Download Protecting New Jersey`s Migratory Shorebirds: A Stewardship Model

Protecting New Jersey’s Migratory Shorebirds:
A Stewardship Model of Conservation
By
Jenny R. Isaacs
________________________________________________________________________
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF RAMAPO COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
SUSTAINABILITY STUDIES
Copyright 2012
Jenny R. Isaacs
EPIGRAPH
HOPE is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune--without the words,
And never stops at all,
And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.
I've heard it in the chillest land,
And on the strangest sea;
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me.
Emily Dickinson, 1924
ii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my very patient and supportive family and friends: especially
Brian Isaacs, Erin Araujo, Toni Conley, and Mary Guarneri.
I would like to remember those outside Academia who have inspired me and allowed me
to grow: Dr. Larry Niles who took my phone call, welcomed me onto the shorebird team,
and supported my pursuit of a PhD, Karla Risdon and Mike Krug at the New Jersey
Audubon’s Weis Ecology Center for giving me my first break in Environmental
Education; to my heroes Charles Darwin, John Muir, The Transcendentalists, Sir David
Attenborough, Dr. Jane Goodall, David Sibley, Dr. E.O. Wilson, The Deep Ecologists,
Colin Stafford-Johnson, Luisa Maffi, Dr. Iain Douglas-Hamilton, Amy Goodman, Robert
F. Kennedy Jr., Robert Cronin, Evo Morales, Dr. Wangari Maathai, and Dr. Vandana
Shiva for their inspiration; to the memory of Paul Igag, Dorothy Stang, José Cláudio
Ribeiro da Silva, Maria do Espírito Santo, Diane Fossey, Mahatma Gandhi, Casear
Chavez, and Martin Luther King Jr., for their selfless commitment to a better world;
finally, this work is dedicated to all extinct and endangered species, who remind us of the
power of our choices to affect the planet and the delicate vulnerability of life.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank my Faculty Advisors for their extraordinary support during this
program:
Firstly, thanks to my Advisor and Mentor, Dr. Eric Weiner—who created
opportunities for me within biological science/conservation which have changed the
course of my life to meet its calling. I am thankful for his earnest dedication to education
and change. From his example, I learned how to be generous, proceed steadily and with
conviction in one’s career. Eric demonstrates a whole and noble commitment to nature,
indigenous people, and his students, while exemplifying professionalism, poise, passion,
and the seamless integration of the social and environmental sciences. He models an
integrity of self, behavior, process, and protocol in the service and pursuit of the purest
truth, justice, for change and the highest good. He also models balance in life: juggling
family, a passion for basketball, birdwatching, scholarship, travel, mentorship, love, and
field work. He inspires me as a trilingual cosmopolitan--living in several worlds and
improving all-- who offers a nuanced, multi-faceted/disciplined, and multi-cultural
perspective on the world—he is a true ecologist. I hope to never lose his support and
friendship.
Secondly to Dr. Michael Edelstein for his brilliant thinking and writing, who sees
the good in people and loves fully, who didn’t see anything strange about a Creative
turned Sustainability advocate, and who never gives up the fight for a better world.
iv
Thirdly, I’d like to thank Dr. Ashwani Vasishth, for his holistic perspective,
eloquence mixed with polite reserve, wisdom, insight, appreciation of interdisplinarity,
open-mindedness, flexibility, for allowing me to play a decisive role in the course of my
education, and for helping me see the big picture as well as decide on how to specifically
focus my work. Finally I would like to acknowledge Doctors Wayne Hayes, Scott
Thornton, Esq, and Sanghamitra Padhy, for putting up with my antics, supporting me
through my development to become a better practioner.
Finally, my sincere thanks go to the volunteers and interviewees who granted me
their time and who regularly dedicate themselves to saving species and habitat, helping
people become stewards, and facilitating the human-nature connection at the local level.
v
TABLE of CONTENTS
EPIGRAPH
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
LIST OF TABLES
?
LIST OF FIGURES
?
ABSTRACT
1
PART I: CONTEXT
Introduction
Objectives
Participatory Action Research
Interdisciplinarity & Concepts
Sustainability
Indicators
Ecology/Biocultural Diversity
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
PART II: AVIAN CONSERVATION/CRITIQUE
Worldwide State of and Threats to Birds
Shorebirds
Management Schemes
15
17
19
PART III: Values of Nature
Limits of Science
The Human-Nature Connection/Divide
Conservation as Cross Cultural Exchange
Economics
Human Geography/Cultural Anthropology/Environmental Psychology
Political Ecology
Legal/Policy
Politics
26
26
27
30
35
39
41
42
50
vi
PART IV: A Stewardship Model of Conservation
Stewardship
The Scientist/Citizen Divide
Citizen Science
Inclusive Models/Community Governance
Pride Campaigns
52
52
55
58
60
62
PART V: Case Study: Shorebirds and Stewardship
Site Selection
Spatial Analysis/Gap Analysis
Interviews
Shorebird Stewards & Voluntary Avoidance Study
Analysis of Results/Discussion of Findings
Conclusion
64
64
65
72
78
79
83 ?
PART VI: Future Research
85 ?
Appendix A (Tables and Figures)
89
Appendix B (Original Maps—J.Isaacs & E. Araujo)
106
Bibliography
116
vii
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Ramapo College of New Jersey in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Sustainability
Studies.
By
Jenny R. Isaacs
May 2012
Chair: Dr. Eric Wiener
Major Department: School of Theoretical and Applied Sciences
The secret of Sustainability is the promotion of local stewardship. Stewardship is
an invaluable element to Sustainability because it is both an ethical foundation and a call
to action. Stewardship prompts us to ask such questions as “Are we living sustainably?
Are we hurting the planet and other species? How can we tell?” Science and data
gathering flow naturally from stewardship to answer these questions; but once data is
gathered and analyzed, it must flow back into stewardship for it to inform sustainable
decisions and actions. A Stewardship Model of Conservation may be visualized as a
continuous loop where Stewardship is the start and end point with Science in the middle;
such a representation captures the fact that without an ethic to inspire science towards
Sustainability Studies and without Stewardship as an active force within society to realize
Sustainability, Science is useless. The Shorebird Steward program in Southern New
Jersey may be seen as a best practice case study is the application of a Stewardship
Model of Conservation.
