Scholars conducting research on either the social or biological dimensions of conservation practice may confront harassment, violence, and sexual assault. While guidelines for researcher safety usually cover the obvious perils encountered while conducting research in nature and with wild animals, less attention has been focused on the dangers associated with encountering and confronting humans. The aim of review boards for both human and animal subjects is to protect research participants. But who protects the researcher? This paper extends these calls to conservation researchers, initiating an open discussion on fieldwork safety, particularly the role of gender and power dynamics within the conservation field. We offer two themes for discussion: institutional responsibility and professional community responsibility. Our aim is to encourage dialogue regarding codes of practice for fieldwork safety at multiple institutional levels that acknowledge and provide support for the varying forms of harassment researchers face during fieldwork.

This paper contributes to the literature regarding gendered patterns of participation in conservation by examining participation in sea turtle conservation and community life in coastal Northeast Brazil. We used a mixed methods approach, comprised of questionnaires and focus groups, and our findings indicate that conservation participation can be partially explained by gendered characteristics related to issues of structural access, cultural attitudes and values, and agency. Results show greater gender differences in access and agency than attitudes toward sea turtle conservation, demonstrating how patterns of participation are influenced by close knit and gendered social networks that decrease an individual’s chance of being invited to participate. While gender issues are not universal, a framework examining issues of structure, culture, and agency allows differences related to age, class, race, etc. to be considered as well, presenting useful information in understanding the barriers and motivations involved in conservation participation.

Collaborative watershed management has been heavily promoted and widely implemented to address a variety of natural resource concerns, resulting in the adoption and adaptation of the approach to management by regulatory agencies. Although several characteristics or indicators of success for watershed partnerships have been identified in the literature, these often portray a direct cause and effect relationship between partnership characteristics and outcomes. However, partnerships involve dynamic processes that can be influenced by both form and function (internally and externally) throughout various stages of the partnerships' existence. Our study presents an evaluation framework from the group process and evaluation literature to highlight the importance of evaluating 'intermediate measures of partnership effectiveness' in watershed partnerships, using the case of Michigan's voluntary watershed-based stormwater permit. Given the increasing use of watershed partnerships in a regulatory setting that is constantly in flux and the difficulty in assessing the effects of such groups on water quality, results suggest the utility of 'intermediate measures of partnership effectiveness' for assessing partnership process in order to provide ongoing feedback and incentives to ensure long-term success.

Managing risky human behaviour involving invasive species, such as unauthorized stocking or the release of pets to the wild, is difficult because the rationale for risk taking is often unknown. To identify factors that increase the likelihood of risky behaviour, we conducted social surveys and analyzed perceptions about invasive species, natural resource management, social norms, and outreach initiatives for live bait anglers in Ontario, Canada and Michigan, USA. We used classification trees to predict risky behaviour (release of fishes; Ontario, P-release = 0.197, Michigan, P-release = 0.275) based on patterns of variation in social perceptions. Irrespective of release, respondents generally agreed with (and exhibited strong willingness to pay for) prevention management, despite only moderate consensus that natural resource use had been impacted by invasive species. The most parsimonious model to predict release was based on the convenience of releasing fishes and the (mis) perception that released fishes provide an ecological benefit to natural resources, which held for 70.5 % of risk takers (classification rate = 80.6 %, true negative rate = 84.6 %, AUC = 0.81). Therefore, perceptions other than those directly involving invasive species strongly increase the likelihood that an individual will release fishes to the wild. For a subset (29.5 %) of risk takers, release behaviour was unpredictable and lacked obvious rationale; therefore, additional invasive species management efforts remain justified to offset individual actions that may never be understood with certainty and for which targeted social outreach strategies are likely ineffective.

Participation in conservation programs is often viewed as a necessity, but understanding of this participation is limited. This research takes a different approach by also examining participation in non-conservation-related activities. Questionnaires (N = 339) were administered in four Brazilian coastal communities where the national sea turtle conservation project conducts monitoring and outreach. Employing social capital as a conceptual framework, measurements included participation in civic, community, and social activities along with group participation and collective action. Confirmatory factor analysis was used for validating measures of social capital and conservation perceptions. Structural equation modeling indicated that social capital has a positive relationship with participation in sea turtle conservation, suggesting that general levels of participation and community norms of participation could be just as influential as conservation perceptions to engage communities in conservation. Information gained by deconstructing participation may be used to design and target conservation programs, improving overall participation.

