N.J. Bennett – 2016 – ConBio - Using perceptions as evidence
1
Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and
environmental management
Nathan James Bennett
12
#
This is a post-print version of a published article. Please cite as:
Bennett, N. J. (2016) Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and
environmental management. Conservation Biology. In press.
Abstract
The conservation community is increasingly focusing on the monitoring and evaluation of
management, governance, ecological, and social considerations as part of a broader move toward
adaptive management and evidence-based conservation. Evidence is any information that can be
used to come to a conclusion and support a judgment or, in this case, to make decisions that will
improve conservation policies, actions, and outcomes. Perceptions are one type of information
that is often dismissed as anecdotal by those arguing for evidence-based conservation. In this
paper, I clarify the contributions of research on perceptions of conservation to improving
adaptive and evidence-based conservation. Studies of the perceptions of local people can provide
important insights into observations, understandings and interpretations of the social impacts and
ecological outcomes of conservation; the legitimacy of conservation governance; and the social
acceptability of environmental management. Perceptions of these factors contribute to positive or
negative local evaluations of conservation initiatives. It is positive perceptions, not just objective
scientific evidence of effectiveness, that ultimately ensure the support of local constituents thus
enabling the long-term success of conservation. Research on perceptions can inform courses of
action to improve conservation and governance at scales ranging from individual initiatives to
national and international policies. Better incorporation of evidence from across the social and
natural sciences and integration of a plurality of methods into monitoring and evaluation will
provide a more complete picture on which to base conservation decisions and environmental
management.
Keywords: perceptions, monitoring and evaluation, evidence-based conservation, conservation
social science, environmental social science, protected areas, environmental governance,
environmental management, adaptive management
1
Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, 2202
Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
2
School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington,
98105, U.S.A.
#
Email: nathan.bennett@ubc.ca; Website: http://nathanbennett.ca
N.J. Bennett – 2016 – ConBio - Using perceptions as evidence
2
Improving conservation with evidence
The effectiveness of conservation is a pressing global concern. The Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi Target 11 requires that protected area networks be “effectively
and equitably managed” (CBD 2010). Yet numerous studies and reviews show that the
implementation of a conservation initiative is no guarantee of ecological success (Mora & Sale
2011; Pfeifer et al. 2012; Ferraro et al. 2013; Edgar et al. 2014) or of benefit to humans (West et
al. 2006; Coad et al. 2008; Bennett & Dearden 2014a). This concern that conservation is
ineffective is leading to increased monitoring and evaluation of management, governance,
ecological, and social considerations as part of a broader move toward adaptive management and
evidence-based conservation.
In recent years, there has been considerable emphasis in conservation policy and
programs on monitoring and evaluation. For example, there are several well-established and
widely employed frameworks for evaluating management effectiveness in marine and terrestrial
protected areas (Pomeroy et al. 2004; Hockings et al. 2006). The CBD Programme of Work on
Protected Areas calls for the “assessment of the economic and socio-cultural costs, benefits and
impacts” of protected areas (CBD 2004), and the last decade has seen a proliferation of methods
and manuals for monitoring the social impacts of conservation ( Schreckenberg et al. 2010).
Several international programs that monitor social impacts of conservation have been launched
(e.g., the Global Socioeconomic Monitoring Initiative for Coastal Management [Bunce et al.
2000; SOCMON 2015] and the Social Assessment of Protected Areas initiative [Schreckenberg
et al. 2010]). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature produced a series of policy
documents urging a greater focus on evaluating the governance of protected areas (Borrini-
Feyerabend et al. 2007, 2013). Indicators of social and governance factors have also been
incorporated in the aforementioned management effectiveness frameworks.
The increased attention to monitoring and evaluation is part of a broader trend toward
evidence-based conservation (Sutherland 2003; Sutherland et al. 2004; Mathevet & Mauchamp
2005; Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006; Segan et al. 2011; Miteva et al. 2012; Pullin et al. 2013; Cook
et al. 2013) which is accompanied by bold claims that engaging a medical model of evaluation
will cure conservation (Wilkie & Ginsberg 2014). The goal of evidence-based conservation is to
ensure that impartial decisions are made at all stages of conservation planning, implementation,
and management based on objective scientific information (Sutherland et al. 2004; Segan et al.
2011; Pullin et al. 2013). Advocates argue that evidence is integral to creating more effective
conservation decisions through adaptive management, which involves a cycle of planning,
implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and adapting conservation actions to improve outcomes
(Hockings et al. 2006).