PART I: CONTEXT/LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
Sustainability is far from realized and this is a problem. When solving for
sustainability, where should we start? Is there a secret of Sustainability? Is there a single
element of Sustainability which being adopted might accelerate the manifestation of the
other elements? Because sustainability is so multi-faceted, it is worthwhile to determine
which elements, when realized, serve as incendiary triggers towards the acceleration of
the other elements. Through the lens of various disciplines and the example of migratory
shorebird conservation, I here argue that the promotion of Stewardship is the catalyst for
a paradigm shift towards Sustainability.
Problems such as biocultural diversity loss signal that human beings are
exceeding natural limits. The underlying cause is the erosion of a human respect for
nature and connection to place: unless we appreciate and feel personally connected to the
fate of the natural world, it does not bother us to live unsustainably. The antidote to this
problem and the secret of sustainability is an increase in stewardship (a posture of
responsibility for and proactive engagement within ecosystems). Using the vibrancy of
local biocultural diversity and stewardship as indicators, we see that in those
communities where the human-nature connection is strongest-- most deeply ingrained in
culture and demonstrated in stewardship--we find Sustainability.
My research looks at a best practice method of encouraging stewardship through
an integrated multi-level (local through international) approach to shorebird conservation
which utilizes public participation. Fostering community stewardship of local natural
2
resources is essential to achieving sustainability as well as those conservation targets
sought by scientists and environmental managers. Until people connect to and take
responsibility for the wildlife and wild places around them, sustainability will be
impossible: the degree to which we renew and cultivate stewardship will be the degree to
which biocultural diversity is preserved and Sustainability is realized.
OBJECTIVES of RESEARCH:

To facilitate awareness of the current extinction crisis, including migratory shorebird
population declines, linking these to local human choices through culturally sensitive
outreach and education among coastal residents.

To protect migratory shorebirds from human-caused disturbance and habitat degradation
in New Jersey and throughout their range while promoting stewardship and allowing for
local involvement in governance schemes, according to Sustainability principle.

To understand the local relationships between culture, values, and wildlife/ecosystem
health, specifically focusing on varying cultural attitudes towards Red Knots and other
migratory shorebirds.

Research best practice models for collaborative, inclusive approaches to co-managing
biocultural diversity which bridge the gap between international and regional scientists,
environmental managers, species, and stakeholders to develop mutually beneficial, placeappropriate solutions to conservation challenges.

Besides human exclusion, how can we protect species?
3
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH
Motivated to act as a steward for endangered species and their habitat, I engaged
in participatory action research in order to improve my skills as a conservation social
scientist. Action Research is a method of answering a research question which allows for
reflective consideration of both theory and practice, attempting to utilize and synthesize
both (McNiff 2006).
After seeking out leaders in the field of avian conservation, I was fortunate
enough to be invited by Dr. Larry Niles, of the Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New
Jersey (CWF), to coordinate beach operations for the 2011 Fall Shorebird Steward Study
Team in Avalon, NJ. With Dr. Niles and CWF, I continue to learn through direct
experience about local best conservation practice involving non-scientists. The Avalon
project was the perfect case study for this Master of Sustainability Studies thesis, because
it met my objectives of research while harmonizing with my values; including respect for
the intrinsic value of life, a land ethic, maximized and meaningful participation, selfdetermination and self-reliance, collaboration and teamwork, desire for principled action
with real results, and dedication to diversity, (these values are also elements of
Sustainability).
4
INTERDISCIPLINARITY
An integrated approach and practical framework for evaluating, understanding,
and conserving biocultural diversity while and where it still exists is an urgent need.
Sustainability is an interdisciplinary field which allows for a multitude of perspectives
with the analysis goal of presenting the most complete, holistic picture of a subject
possible. This paper attempts to create one platform (comprised of different frameworks)
which takes into account multitple knowledges and perspectives as a way of
understanding the challenges of realizing Sustainability, protecting migratory birds, and
promoting stewardship.
CONCEPTS:
Three concepts are used frequently throughout this paper: sustainability,
biocultural diversity, and stewardship. Each of these three concepts requires the
fulfillment of the others as a satisfying condition. I propose that taken together, these
terms offer the three central tenets of a path towards the reestablishment of a benign
relationship between human beings and nature.
Concepts like sustainability, biocultural diversity, and stewardship are powerful
because they serve as efficient one or two-word vehicles for multi-faceted models of
engagement—a host of ideas, values, morality, ethics, and principles for decision making.
I am interested in the conservation of endangered migratory shorebirds and utilization of
these concepts serve the cause; Farnham describes how the deployment of select
terms/concepts are a necessary and useful element of conservation;
5
“In our attempts to ascertain what is most important to us, we need to construct models
[ex: biodiversity] that purposefully highlight that which is valuable. By using these
frameworks, we may work to protect the values that we have consciously or
unconsciously identified…Concepts are value-laden frameworks, containing specific
ideas about what ought to be protected and why (p.3-4)”.
While terms such as sustainability, biodiversity, and stewardship have a long semantic
evolutionary history explored at depth elsewhere, this paper will discuss the strength and
relevance of these terms within solving conservation challenges locally and how
conjoining these terms can advance a positive, sustainable human-Earth relationship.
SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability is the reflective consideration between competing interests and the
selection of certain elements worthy of preservation. Sustainability is a powerful term
because it asserts that humans have sufficient wisdom and control (over choices, systems,
and environment) so that we are able to choose how the future will unfold. Sustainability
suggests the premise that an individual or community of any size can control the future,
decide how human impacts will affect the environment, and (with science and through
discussion) dictate terms of acceptable behavior relative to a vulnerable planet: as such it
may be the highest expression of civilization. While extinctions are permanent, pristine
ecosystems can never be fully restored by humans, and most scientists agree that
guaranteed global warming (also called “climate chaos”) is already locked into the
system (IPCC, McKibben 2008, Meadows, Hansen), the term “sustainability” implies a
choice of futures—an “ability” to program the Earth towards or away from certain
ecological paths. Whether this is realistic or not, the term is empowering: asserting that
an individual, a family, a town, a country, a planetary civilization at any moment could
affirmatively choose sustainability as a path forward, expressing its power over the planet
6
and the future. Therefore Sustainability expresses virtue: as it is never a bad thing to be
sustainable, the term is generically positive, resonating a moral superiority and wisdom
that is self-rewarding for those who choose the path of sustainability within the social
sphere (Senge 2008). Strength of the term sustainability is its purposefully loose
definition because it allows for constant reconsideration and evolution, i.e. a built-in
space for discussion (Bell & Morse 2008). Because of these positive attributes,
Sustainability is a term with tremendous value to those interested in advancing
conservation.
