing groups versus individuals in decision making: a systematic review protocol

BackgroundBiodiversity management requires effective decision making at various stages. However decision making in the real world is complex, driven by multiple factors and involves a range of stakeholders. Understanding the factors that influence decision making is crucial to addressing the conflicts that arise in conservation. Decisions can be made either by individuals or by groups. This precise context has been studied extensively for several decades by behavioural economists, social psychologists and intelligence analysts. The observations from these disciplines can offer useful insights for biodiversity conservation. A systematic review on group versus individual decision making is currently lacking. This systematic review would enable us to synthesize the key insights from these disciplines for a range of scenarios useful for conservation.MethodsThe review will document studies that have investigated differences between group and individual decision making. The focus will be on empirical studies; the comparators in this case are decisions made by individuals while the intervention is group decision making. Outcomes include level of bias in decision outcomes or group performance. The search terms will include various combinations of the words “group”, “individual” and “decision-making”. The searches will be conducted in major publication databases, google scholar and specialist databases. Articles will be screened at the title and abstract and full text level by two reviewers. After checking for internal validity, the articles will be synthesized into subsets of decision contexts in which decision making by groups and individuals have been compared. The review process, all extracted data, original studies identified in the systematic review process and inclusion and exclusion decisions will be freely available as Additional file 1 in the final review.

The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions

Abstract Conservation policy decisions can suffer from a lack of evidence, hindering effective decision‐making. In nature conservation, studies investigating why policy is often not evidence‐informed have tended to focus on Western democracies, with relatively small samples. To understand global variation and challenges better, we established a global survey aimed at identifying top barriers and solutions to the use of conservation science in policy. This obtained the views of 758 people in policy, practice, and research positions from 68 countries across six languages. Here we show that, contrary to popular belief, there is agreement between groups about how to incorporate conservation science into policy, and there is thus room for optimism. Barriers related to the low priority of conservation were considered to be important, while mainstreaming conservation was proposed as a key solution. Therefore, priorities should focus on convincing the public of the importance of conservation as an issue, which will then influence policy‐makers to adopt pro‐environmental long‐term policies.

Ten‐year assessment of the 100 priority questions for global biodiversity conservation

In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the worlds biodiversity. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high-priority questions in the peer-reviewed literature. We took a first step toward reexamining the 100 questions to identify key knowledge gaps that remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each question on the basis of 2 criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly relevant questions as those that - if answered - would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation and quantified effort based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach, we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past 10 years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled 3 major themes: conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and impacts of conservation interventions. We believe these questions represent important knowledge gaps that have received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritized in future research.

When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research: The Q methodology

Abstract Understanding human perspectives is critical in a range of conservation contexts, for example, in overcoming conflicts or developing projects that are acceptable to relevant stakeholders. The Q methodology is a unique semiquantitative technique used to explore human perspectives. It has been applied for decades in other disciplines and recently gained traction in conservation. This paper helps researchers assess when Q is useful for a given conservation question and what its use involves. To do so, we explained the steps necessary to conduct a Q study, from the research design to the interpretation of results. We provided recommendations to minimize biases in conducting a Q study, which can affect mostly when designing the study and collecting the data. We conducted a structured literature review of 52 studies to examine in what empirical conservation contexts Q has been used. Most studies were subnational or national cases, but some also address multinational or global questions. We found that Q has been applied to 4 broad types of conservation goals: addressing conflict, devising management alternatives, understanding policy acceptability, and critically reflecting on the values that implicitly influence research and practice. Through these applications, researchers found hidden views, understood opinions in depth and discovered points of consensus that facilitated unlocking difficult disagreements. The Q methodology has a clear procedure but is also flexible, allowing researchers explore long‐term views, or views about items other than statements, such as landscape images. We also found some inconsistencies in applying and, mainly, in reporting Q studies, whereby it was not possible to fully understand how the research was conducted or why some atypical research decisions had been taken in some studies. Accordingly, we suggest a reporting checklist.