Centralized regulation and fisheries co-management institutions, when imposed on Malawian fisherfolk, have failed due to poor local legitimacy, resulting in de facto open access regimes for most Malawian fisheries. Case studies from a range of locations indicate that a key to success or failure in co-management lies in understanding the roles played by both traditional (chiefs) and representational (stakeholder) institutions. Formally instituted, conservation-driven co-management institutions are unlikely to be effective if they try to replace informally derived, consensus-based social and cultural institutions. Additionally, institutional legitimacy requires downward accountability, and both traditional and decentralized institutions must remain vigilant against the threat of elite capture. An analysis of fisherfolk and chieftain roles in Malawi's fisheries management regimes illustrates how these stakeholders may either promote or undermine socially and ecologically sustainable outcomes. We conclude that both decentralized representational institutions and “institutional bricolage” facilitated by chiefs are critical to maintaining resilient co-management institutions and fishing livelihoods.

Fisheries co-management in Malawi has not achieved the successes anticipated. Mobility of fisherfolk is frequently blamed for the poor effectiveness of local institutions, and this often leads to calls for access limitation. However, recent research in Malawian water bodies suggests that fisher mobility increases livelihood sustainability for all lakeshore residents involved, and is well adapted to these contexts of fluctuating and uncertain fisheries. Therefore, the abilities of fisherfolk to move into and out of different local fisheries can arguably be judged to enhance fisheries resilience overall. In addition to these benefits, we present data from two ethnographic case studies to illustrate the positive impacts that migration has had on some of Malawi's more successful fisheries co-management institutions (known as Beach Village Committees or BVCs).Despite preexisting concerns regarding unsustainable local fishing practices, local stakeholders were unwilling or unable to address these challenges until conflicts with migrant fisherfolk prompted changes. In some cases, the ability of migrants to circumvent BVC regulations has highlighted the BVCs lack of local legitimacy. Additionally, when threatened with losing benefits to "outsiders," local stakeholders are more willing and able to come together and take corrective action. We therefore argue against policies limiting access to local fisheries as these remove valuable catalysts for adaptive institutional learning in decentralized natural resources management. (C) 2010 International Association for Great Lakes Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Freshwater resources are rapidly decreasing in quantity and quality, thereby becoming stressed and, in many cases, becoming scarce for human and ecosystem use. Individuals and nations will need to modify their allocation of freshwater among users to preserve and conserve this resource, assuring that sufficient water is available to meet human and ecological needs. Freshwater needs of ecological systems are generally not considered when making water allocation decisions, unless mandated by local, national, or international laws. It is, however, undeniable that the health and productivity of a fish population is inextricably linked to the integrity of its freshwater ecosystem. This important link between freshwater and sustainable fishery makes it imperative for Fisheries managers to understand and incorporate the use of freshwater resources by all sectors of society within their management plan. To accomplish this goal, however, two main factors need to be addressed, the first being society's valuation of fish populations and the second being the need to eliminate the existing separation between water and fishery managers with the objective of integrating them into a common management system. In this paper, we evaluate management concerns regarding water use and its relative scarcity and how this impacts Fisheries sustainability and productivity. We examine how a society's perception of the importance of maintaining sufficient instream flows to preserve fish populations is related to its reliance on its water resources and how this perception affects the approaches taken by that society to assure water security for locally embedded ecosystems and their fisheries.