INDICATORS
Sustainability is recognized through a mix of principles and elements, realized
and recognized through indicators (Bell & Morse 2008); for example, the health of
biocultural diversity is one indicator of Sustainability (Bruntland). I have developed a list
of Sustainability Indicators for which to evaluate projects: Any project that seeks to
define itself as sustainable should meet most of the following criteria: a Sustainability
project will:
 celebrate and protect diversity and life of all sorts (Sessions)
 satisfy a long-term perspective, concerned with the future
 employ the precautionary principle,
 employ a systems approach/context, modeled on ecology; “no spare
parts”/ “save all the pieces” first rule of tinkering.
 imitates and supports natural systems—ie cradle to grave/life cycle
consideration,
7
 sensitive to social justice issues, based on a “do no harm” ethic
 grassroots generated, self-directed, expression of community
 employ local/indigenous knowledge, in balance with expert or scientific
knowledge
 democratic in decision-making,
 decentralized in strategy, distribute risk to improve resiliency
 efficient and renewable in process and production
 deference to natural limits/minimize with the goal to reduce disturbance.
Sustainability involves decisions about what humans will claim for themselves to
consume or will leave for non-humans and future generations (conservation). Like Noah
deciding what will go on his ark, those concerned with sustainability advocate on behalf
of nature for what can be preserved before it is consumed for human short-term uses.
Inherent in the term sustainability is this selective power self-granted to human beings.
With such power to affect the biosphere and the future comes the responsibility element
inherent in a term such as sustainability, which places on individuals and communities
accountability to act according to self-ascribed values and principles; Diane Ackerman
expressed this power eloquently:
“We are among the rarest of the rare…[because of] our powerful grip on the whole
planet, and the precariousness of our future…It is possible that we may also become
extinct, and if we do, we will not be the only species that sabotaged itself, merely the
only one that could have prevented it (1997).”
This precariousness has not gone unnoticed: in the last 50 years, environmental writers
have influenced societies to care about negative human impacts on the environment.
Progress can be seen with increasing community- articulated concerns on local as well as
8
global scales, evidenced with globally revised laws respecting nature and sophisticated
policy frameworks, such as the Earth Charter, Rio Summit and resulting Convention on
Biological Diversity, to meet the converging crises of climate change, resource scarcity,
population explosions, and species extinctions (Glowka 1994). The power to decide the
future of the environment and the responsibility elements implied in sustainability are
anticipated and reinforced through the concepts of biocultural diversity and stewardship.
ECOLOGY/BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY
*DIVERSITY
Diversity is a leading indicator of Sustainability. Diversity—variety, color,
contrast, and resiliency found in Nature—is seen as the mark of a healthy planet (Devall
& Sessions 1985). Caroline Fraser, in her book Rewilding; Dispatches from the
Conservation Revolution affirms this positive connection when she states “we have come
to believe that with greater diversity—whether cultural or biological—comes greater
value (p.7)”. The field of Conservation is concerned with preserving diversity for the
quality of the future and the integrity of life on Earth as much. Conservation may be
considered a subset of Sustainability because it answers the questions raised by the
pursuit of Sustainability—specifically the question of “what should we sustain?” and
directs action according to ecologically identified targets of sustainability.
*BIODIVERSITY
Biodiversity is under threat. Decades of reports from the scientific community
demonstrate a crisis in biodiversity and habitat loss, despite increasing and integrative
top-down efforts towards conservation (IUCN, WWF, MEA 2005). This disturbing trend
9
is a symptom of a larger problem of widespread environmental damage caused by
humans, accelerating since the Industrial Age, which has severely damaged the integrity
of Earth’s systems and exponentially increased extinction rates (Zalasiewicz 2008).
While species extinction has always been a natural part of history, experts agree that
since the 1850s we have entered an accelerating human- caused massive extinction event
in Earth’s natural history (Eldridge 2000), where the background rate of extinction is
estimated to be up to 1000 to 10,000 times the normal rate (May & Lawton, 1995; Carroll
& Meffe, 1997). With an extinction crisis underway it is clear that humans are not
making sustainable choices in managing their relationship with wildlife (IUCN, Birdlife
International, Wilson 2002, Gore 2006 &1993) and change is overdue: “A wider social
recognition of our global ecological interpendence has lagged behind. As a result the
response to the 6th great extinction has been slow in coming, weak un urgency, and
disorganized in focus” (p.12-13). This problem undermines human capacity to create a
sustainable way of living on planet earth, as species—whose value we have yet to
understand—vanish faster than cultures can adjust their development practices and
unsustainable lifestyles towards conservation.
“Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and
extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet
rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This has resulted
in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth. The changes
that have been made to ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains in human
well-being and economic development, but these gains have been achieved at growing
costs in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks of
nonlinear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people. These
problems, unless addressed, will substantially diminish the benefits that future
generations obtain from ecosystems” (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
10
The term biodiversity originated in response to these conservation concerns and as such
is often used as an Indicator of Sustainability. Farnham examines the usefulness and
power of the term biodiversity, seeing it as
“the current paradigm for conservation efforts, a concept that provides a
multilayered model for what we ought to protect in the natural world (p.9)…The
characteristic that distinguishes biological diversity from other concepts is that it
envelops a much larger segment of nature and encompasses a wider range of
values” (Farnham, p.3-4)… much more than a target for scientific inquiry. It
includes all of the values at stake in the maintenance of the living resources of the
Earth. Certainly, scientific value is one of these…Every species lost means, as
one popular metaphor states, the tearing of a page from the book of life on earth
and subsequently, an irretrievable loss of evolutionary and biological knowledge.
But scientific value is only one facet of biological diversity…because of its
breadth, biological diversity is able to subsume all of the values highlighted in
other conservation concepts…has become an umbrella under which various
environmental interests can congregate and protect values collectively (Farnham,
p.5)”
This description is a testament to the power of a single term to impart in a single word a
plethora of values, ideal behaviors, and policies. Terms such as biodiversity are efficient
because, comprised of a 3-tiered definition (genes, species, and ecosystems as the
hierarchical levels), they “best encapsulated the values gained from nature” and
“succeeded in expressing a range of values and concerns that previously were scattered
disparately throughout the scientific and conservation communities (p.6)” The
appearance of the term biodiversity illustrates an evolution of consciousness about life on
Earth, bringing together many values into one concept, and as such is a positive sign
towards sustainability.
