Using applied social science disciplines to implement creative outdoor cat management solutions and avoid the trap of one-size-fits-all policies.

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Kirsten Mya Leong, Ashley Rochelle Gramza, Jennifer N Duberstein, Chelsey Bryson, Angela Amlin
{"title":"Using applied social science disciplines to implement creative outdoor cat management solutions and avoid the trap of one-size-fits-all policies.","authors":"Kirsten Mya Leong, Ashley Rochelle Gramza, Jennifer N Duberstein, Chelsey Bryson, Angela Amlin","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the United States, policy conflicts have prevented successful population-level management of outdoor cats for decades. Wildlife conservation professionals have sought widespread use of humane dispatch (i.e., lethal culling applied humanely), whereas cat welfare professionals have promoted trap-neuter-return (TNR) (cats are trapped, neutered, and returned to the outdoors). These conflicts represent a policy panacea trap, which we argue drives many conservation conflicts. In these situations, the focus on defending a one-size-fits-all policy fails to account for the value differences that shape the different understandings of the problem and desired outcomes associated with each policy, as well as complexities in the social-ecological system. Over the past 5 years, a group of wildlife conservation and cat welfare professionals codeveloped a set of products that have started to be used to help organizations break out of the policy panacea trap. We used a case study to illustrate how efforts grounded in applied social science disciplines, such as science communication, social-ecological systems, and conservation marketing, can help identify a more robust set of policy options tailored to local management and cultural contexts for successful implementation. Shifting the focus to embrace a shared understanding of the broader system helped us identify areas for collaboration, broaden the policy toolbox, and allow space for policy tools originally framed as opposing panaceas. This work helped prepare all parties to have difficult but productive discussions and address shared policy needs. We suggest that many value-based conservation conflicts would benefit from similar efforts that use applied social science to transform how conflict is addressed, moving beyond policy panaceas that end in stalemate to develop shared understandings of context-specific policies, and to identify opportunities for creative cooperation that yield real conservation progress.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14321"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14321","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the United States, policy conflicts have prevented successful population-level management of outdoor cats for decades. Wildlife conservation professionals have sought widespread use of humane dispatch (i.e., lethal culling applied humanely), whereas cat welfare professionals have promoted trap-neuter-return (TNR) (cats are trapped, neutered, and returned to the outdoors). These conflicts represent a policy panacea trap, which we argue drives many conservation conflicts. In these situations, the focus on defending a one-size-fits-all policy fails to account for the value differences that shape the different understandings of the problem and desired outcomes associated with each policy, as well as complexities in the social-ecological system. Over the past 5 years, a group of wildlife conservation and cat welfare professionals codeveloped a set of products that have started to be used to help organizations break out of the policy panacea trap. We used a case study to illustrate how efforts grounded in applied social science disciplines, such as science communication, social-ecological systems, and conservation marketing, can help identify a more robust set of policy options tailored to local management and cultural contexts for successful implementation. Shifting the focus to embrace a shared understanding of the broader system helped us identify areas for collaboration, broaden the policy toolbox, and allow space for policy tools originally framed as opposing panaceas. This work helped prepare all parties to have difficult but productive discussions and address shared policy needs. We suggest that many value-based conservation conflicts would benefit from similar efforts that use applied social science to transform how conflict is addressed, moving beyond policy panaceas that end in stalemate to develop shared understandings of context-specific policies, and to identify opportunities for creative cooperation that yield real conservation progress.

利用应用社会科学学科,实施创造性的户外猫咪管理解决方案,避免一刀切政策的陷阱。
在美国,数十年来,政策冲突一直阻碍着对户外猫科动物进行成功的种群管理。野生动物保护专业人士一直在寻求广泛使用人道调度(即以人道方式实施致命捕杀),而猫咪福利专业人士则提倡诱捕-绝育-放归(TNR)(对猫咪进行诱捕、绝育并放归户外)。这些冲突代表了一种政策万灵药陷阱,我们认为这是许多保护冲突的驱动因素。在这种情况下,一味强调捍卫 "一刀切 "的政策,却没有考虑到价值差异,而这种价值差异形成了对问题的不同理解、与每种政策相关的预期结果以及社会生态系统的复杂性。在过去 5 年中,一群野生动物保护和猫科动物福利专业人士开发了一套产品,开始用于帮助组织走出政策万能药的陷阱。我们通过一个案例研究来说明,以应用社会科学学科为基础的工作,如科学传播、社会生态系统和保护营销,如何能够帮助确定一套适合当地管理和文化背景的更稳健的政策方案,从而成功实施。将工作重点转移到对更广泛系统的共同理解上,有助于我们确定合作领域、拓宽政策工具箱,并为原本被视为对立灵丹妙药的政策工具留出空间。这项工作帮助各方做好准备,开展艰难但富有成效的讨论,满足共同的政策需求。我们认为,许多以价值为基础的保护冲突都将受益于类似的努力,即利用应用社会科学来改变解决冲突的方式,超越以僵局告终的政策灵丹妙药,形成对特定环境政策的共同理解,并确定创造性合作的机会,从而取得真正的保护进展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conservation Biology
Conservation Biology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
175
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信