Conservation BiologyVolume 21, Issue 5 p. 1359-1362 Are We Consuming Too Much—for What? HERMAN E. DALY, HERMAN E. DALY School of Public Affairs, Van Munching Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-1821, U.S.A., email [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorBRIAN CZECH, BRIAN CZECH Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorDAVID L. TRAUGER, DAVID L. TRAUGER Natural Resources Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Room 312, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorWILLIAM E. REES, WILLIAM E. REES University of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorMANSI GROVER, MANSI GROVER Natural Resources Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Room 312, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorTRACY DOBSON, TRACY DOBSON Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 10C Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorSTEPHEN C. TROMBULAK, STEPHEN C. TROMBULAK Biology and Environmental Studies, Department of Biology, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author HERMAN E. DALY, HERMAN E. DALY School of Public Affairs, Van Munching Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-1821, U.S.A., email [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorBRIAN CZECH, BRIAN CZECH Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorDAVID L. TRAUGER, DAVID L. TRAUGER Natural Resources Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Room 312, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorWILLIAM E. REES, WILLIAM E. REES University of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorMANSI GROVER, MANSI GROVER Natural Resources Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, National Capital Region, Alexandria Center, 1021 Prince Street, Room 312, Alexandria, VA 22314, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorTRACY DOBSON, TRACY DOBSON Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 10C Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorSTEPHEN C. TROMBULAK, STEPHEN C. TROMBULAK Biology and Environmental Studies, Department of Biology, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author First published: 19 September 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00770.xCitations: 28Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Literature Cited Arrow, K., P. Dasgupta, L. Goulder, G. Daily, P. Ehrlich, G. Heal, S. Levin, K.-G. Mahler, S. Schneider, D. Starrett, and B. Walker. 2004. Are we consuming too much? Journal of Economic Perspectives 18: 147–172. Christensen, J. 2005. Are we consuming too much?: it turns out we may be worrying too much about how much we consume and far too little about how to invest. Conservation Biology in Practice 6: 14–19. Czech, B. 2001. Incorporating nonhuman knowledge into the philosophy of science. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 665–674. Czech, B., D. L. Trauger, J. Farley, R. Costanza, H. E. Daly, C. A. S. Hall, R. F. Noss, L. Krall, and P. R. Krausman. 2005. Establishing indicators for biodiversity. Science 308: 791–792. Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1971. The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard University Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Trauger, D. L., B. Czech, J. D. Erickson, P. R. Garrettson, B. J. Kernohan, and C. A. Miller. 2003. The relationship of economic growth to wildlife conservation. Technical review 03-1. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda , Maryland . Wackernagel, M, and W. E. Rees. 1996. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island , British Columbia . Whitehead, A. N. 1925. Science and the modern world. Free Press, New York . Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Citing Literature Volume21, Issue5October 2007Pages 1359-1362 ReferencesRelatedInformation

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, recognizing the importance of social impacts on Great Lakes fisheries and the shortage of information on "human dimensions,'' launched a new research theme. It seeks to fill knowledge gaps in the areas of legal and institutional frameworks governing fisheries, constructing effective processes that better inform management decision making, and the role and impact of stakeholder involvement in Great Lakes fisheries management.

Within the 1836 Treaty waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes, fisheries allocation and management between Native and state-licensed fishers was guided by a court-ordered policy, the 1985 Consent Order. This policy was created to promote rehabilitation of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), reduce social conflict, and provide a framework for joint fisheries management. Expiration of the order led to creation of a replacement policy, the 2000 Consent Decree. To assess effectiveness of the 1985 Consent Order and perceptions of the 2000 Consent Decree, we conducted 46 interviews with members of pertinent stakeholder groups and their representatives. Results indicated that most stakeholders believed the 1985 Consent Order was insufficient to promote lake trout rehabilitation. Most respondents outside the Grand Traverse Bay area perceived that social conflict decreased under this policy. Tribal and DNR biologists and representatives believed fisheries management improved and became more cooperative. Many biologists and representatives anticipated the 2000 Consent Decree would be more effective at promoting lake trout rehabilitation and cooperative joint management. In contrast to some fishers, these respondents did not expect social conflict under this policy. Results indicated that court-ordered policies should allocate fisheries to provide economic opportunities and incorporate institutionalized, collaborative management processes.

The co-management approach is being more widely employed as greater demands are placed on scarce government resources everywhere and the value of stakeholder involvement in natural resources management is recognized. In response to declining fish stocks in Malawi's waters, the government and foreign aid donors collaborated to create a new fisheries management approach. A co-management regime was introduced in a pilot program at Lake Malombe at the southern tip of Lake Malawi. Fishers elected management committees (“beach village committees” or BVCs) to work with Fisheries Department (FD) staff in several phases of management. Reviews of the program to date are mixed. Early compliance has turned to defiance. Conflict exists in BVCs. Evidence indicates that the FD is not relinquishing authority to the local level. A fisher-initiated and FD-supported program at Lake Chiuta, facing less severe and more focused problems, is regarded as successful. Expansion of co-management to Lake Malawi has been initiated, is reported to be progressing slowly, but must heed the problems encountered in the Lake Malombe regime.

The Fishery Research Program (FRP) of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission includes as a research theme area “The Human Dimensions of Great Lakes Fisheries Management.” The term human dimensions refers to how and why humans value natural resources, how humans want resources managed, and how humans affect or are affected by natural resources management decisions. Human dimensions inquiries strive to understand human traits and how to incorporate that understanding into management planning and actions. It covers a variety of ideas and practices including cultural, social, and economic values; individual and social behavior; demographics; legal and institutional frameworks of management; communication and education; and, decision-making processes of management (Decker et al. 2001).