BIRDS as BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS
Birds are often used as an Indicator of biodiversity; including indicators of
biocultural integrity, Ecosystem Health Indicators, and of a distinct local
11
knowledge/culture, (ETHNOrnithology, birdlife international). This is because many
birds are easy to notice and identify, they require specific elements for survival, are high
on the food chain, and occupy niches--as subjects of frequent study they serve as
indicators of ecosystem health. (Burnett et al., 2005; Rodewald and Brittingham, 2007;
Nur et al., 2008) and therefore, can be indicative of overall environmental diversity.
Where birds are plentiful or endangered, we can examine the sustainability of these areas
by looking for stewardship.
*BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY
Biocultural Diversity is a newer term that expands the term biodiversity, offering an
explanation of the dynamic evolutionary relationship between cultures, biodiversity, and
ecosystems. With the degradation, change, or loss of biodiversity and habitat cultures
face or have succumbed to a crisis of extinction and identity, often mirroring the
biodiversity extinction crisis mentioned above in location, scale, and for the same
reasons. Made popular by Luisa Maffi in the book On Biocultural Diversity; Linking
Language, Diversity, and the Environment, its proponents housed within the Terralingua
Organization, biocultural diversity advances a science-based eco-centric understanding of
how cultural and language diversity directly correlates to and has co-evolved with
ecosystems and native species. In Figure 1, we see a Terra Lingua, UNESCO, and WWF
map featuring biocultural diversity hotspots (both linguistic and biological) via overlay
revealing a definitive connection between cultural diversity and biodiversity. This theory
is another concept tool illustrating the strength of the connection between humans and
local nature.
12
In areas where we see a human-caused deterioration in the health of species and
their ecosystems, such as in highly developed or polluted areas of New Jersey, we can
use the lens of biocultural diversity to examine if the cause might be a breach in the
integrity of the human-nature relationship; a researcher might ask if the local culture is
sufficiently embracing, reflecting, and expressing its connection to the local landscape
and ecosystems fully; or is the culture functionally divorced from those natural rhythms
and features that define cultures within bioculturally diverse areas? The answer to that
question has profound implications for both local nature and cultures: using historic
examples such as Greenland settlers, the Anasazi, and Easter Island settlers, ornithologist
and biologist Jared Diamond makes the case in his book Collapse that the degree to
which cultures fail to respect and respond to the needs of local ecosystems determines not
only whether local species thrive or fall to extinction, but in many cases will result in a
shared fate of the local cultures with these same ecosystems (Diamond 2005). Examining
the health of the connection between local cultural integrity and the condition of local
ecosystems/biodiversity is important because it can reveal the trajectory of both in the
future, of which Sustainability is concerned.
There is a global downward trend in the health of biocultural diversity, an
Indicator of Sustainability (see Part 2), suggesting a crisis of imminent extinctions;
therefore the issue of biocultural diversity loss/degradation will here serve as the leading
indicator of sustainability success or failure, of particular value because of its ability to
evaluate both the biological, ecological, and cultural elements of a given place within one
framework. Assimilation brought on by globalization has resulted in the erosion of
13
cultural diversity and indigenous knowledge/ autonomy in managing natural resources.
Maffi characterizes the situation thusly;
“Biodiversity and cultural diversity are intimately—some would say inextricably—
related to each other…the biocultural diversity of life is at grave risk. Global economic,
political, and social forces are eroding the vitality and resilience of the world’s
ecosystems and cultures. A “converging extinction crisis” is leading to a rapid and vast
loss of diversity in all its forms. Losing biocultural diversity means losing the very fabric
and vitality of life, losing our present and future options for life on earth” –Luisa Maffi,
(http://www.terralingua.org/lit/ )
Conservation attempts to respond to this crisis and biocultural diversity is a
framework concept that can therefore be used as an Indicator of Sustainability. Where
biocultural diversity is thriving we can expect Sustainability, where it is not, in most
cases, we can expect to see cases of severe human disturbance, disruption, and
disconnection between humans and their surrounding ecosystem.
14
PART II: AVIAN CONSERVATION/CRITIQUE
THREATS to BIRDS:
There are over 10,000 diverse species of birds globally and 1,253 bird species
(12.5% of the total, or one in eight) are globally threatened, of these, 189 species are
Critically Endangered, meaning that they face an extremely high risk of extinction in the
immediate future, with 150 species
lost in 500 years. The threats
leading to population declines in
birds are many and varied:
agriculture, logging and invasive
species are the most severe,
respectively affecting 1,065 (87%),
668 (55%) and 625 (51%) globally
threatened species (Figure 2). These
threats create stresses on bird
populations in a range of ways, the
commonest being habitat
destruction and degradation, which affect 1,146 (93%) threatened species.
On average, about a third of their total ranges has been lost.462 globally threatened bird
species (38%) worldwide have been identified as at risk for this reason (BirdLife
International 2004, 2011).
15
(BirdLife International (2008) A range of threats drives declines in bird populations.
Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website. Available from:
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/120. Checked: 12/05/2012)
E.O. Wilson in Future of Life, 2002, reduced this list to the acronym HIPPO, which
stands for Habitat Destruction, Invasive Species, Pollution, Population, and
Overharvesting. We see here that birds generally are negatively affected by human
activities to point of extinction and threat of extinction. Using birds as an Indicator, we
see that we are not living sustainably.
16
SHOREBIRDS
There are 221 species of shorebird worldwide with a high dependency on a
limited number of key stopover sites making them particularly vulnerable to habitat loss
and declining food resources from the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. In
2003, an International Wader Study Group workshop was convened with 132 specialists
from 20 countries to address the question “Are shorebird populations worldwide in
decline?” Results from the workshop found that 48% are declining, including many longdistance migrants, and only 16% were increasing.
The subject of my work is the Calidris Canuta Rufa, or the Red Knot, a type of
sandpiper that visits New Jersey. There are 1.15 Calidris Canuta million worldwide. This
species is suffering from human impacts. Red Knots suffer from several threats, including
human disturbance; a recent study in New Jersey found that Red Knots occurred ten
times more likely in closed beaches in Cape May (Mizrahi 2003). Over the past twenty
years, populations that were previously estimated at 100,000-150,000, now number
18,000-33,000. The Patagonian population has fallen from 100,000-150,000 in the early
1980s to around 17,500 in 2005 (Figures 3 and 4 show trends). Population plunged by
nearly 50% alone in 2005, increasing the likelihood of extinction within the next decade.
Such science should inspire us to take action.
