Expert preferences on options for biodiversity conservation under climate change

Abstract

Climate change and other anthropogenic drivers challenge the efficacy of traditional approaches to biodiversity conservation. Moreover, the extent and pace of drivers of change are projected to intensify, making ecological restoration of some ecosystems to historical baselines increasingly untenable. This new reality has sparked debates about what new approaches are needed in restoration and conservation. The individual preferences of experts (e.g., ecologists, land managers and restoration practitioners) strongly influence the debate, which are varied and often diverge from those of non-experts. Despite this strong influence, the role of expert preferences in conservation decisions is underexplored. What little has been published is provocative, suggesting ecologists resist implementing non-traditional or ‘taboo’ management practices, even if they agree they are needed in theory. This paper presents the results of a global survey of experts (n = 692), exploring in detail how experts perceive both traditional and non-traditional options in biodiversity conservation and restoration. Most experts were relatively open to incorporating non-traditional options into conservation. However, there were some apparent tensions, including acceptance that baselines are shifting, but a reluctance to let go of historical baselines as a goal. Although participants in this study were fairly supportive of managing novel ecosystems, non-native species, and more human-centred values in some situations, our research suggests ecologists may be more supportive of ‘cautiously aggressive’ policy, particularly if the policies are associated with additional research to reduce uncertainties.