Good evidence is clearly necessary for making conservation decisions. However, there
are several problems with current calls for and framings of evidence-based conservation that
need to be acknowledged and addressed. First, preference is given to certain types of knowledge,
methods, and information. In social-impact assessment, for example, there is an increasing
emphasis on quantitative methods stemming from the econometric tradition (Ferraro &
Pattanayak 2006; Andam et al. 2010; Ferraro & Hanauer 2014). The prominence given to
quantitative and objective methods is not surprising given the broader privileging of positivistic
science in Western society and in the field of conservation (Evely et al. 2008; Moon & Blackman
2014). Yet these focused methods, which are incredibly useful for answering some types of
questions, can lead to an incomplete picture of the complex and messy social, political, and
economic contexts within which conservation occurs (Adams & Sandbrook 2013). Without
N.J. Bennett – 2016 – ConBio - Using perceptions as evidence
3
employing a wide array of approaches and methods from across the social sciences (including
sociology, anthropology, psychology, geography, economics, political science, and development
studies) and the natural sciences, important contextual factors may be obscured and inadequate
contextual understandings may lead to culturally inappropriate, socially unjust, or untenable
conservation actions (Corson & MacDonald 2012; Bennett et al. 2015).
Second, the data and knowledge required and the costs associated with many quantitative
and longitudinal monitoring and evaluation protocols may hinder the ability of managers in
many contexts to collect, analyze, and apply the results in a meaningful fashion (Jones 2012).
These capacity deficits may thus require increased reliance on outside academics and consultants
to carry out the monitoring and analysis. Lack of local participation in monitoring and evaluation
can also lead to lost opportunities for building capacity, coproducing knowledge, promoting buy-
in, and ensuring appropriateness of and support for recommendations (Gujit 1999; Evans &
Guariguata 2008; Fortmann 2008; Chevalier & Buckles 2013).
Third, the length of time associated with doing quantitative and longitudinal analysis of
social and ecological outcomes may result in recommendations that are too little and too late.
Furthermore, the current methods provide limited insights into what governance blunders or
management shortcomings are leading to which outcomes (Bennett & Dearden 2014b). For
example, lack of participation or consideration of local context, values, and needs can produce
distrust or resistance (Chuenpagdee et al. 2013) – concerns that might be easily caught through
rapid or participatory appraisals. Additionally, a simple analysis of the presence or absence of
input variables (i.e., policies, resources, and actions) should precede or complement the
measurement of ecological and social outcomes (Bennett & Dearden 2014b).
Finally, although a culture of auditing has emerged in the conservation community, it
remains unclear whether monitoring and evaluation programs are actually leading to succinct,
accessible, effectively communicated, and clearly articulated recommendations that will improve
conservation policies, actions, or outcomes. These issues may lead one to reflect on numerous
challenging questions, including what formats should monitoring and evaluation protocols take
in different contexts and at different stages of conservation?; when are the predominant
quantitative evaluations of conservation initiatives advisable and sufficiently informative to be a
worthwhile investment?; what other forms of evidence are valuable for making conservation
decisions?; when are other forms of evidence complementary or as or more valuable for guiding
conservation actions?; and how can one ensure results are communicated in an accessible and
usable manner and applied in the real world?
The goal is not just more and better science; rather, the goal is enhanced conservation
actions and outcomes. To achieve this goal, it is critical to be clear about the role, potential and
limitations of all forms of evidence to improve understanding and inform conservation policy
and practice. Producing effective conservation actions and outcomes requires a broad view of
conservation science (Kareiva & Marvier 2012; de Snoo et al. 2013; Bennett & Roth 2015). I
define conservation science as the systematic study of ecological, social, and integrated social-
ecological phenomena to document empirical information for the purposes of conservation. In
general terms, evidence is any information that helps one formulate a conclusion or support a
judgment. In conservation science, a pluralistic view of evidence might include rigorously
produced quantitative or qualitative ecological or social data as well as local and traditional
knowledge – all of which can be used to guide or improve conservation policies, management
actions, and ecological outcomes (Pullin et al. 2013; Adams & Sandbrook 2013). Yet for many
of the natural and social scientists advocating for increased monitoring and evaluation, evidence-
N.J. Bennett – 2016 – ConBio - Using perceptions as evidence
4
based conservation, or adaptive management, perceptions are often dismissed as “anecdotal
evidence” that may be based on inaccurate “experiential knowledge” or “myths” (Sutherland et
al. 2004; Ferraro 2008; Pullin & Salafsky 2010; Adams & Sandbrook 2013; Legge 2015). Rather
than being dismissive of some forms of evidence, a pragmatic approach to conservation science
requires considering all disciplines and methods when seeking to understand conservation issues
and all available information in the search for effective solutions.
In this paper, I clarify the contributions of research on local perceptions of conservation
to improving knowledge and practice of conservation, as part of monitoring and evaluation
programs, adaptive management processes, and evidence-based conservation decision making.
My broader aim is to highlight the importance of incorporating the full range of evidence from
across the social and natural sciences and of using multiple methods in monitoring and
evaluation protocols to provide a more complete picture on which to base conservation and
environmental management decisions.
Research on perceptions of conservation
The term perceptions is often used by researchers studying environmental management
and conservation (Webb et al. 2004; Christie 2005; McClanahan et al. 2005; Xu et al. 2006;
Dalton et al. 2012; Leleu et al. 2012; Eagles et al. 2013; Bennett & Dearden 2014a; Cinner et al.