The Red Knot shorebird has one of the longest migrations of any bird-- up to
10,000 miles each year. The Delaware Bay serves as the most critical stopover site along
the Atlantic Flyway (Figures 5 and 6 show this migration). The spectacle of amassing
shorebirds feasting on millions of horseshoe crab eggs is one of nature’s most
exhilarating illustrations of the connection between species within an ecosystem. The Red
17
Knot and Horseshoe Crab are iconic shoreline inhabitants that reside along the Southern
New Jersey Coast, defining with their presence a sense of place. Horseshoe Crabs,
considered living fossils having survived unchanged for over 400 million years, are
familiar residents of South Jersey beaches, especially visible during May and June when
they come ashore by the thousands to lay their eggs in the sand. The connection between
shorebirds and horseshoe crabs is evident in good and bad times. Both species suffer
from human disturbance, shore development pressures, habitat alteration and degradation.
Since the 1990s, horseshoe crabs have been overharvested along the East Coast; as crab
populations crashed, so have Red Knot populations crashed (McGowan 2011). This
combination of pressures has led to such a dramatic and serious decline that 1) there is a
moratorium on the taking of horseshoe crabs in New Jersey and 2) the Red Knot is
currently listed as Endangered in New Jersey and is a fast-track candidate awaiting final
approval for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. Rising pressures (such
as pollution, the need for development in a nearly built-out state, and predicted climate
change disruptions such as sea level rise, mismatched migration, and ocean acidification)
further jeopardize these signature species’ chances of recovery (Faurby 2010). The
precarious state of these two species signals a need for urgent action.
According to Dr. Niles et al, the overall the goal of conservation activities
throughout the flyway should be to increase the rufa population to at least the figure of 25
years ago of 100,000-150,000 by 2015. Population models show that if adult survival
remained low, the Red Knot could go extinct within ten years. (Niles, L., H. Sitters, A.
Dey, and Red Knot Status Assessment Group. 2010)
18
Research has been extensive and involved a diverse selection of people and
organizations, government and non-government. While we can always have more data,
and there are many studies to be done, thanks to Dr. Niles and his associates, there is no
denying that humans must change their relationship with the Red Knot and other
migrating shorebirds if we are to realize Sustainability according to the biocultural
diversity health indicator. Dr Niles explains the challenges:
"Fortunately, the Red Knot is one of the best studied long-distance shorebird migrants,
with surveys taking place in nearly all important habitats along its 15,000 km flyway.
This work has given us a reasonably complete picture of its critical habitat throughout the
flyway" but also" Intensive research and monitoring has been carried out throughout
rufa’s West Atlantic flyway since 1997. However, this has been largely uncoordinated.
Most work has focused on specific sites and, except for Delaware Bay and two sites in
Argentina, coverage has been patchy. Although the broad thrust of the research that has
taken place has been to study rufa’s migration ecology there has been no effort to agree
on a hemisphere-wide strategy that seeks to address the core issues and develop effective
conservation prescriptions. No Red Knot study group exists. There is an urgent need to
form such a group to develop cooperation between all Red Knot researchers. More
importantly there is an urgent need to develop a strategy for Red Knot research that
identifies key conservation issues and assigns them priority so that effort and resources
are effectively and efficiently spent" (p. 114)
Conservation Biology is one area of knowledge that helps us answer questions about our
relationship with the planet according to biological limits; as such it allows us to see
conclusively that we are not living Sustainability and that species are suffering as a result
of our excesses. What is not settled is how best to coordinate conservation and plan
successful and sustainable conservation schemes that work for both people and species.
MANAGEMENT SCHEMES
When it comes to addressing problems related to biodiversity/habitat loss (the
result of the degradation of the biocultural/ human-nature connection), conservation
19
biologists have traditionally been called in to facilitate species recovery, in the process
forming coalitions or enemies as they attempt to manage wildlife across various scales,
usually from top-down models (Soule 1985, Fraser 2010). In the places where the
human-nature connection has been upset, those involved in conservation campaigns seek
to restore ecological balance towards a more sustainable way of living before it’s too late;
E.O. Wilson, describing conservation biology, famously called this “a discipline with a
deadline” (2002). As the extinction crisis worsens, not improves after decades of
conservation biology, new approaches have been welcomed. Models have generally been
top-down and focused on preserving charismatic species and their habitats, such as WWF
Panda efforts in China or 2011 Year of the Tiger campaigns. Recent models include
delineations into Eco-Regions which take a birds-eye view of conservation with
campaigns to capture ecosystem “representation” (Olson and Dinerstein,1998 & 2004) ; a
campaign called “the global 200”—preserving representative areas of every identifiable
ecosystem, with a focus on biodiversity hotspots where the priority is to“save areas of
high endemism” (Myers 1988) which have fragmented the landscape and globalized
conservation to the dismay of locals (Chapin 2005). Callicott discusses why parks are not
enough;
“The development-permitted zones greatly exceed the development-excluded zones in
number and size… As the human population and economy grow, the pressure on these
ragtag wild areas becomes ever greater. In temperate North America, wilderness reserves,
national parks, and conservancy districts have become small islands in a rising tide of
cities, suburbs, farms, ranches, interstates, and clear-cuts. And they are all seriously
compromised by human recreation and by exotic species colonization” (p. 174).
Rewilding as a conservation model focuses on “cores, corridors, and carnivores” but
because of its massive and idealistic vision of corridors thousands of miles long, and
20
while solving the fragmentation and contiguous habitat problem for species, has been
criticized for its top-down approach and because of scale issues prove difficult to pull off
organizationally and socially (Fraser 2010).
To succeed in stopping biodiversity and habitat loss across the globe, sharing the
findings of conservation biology, ecology, and environmental science is not enough.
What we know and what data we have gathered through surveys, studies, experiments,
and modeling have proved insufficient in moving the hearts and minds of local people in
whose hands biodiversity is protected or degraded. Therefore, in many places of high
ecological importance or aesthetic beauty, in top-down gestures, wilderness designations,
such as refuges and sanctuaries, are put in place to keep habitat pristine. The
environmental historian J. Baird Callicott, explains the modern wilderness model thusly;
“After the existence of an "environmental crisis" was widely acknowledged the late
1960s, the benchmark of environmental quality was the wilderness ideal of pristine,
untouched nature. Accordingly, the new breed of environmentalists believed that the best
way to preserve nature, if not the only way, was to exclude all human economic activities
from representative ecosystems and designate them as wilderness preserves. In them,
some old-growth forests could remain standing, wild animals could have a little habitat,
and so on. In effect, we attempted to achieve environmental preservation by zoning the
planet into areas where environmentally destructive human economic activities-like
livestock grazing, mining, logging, agriculture, mechanized recreation, manufacturing,
and real estate development-would be permitted and areas where such activities would be
excluded”(1994).
