A significant portion of our planet’s biological diversity is threatened with extinction. Species have been eliminated, and habitats are undergoing massive transformations as a direct result of human impacts on the environment. Advances in the science of conservation have enhanced our ability to conserve species and ecological communities. For example, in its most applied form, population viability analysis (PVA) has emerged over time as the most effective process by which human-mediated threats to wildlife populations and habitats are identified and prioritized, alternative management options are defined and evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in promoting demographic stability within declining populations, and strategies for long-term conservation are developed and made operational (Lacy 1993/1994, Lindenmayer at al. 2000; Reed et al. 2002). As such, PVA is playing an increasingly central role in the formulation of long-term recovery plans for threatened and endangered species worldwide.
However, our ability to understand the complex factors that ultimately result in wildlife population decline and extinction – such as over-harvesting, habitat degradation through introduction of pollutants, and land cover change – is still in its infancy. Although we know that such threats can influence the long-term survival of many wildlife populations, we have more limited understanding of the interactions among complex biological, physical, and human phenomenon that create these situations. This gap in our knowledge of the human – wildlife interface largely stems from the fact that social scientists concerned with natural resource use have historically played a very limited role in conservation biology research. This limited involvement comes despite the growing acknowledgment by population biologists and simulation modelers that this additional input is necessary for these models to accurately reflect the impact of humans and human-dominated landscapes on these wildlife populations (Nyhus et al. 2002; Lacy and Miller, 2002).
This infrequent use of social science data comes about for several reasons. First, wildlife population risk assessment models are often not designed to incorporate non-animal biological data. The wildlife biologists who develop and use PVA models are generally not sufficiently aware of the social sciences to unilaterally incorporate available knowledge about human systems into projections of the impacts of those systems on wildlife. Second, conservation biology has traditionally not been an area of research for social scientists such as human population demographers that interested in the modeling process. Where human dimension data have been included, they are often based on broad assumptions or limited empirical data. For example, human demographic models exist to project macro-demographic patterns (McDevitt 1998) but the extension of these projections to include the quantification of a variety of activities by population subsets (e.g., young males ages 15-19) and their effects on specific wildlife populations is considerably more challenging (Ness 1997). Moreover, examples of analyses of the impacts of governmental policies, property rights, economic policies, and human value systems on biodiversity, ecosystems, and harvested species have been described (Perrings et al. 1995) but linkages to wildlife population processes have not yet been well specified. Put into terms derived from Stacey’s (1996) Complexity Matrix, problems that are “far from land” both in terms of our understanding of the relevant information and our agreement on the scope of the issue require true interdisciplinary research to solve effectively.
The Stacey Complexity Matrix. (In Westley and Miller 2003, adapted from Stacey 1996).
In an attempt to address this important issue, a research group led by Frances Westley (University of Wisconsin), Bob Lacy (Chicago Zoological Society / CBSG), Philip Nyhus (Colby College) and Phil Miller (CBSG) developed a project in 2000 entitled Models and Meta-Networks for Interdisciplinary Research in Biodiversity Risk Assessment", funded by the US National Science Foundation's Biocomplexity in the Environment competition. This "incubation grant" was a continuation of a Human Dimensions Network project that was coordinated by Frances Westley and funded through Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council from 1997 to 1999. Through these efforts, we have argued that scientists from outside the traditional biological community can - and should - play a larger role in developing new conceptual and simulation tools for biodiversity risk assessment, such as CBSG's PHVA and CAMP workshop processes.
Our research group is interested in bringing together a diverse assemblage of specialists in the natural and social sciences in order to promote efforts to enhance risk assessment models that explicitly incorporate quantitative data on human population dynamics and associated processes. Our "meta-network" strives to develop a set of collaborations around specific biocomplexity themes such as the economics of wildlife harvesting and the ecology of wildlife disease. Interorganizational collaboration is widely regarded as essential for resolving similar domain problems (MacNeill 1991) but our understanding of what processes result in successful collaborations is much less clear (Gray 1989). A deeper understanding of these processes will have significant implications for policy and decision-makers (Westley and Vredenburg 1996) as well as how these networks can more efficiently operate. This network of specialists provides a forum to integrate modeling tools; integrate expertise; expand the inclusion of individuals, methods, and institutions than might otherwise collaborate; and examine and monitor the implications of this integration for future biocomplexity research..
This has been an unparalleled opportunity for a truly creative synthesis of diverse methodologies as we continue to draw upon a global network of researchers already linked through CBSG and related activities. In addition, our research efforts led to the publication of a book by Island Press in 2003 entitled Experiments in Consilience: Integrating Social and Scientific Responses to Save Endangered Species, co-edited by Frances Westley and Phil Miller. The book describes our conceptual approach to the problems of biocomplexity in conservation biology, chronicles the birth and early learning stages of our research network, and then tells the story of our travels through six Population and Habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA) workshops across four continents that embodied case studies of our evolving approach to transdisciplinarity in endangered species conservation planning.
For more information on purchasing your own copy of Experiments in Consilience, click here.
References
Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lacy, R. C. 1993/1994. What is Population (and Habitat) Viability Analysis? Primate Conservation 14/15:27-33.
Lacy, R.C., and P.S. Miller. 2002. Incorporating human activities and economics into PVA. Pages 490 – 510 in: Beissinger, S. and D. McCullough (eds.), Population Viability Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lindenmayer, D.B., R.C. Lacy, and M.L. Pope. 2000. Testing a simulation model for population viability analysis. Ecological Applications 20:580-597.
MacNeill, J., P. Winsemius, and T. Yakushiji. 1991. Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.
McDevitt, T. M. 1998. World Population Profile: 1998. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ness, G. D. 1997. Population and Strategy for National Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan Publications, Ltd.
Nyhus, P.J., F.R. Westley, R.C. Lacy, and P.S. Miller. 2002. A role for natural resource social science in biodiversity risk assessment. Society and Natural Resources 15:923-932.
Perrings, C.A., K.-G. Mäler, C. Folke, C.S. Hollings, and B.O. Jansson. 1995b. Biodiversity Loss: Economic and Ecological Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reed, J.M., L.S. Mills, J.B. Dunning Jr., E.S. Menges, K.S. McKelvey, R. Frye, S.R. Beissinger, M.-C. Anstett, and P.S. Miller. 2002. Emerging issues in population viability analysis. Conservation Biology 16:7-19.
Westley, F.W., and P.S. Miller (eds.). 2003. Experiments in Consilience: Integrating Social and Scientific Responses to Save Endangered Species. Island Press, Washington DC.
Westley, F. , and H. Vredenburg. 1996. Rethinking sustainability: Criteria for aligning economic practice with environmental protection. Journal of Management Inquiry 5 (2):104-119.