2014; Turner et al. 2014; McClanahan & Abunge 2015). Yet researchers often simply use the
term as shorthand for positive or negative evaluations of some aspect of conservation (e.g.,
governance, management, impacts on resources, costs and benefits) or of the entire conservation
initiative. Furthermore, no article that I am aware of clearly articulates the set of insights
provided by the study and monitoring of local perceptions of conservation that may aid
conservation policy and practice. As a social science concept, perceptions is often more loosely
applied than related and highly theorized concepts such as beliefs, attitudes, values, norms,
preferences, and motivations, but all are linked as determinants or moderators of behaviors,
responses, and levels of support (Ajzen 1991; Slovic 2000; Stern 2000; Manfredo et al. 2004;
Schultz 2011; Clayton et al. 2013; Klöckner 2013). Drawing on established definitions in
(Munhall 2008; Oxford Dictionary 2015) and examination of the extensive literature on
conservation and risk in which the term is used, I propose the following definition: perceptions
refers to the way an individual observes, understands, interprets, and evaluates a referent object,
action, experience, individual, policy, or outcome. Observations are based on sensory
experiences, including sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. These individual and subjective
interpretations of reality are socially constructed, the product of one’s history and surroundings
(Munhall 2008). A myriad of contextual factors (e.g., culture, politics, socioeconomics,
livelihoods), past experiences of similar events (e.g., imposition of a different environmental
policy), and individual and collective attributes (e.g., gender, race), values, norms, beliefs,
preferences, knowledge, and motivations mediate and influence perceptions (Slovic 2000;
Munhall 2008; Satterfield et al. 2009; Moon & Blackman 2014; Levine et al. 2015). As a result,
like and unlike groups and individuals can perceive the same situation in vastly different ways.
Perceptions can also change over time, and judgments are subject to persuasion (Satterfield et al.
2009). Finally, perceptions can be based on knowledge but should not be confused with the
“experiential knowledge” of scientific experts or traditional resource users (Fazey et al. 2006).
There are at least 4 distinct categories of insights that studies of local perceptions can
provide to improve conservation policy and practice: social impacts of conservation, ecological
outcomes of conservation, legitimacy of conservation governance, and acceptability of
N.J. Bennett – 2016 – ConBio - Using perceptions as evidence
5
conservation management (Table 1). First, research on perceptions can be used to explore the
nature and magnitude of social impacts and to discern whether local people view the social
impacts of conservation as just or equitable. Conservation initiatives are often criticized for the
unjust social and economic impacts that they can have on local communities and livelihoods
(Brockington et al. 2006; West et al. 2006). Just as often, the benefits of conservation are
expounded (Leisher et al. 2007; Andam et al. 2010). Local perceptions of the impacts of
conservation can be determined by exploring narrative descriptions of social impacts or by rating
quantitative indicators of livelihoods, assets, wealth and poverty, well-being, food security, or
rights (Cattermoul et al. 2008; Bennett et al. 2012; Weeratunge et al. 2014). A sense of injustice
or inequity - in either net social costs versus benefits to a collective or in the distribution of costs
and benefits between subgroups - can go a long way in determining support for conservation
(Klain et al. 2014; Pascual et al. 2014). For example, individuals or groups who observe or
believe they are not receiving an equitable share of the benefits of conservation or their rights or
cultural values have been undermined may actively oppose conservation (Kemf 1993; Bennett et
al. 2010). This is true even when local people support the ideals of protecting nature or
increasing the abundance of species or resources (Bennett & Dearden 2014a).
Table 1. Use of perceptions as evidence to improve conservation.
Category of perceptions
Basis of evaluation
Social impacts of
conservation
• nature and magnitude of social impacts (costs and benefits);!
• equity in distribution of social costs and benefits !
Ecological outcomes of
conservation
• impacts on environmental quality and productivity;!
• impacts on provisioning of ecosystem services and benefits.!
Legitimacy of
conservation governance
• quality of governance processes;!
• appropriateness and inclusiveness of governance structures;!
• legitimacy of policies, rules, and decision makers;!
Acceptability of
conservation management
• presence or absence of management inputs;!
• appropriateness of conservation models;!
• acceptability of management actions;!
• quality of engagements with conservation managers!
Second, local resource users and communities may evaluate conservation initiatives and
levels of support for conservation based on their perceptions of the ecological impacts of
conservation (e.g., abundance of individual species, productivity of harvests or quality of
habitats) and related benefits to themselves, their households, or their communities via
ecosystem services. Of course, the accuracy of individual assessments of resource abundance or
ecosystem health may vary widely within a community. For example, one might differentiate
between the perceptions of those with expert knowledge and perceptions of non-experts in a
community (Fazey et al. 2006). Community experts include traditional or multi-generational
resource users (e.g., fishers, hunters) who have amassed traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)
(i.e., a cumulative body of knowledge about the local environment that is intergenerational and
collective [Berkes 1999]) of local ecosystems or species. Those with high levels of TEK will
likely be able to assess more accurately changes in the status of natural resources (Berkes et al.
2000; Johannes et al. 2000). For example, local fishers may be the first to observe benefits, or
lack thereof, to fisheries from marine protected areas (e.g., Cinner et al. 2014). Whereas some