Currently a type of wilderness is imposed on the communities of the Delaware Bay,
where during shorebird migration, beaches are closed, and enforcement officers are ready
to arrest any violator who does not observe the exclusion. While wilderness might be
good for nature and species of shorebirds, it often hasn’t worked for people. Why?
Conservation has often meant keeping people separate from nature. When you keep
people away from nature you alienate them from the environment, restrict their freedom,
21
and reinforce the nature/human disconnect that is at the root of most conservation and
sustainability problems. Callicott explains how this attempt at separation between
humans and nature/wilderness is self-defeating and illusory: “wilderness preservation has
often meant freeze-framing the status quo ante, maintaining things as they were when the
"white man" first came on the scene. Hence the wilderness ideal, so interpreted,
represents a conservation goal that would be possible to attain, paradoxically, only
through intensive management efforts to keep things the way they were in defiance of
nature's inherent dynamism…” The eloquent and passionate writer Edward Abbey
captures the alienation and frustration with the status quo and with such exclusive models
that separate people for the sake of nature:
“Science is not sufficient…nor am I concerned with nature as living museum, the
preservation of spontaneous plants and wild animals. The wildest animal I know is
you…We need wilderness because we are wild animals… The boundary around a
wilderness area may well be an artificial, self-imposed, sophisticated construction, but
once inside that line you discover the artificiality beginning to drop away; and the deeper
you go, the longer you stay, the more interesting things get-sometimes fatally interesting.
And that too is what we want…I believe it is possible to find and live a balanced way of
life somewhere halfway between all-out industrialism on the one hand and a makebelieve pastoral idyll on the other.” (Abbey p.228-230).
This desire for a more human-friendly model of conservation is called for by Steiner
who rejects such human/nature physical divides in the name of conservation; he observes,
‘‘Society no longer needs to frame conservation solutions as either ‘we touch it’ or ‘we
don’t touch it.’ The latter is a very fundamentalist option to impose on people.’ (Steiner,
2005, p.90).
The idea of conservation as an imposition is similar to the critique of conservation
becoming globalized. Conservation is a worldwide concern, requiring the clash of
22
cultures. In the recent past, critical reflection on fieldwork along with the rise of
environmental justice and indigenous peoples movements have complicated the promise
and approach of large conservation organization and government actions where
wilderness is “imposed upon” a place, triggering backlash from local groups alienated
from their own ecosystems (IUCN, Chapin 2005) . In response, methods of sensitively
interacting with stakeholders, inclusive management decision making, and participatory
solutions have surfaced. In the last few decades a shift towards community or local
governance has offered a solution for the excesses of top down and “guns and fences”
models of conservation.
Instead of exclusive decision making practices originating from powerful circles
of influence, resulting in “experts” coming into local communities to impose natural
resources/species, efforts have been made which employ a participatory, inclusive
approach to management which utilizes and builds upon the strength and involvement of
the layperson community. The narrowness of the dominant approaches in conservation
biology and the importance of promoting local stewardship is increasingly recognized
globally as an essential component to lasting sustainable conservation of endangered
species (MEA 2005). To this end, international conservation methods have been evolving
in principle towards inclusive, innovative, place-based solutions managed in
collaboration with stakeholders, rather than top-down, exclusive, traditional expertmanaged solutions developed and executed often by international, often foreign-based
advocates (Borrini-Feyerabend 1997, 2004). In Figure 7 (Table 1.1), adapted from Phillip
2003, the World Commission on Protected Areas in their 2004 report Indigenous and
Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation,
23
illustrates the differences between traditional and more inclusive collaborative
conservation strategies. This model can be extended in principle to non-indigenous
communities, and by further extension, to sustainability generally. There are many
instances of success, as documented in case studies chronicled in Fraser’s book ; she
summarizes “The institutions that fund major conservation projects, have pressed for
greater sensitivity and attention to human rights, insisting that projects with a strict focus
on biological conservation be expanded to encompass human aid, in the form of so-called
community conservation projects. “ This has been controversial for biologists; scientists
have reluctantly found themselves acting as social engineers” (p.12) and “the trick to
gaining traction on large-scale projects may lie in starting small. Projects work better on a
human scale. While the big plans seem doomed to creep along for decades..[smaller
projects] give activists something to build on, amassing small successes in rebuilding
biodiversity and economic support as they go (94)”. Since the 1992 Rio Summit, the
world bank mandated that conservation must broaden its approaches to include input and
assistance from stakeholders, social scientists, economists, educators, marketers, etc.
(Glowka 1994) but these integrated 21st century approaches to conservation are still in the
trial and error phase--fraught with failures-- which is not good for indigenous
communities or species on the brink/on the receiving end of well-intentioned but naïve
participatory management schemes (Chapin 2005, Agrawal & Gibson 2001). While
respecting and getting local communities involved is important, it is not the single key to
success, and rushed campaigns which are not truly bottom-up have failed (Fraser 2010).
There have been many lessons learned about conservation, and mistakes caution us from
thinking any one approach will solve the problem. Perhaps one of the most important
24
trends is the healthy skepticism that has surfaced in conservation: avoiding “panaceas” is
heard often, drawing attention to the litany of approaches that were welcomed as cure-alls
for conservation woes, only to fail, frustrate biologists and governments, or alienate
locals (Ostrom 2007). Berkes describes how community-based conservation by itself is
not sufficient: she writes,
“The panacea of community-based conservation is probably no more effective than the
panacea of exclusively state-based conservation, because they both ignore the multilevel
nature of linkages and multiple partners required for any biodiversity conservation
project to be successful. Such an analysis would suggest that conservation cannot be
conceived and implemented only at one level, because community institutions are only
one layer in a multilevel world. Thus the debate over community-based conservation
ignores the fact that commons need to be managed at multiple levels, with vertical and
horizontal institutional interplay… An increasingly globalized world requires institutions
that link the local level to the various higher levels of social and political
organization”(p. 15192-3)… Communities have an important role to play in biodiversity
conservation. However, community-based conservation as a panacea, like governmentbased conservation as a panacea, ignores the necessity of managing commons at multiple
levels, with vertical and horizontal interplay among institutions. The study of
conservation in a multilevel world can serve to inform an interdisciplinary science of
conservation, consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity, to establish
partnerships and link biological conservation objectives with local development
objectives. Improving the integration of conservation and development requires
rethinking conservation by using a complexity perspective and the ability to deal with
multiple objectives, use of partnerships and deliberative processes, and learning from
commons research to develop diagnostic tools. Perceived this way, community-based
conservation has a role to play in a broad pluralistic approach to biodiversity protection:
it is governance that starts from the ground up and involves networks and linkages across
various levels of organization. The shift of attention to processes at multiple levels
fundamentally alters the way in which the governance of conservation development may
be conceived and developed, using diagnostics within a pluralistic framework rather than
a blueprint approach (Berkes 2007)”
Integrated Approaches are multi-level, all-of-the-above attempts to learn from the
mistakes of all the models mentioned above. They seek to integrate the best parts and
elements of success from models and combine them into a holistic approach that satisfies
every species and stakeholder. From so many failures it seems that current conservation
25
models recognize that there is no one model for success, that there are no shortcuts or
top-down approaches that will ensure species recovery, and as such winning over the
locals cannot be avoided, nor is it the only solution. Recent models recognize that an
interplay between all levels of social organization is needed for conservation dreams to
be realized.
PART III: VALUES of NATURE
LIMITS of SCIENCE
“Conservation ultimately comes down to people – their behaviors toward nature, their
beliefs about its value, and their ability to protect it without sacrificing basic life needs.
And so, conservationists must become as skilled in social change as in science; as
committed to community-based solutions as national and international policymaking”
(http://www.rareconservation.org/about)
Through the contemplation of meaning and decision making about sustainability,
we defines our values. In practice, communities of all scales across geographic
boundaries should and regularly do convene to discuss and define collectively that which
is so valuable that it should be preserved for other species and future generations. When
such careful social planning and long-term decision-making is absent, short term
concerns win out, often leading to the destruction of diversity or overconsumption of the
worlds’ finite resources.
For conservation biology to be worth anything, science must be complemented
with social science: that attempts to appreciate local values with increased care for
presentation, establishing legitimacy, promoting stewardship among local people, who
ultimately determine in their myriad daily choices the health of biodiversity and habitat.
26
There is still a divide between scientists and non-scientists, and it is a cultural difference:
a reluctance to engage in non-scientific terms; Dave Forman, founder of Earth First!, an
activist organization fueled his organization with anger for such reluctance among
conservationists to move outside of scientific discussions; “Conservation publications
will not touch anything philosophical with a ten foot pole. Quite simply, we have not just
lost the intellectual battle for conservation in recent years, we have not even fought it.
The neo-conservatives with their economic views of the Earth and life have won by
default. Environmentalists have not even shown up at the arena. That must change
(Foreman, p. 2).” In order to realize Sustainability, including conservation objectives
therein, we must appreciate the connection between people and nature in values terms
and discuss the conservation problems in not just strictly biological terms.
Everyone has a relationship with nature. In the Biophilia Hypothesis, Stephen
Kellert and E.O. Wilson described the concept as an evolutionary affinity towards nature
which defines what it is to be human, highlighting the positive role of natural diversity on
human well-being including ethical, medical, economic, symbolic, cultural, aesthetic, and
spiritual reasons (1993). According to these authors, humans need this connection. When
the human/nature connection is weak there are negative results for people and planet: In
rich developed nations, individuals increasingly maintain lifestyles which, though
dependent on Nature in less obvious ways, are alienated from Nature, known as Nature
Deficit Disorder, (Louv) and disconnection from the ecosystem leads to damage resulting
from consumer choices which not immediately or directly seen (Gilbert 2006). Callicott
decscribes how “Measured by the wilderness standard, all human impact is bad, not
27
because human beings are inherently bad, but because human beings are not a part
ofnature--or so the wilderness idea assumes”…” if we are a part of nature, then we have a
rightful place and role in nature no less than any other creature-no less than elephants, or
whales, or redwoods. And what we may do in and to nature-the transformations that we
impose upon the environment-are in principle no better or no worse than what elephants,
or whales, or redwoods, may do in and to nature” (Callicott, p, 176-177).In Gilbert’s
article “If Only Gay Sex Caused Global Warming”, he discusses that even when we value
nature, the scale of environmental problems has outsized our ability to recognize our
affect on ecosystems and respond effectively. In order to make gains towards
Sustainability, we must therefore understand how humans relate to nature, and try to
reestablish this connection inherent in the term biocultural diversity. The categories of
human values of nature below were developed by Stephen Kellert after a US Fish and
Wildlife Survey which spoke with thousands of Americans about their relationship with
nature; these categories help us to understand, classify, and anticipate the range of
responses we might expect from the public around issues of conservation.
28
When we approach place-based conservation goals with sensitivity to local community
stakeholders and their range of values towards nature shown above, we respect the human
role in conservation and have a better chance at being successful in the long term.
The relationship between people and place are captured in the terms nature,
wilderness, and bio(cultural)diversity. Nature has been called one of the most complex
words in the English language; this variability and density of meaning shows that the
term reflects as much about humans as it does the natural world. Understanding the
assumptions of nature and our relationship to it are important first steps before
implementing any of the conservation models above because “the very term [used] to
describe the environment—nature—is itself an astonishingly complex human
construction (Cronon 1990) and “the idea of nature contains, though often unnoticed, and
29
extraordinary amount of human history” (Williams, Raymond. 1980). When humans
define nature they are attempting to describe a thing separate from ourselves; in the
process of identification, nature has been often demarcated as other than human. The
concept of wilderness captures this ancient divide between humans and nature:
“At the philosophical level, the wilderness idea perpetuates the pre-Darwinian myth that
"man" exists apart from nature. Our oldest and most influential cultural traditions have
taught us that we human beings are exclusively created in the image of God, or that we
are somehow uniquely endowed with divine rationality. Thus we, and all the products of
our essentially supernatural minds, were thought to exist apart from and over-against
nature. For wilderness purists, encountering any human artifact (not their own) in a
wilderness setting spoils their experience of pristine nature” (Callecot p.176).
Farnham captures this element of geospatial differentiation in his discussion of the
understanding of the term “biodiversity” as he explains that cultures process biodiversity
with an “implicit connection with values (p.7)”. He explains that even the concept of
biodiversity is understood differently across cultures because “the values inherent in the
[biodiversity] concept are representative of a Western perspective, and not necessarily
those in tropical countries where biodiversity is richest (p.9)”; such complications in
meaning call for need to approach biodiversity from a local perspective that respects the
unique and ecosystem-specific connection between humans and nature.
CONSERVATION as CROSS-CULTURAL EXCHANGE:
Cultures are different from place to place, therefore how best to promote
conservation and stewardship will be unique to each locality and place-based in design,
drawing on perspectives and methodologies found in cultural anthropology, sociology,
and human geography. When conservationists come to communities with conservation
projects, the result is often intercultural exchanges at migration stopover sites revealing
30
wide gaps between scientist and community; these gaps can be viewed as the
discrepancies between values, attitudes, economic and livelihood concerns, class, history,
symbolism, representation, education/literacy, language, religion, respect for
authority/the law, scale, lifestyle, gender and race relations, relationship to natural
resources, physical environment/ecosystem, to name only a few. Kenneth Ian
MacDonald, a Geographer at the University of Toronto working with Terralingua writes
of the importance of viewing conservation as a cultural product,
“deriving from a system of beliefs and values symbolically expressed within particular
knowledge systems that relate to particular patterns of behavior and practice, all of
which are contested. When we understand conservation from this perspective, we can
begin to acknowledge it as a cultural phenomenon not simply in the so-called Third
World but also in places – like Europe and North America - where, based on selfrepresentations, ‘subjective culture’ would seem to have been replaced by ‘objective
rationalism’. We can understand the ways in which environmental behavior is grounded
in particular structures of knowledge (e.g., rationalist, indigenous), expressed through
dominant modes of communication (conversation, media), codified (formally and
informally) in societal institutions (religion, law), which structure practice (tradition). We
can also appreciate how these differ within and between cultural groups and perhaps most
importantly, the role they play in contributing to identity; how they help to tell people
who they are. To say that something is cultural, is to observe the effect of this interplay
(p.7)… there is a need to recognise that conservation is inextricably bound to culture both
as a process and a product. Conservation is cultural practice (p.15)
Only when we acknowledge the cultural elements of conservation do we have a chance to
succeed on the ground.
Finally, controversial or not, conservation and Sustainability have a moral and
ethical consideration. Fraser explains that there is an inherently moral aspect to
conservation; stating “rewilding is not only a scientific necessity but also an ethical
responsibility” and “Biologists no longer shrink from the overtly moral argument that
humanity has an obligation to protect and restore wilderness”(p.12) There are several
philosophical premises that make moral/ethical claims on why consideration towards
31
non-human nature, sustainability, and conservation is appropriate and necessary;
including Paul Taylor-biocentrism, Naess, Devall & Sessions—deep ecology, Aldo
Leopold-land ethic, Peter Singer—animal rights/humane moralist. Many of these
perspectives build upon a foundation of recognized intrinsic value. Using these
perspectives, we should protect shorebirds, for example, because they have intrinsic
value, meaning either that they are individuals deserving rights, of equal worth as living
beings, that they are an integral part of the coastline ecosystem, or even that they
represent God’s creation and are therefore sacred. There are other philosophical
perspectives that, while perhaps not recognizing intrinsic or equal value in non-human
nature, see a utilitarian value (in the form of natural resources for our benefit, aesthetic
value—see Kellert, recreational value, etc) in nature that we should preserve for the use
of future generations; from such anthropocentric or ethical humanist perspectives, it
would be morally/ethically corrupt to eradicate species and destroy habitat because of its
negative impacts on humans.
These philosophical models protect nature because it is good for people to do so.
In this model, shorebirds are protected because people like shorebirds, because people
consider it moral to conserve nature, and because a healthy, intact ecosystem will or may
eventually benefit people. While this model doesn’t rely on and may not recognize the
integrity and intrinsic value of non-human life on a scale equal to human life, effectively
and most importantly it may have the same outcomes (Weston, 1985). Dr. Niles in his
blog, often discusses that bird hunters and bird watchers share the same land ethic
regarding protecting the integrity of the ecosystem and because both value nature,
however different in kind, if jointly mobilized as a constituency conservation gains might
32
be doubled. The power dynamics of conservation will be discussed later, but the
philosophy that what happens to the environment is a matter of unequal power
relationships among humans is the thesis of social ecologists, like Murray Bookchin
(Ecology of Freedom) who argue that the same people who make life miserable for the
poor are the same capitalist antagonists who degrade the environment with no regard for
species or people, only short term profit. From my experience working in the field on
avian conservation campaigns, I can attest that a lack of money (and property/power
thereof) is the major barrier to advances in conservation, and if it wasn’t for volunteers
donating their time because of a personal value of nature, our cause would be much
further behind.
Others degrade their environment because of a breakdown in society: As Jared
Diamond shows in his book Collapse, most collapsed societies and were driven to
degrade their environment after failures in wealth distribution and infrastructure to
provide for human need resulted in devastated ecosystems such as Ethiopia and Haiti
(2005). Derrick Jensen in Endgame makes a powerful argument that war, humans
fighting over resources and power, is the biggest threat to the environment. Finally,
climate change, which threatens all species, can be seen as a social ecology crisis, where
the inability of humans to make collective decisions for the good of the planet and future,
to share and distribute limited resources wisely geographically and over time, and to
sacrifice luxuries for the sake of others/species, is a struggle of power within society
having extinction-level planetary effects.
Though lagging in results, an awareness of environmental problems has increased
such that Sustainability might now be considered a modern environmental philosophical
33
model which I would classify close to anthropocentrism and social ecology. According to
the most often cited definition of Sustainability, (which is here coupled with
development) offered by the Bruntland Report Our Common Future:
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within
it two key concepts: the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's
poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by
the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet
present and future needs (XX)"
From an intrinsic value perspective, a notable deficiency to this anthropocentric
definition is its lack of extension of consideration to other species’ well-being, intrinsic
value, or ecosystem integrity, despite being written after significant advances in
environmental law and philosophy regarding nature’s rights and the extension of intrinsic
value considerations to non-human nature. It is tough to argue that shorebirds, for
example, deserve a chance to live according to this foundational definition of
Sustainability, in that shorebirds don’t offer much in the way of meeting ecosystem or
humans needs, (minus aesthetic value to certain subcultures). For such species that don’t
provide a service to meet human needs, a wider definition of Sustainability should be
adopted, such as Aldo Leopold’s extension of the precautionary principle to ecosystems:
“The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts (1966)”. Though there is
room for greater valuation of nature, Sustainability is gaining popularity as an initiative,
evidenced in economic and legal trends that show promising signs of an increase in
consideration for the value of wild nature.
34
Economics:
There is money in birds and wildlife. People pay to enjoy visiting clean habitats
and watching wildlife, for the values cited by Kellert and others above. Suggesting strong
biocultural diversity, NOAA reports that human appreciation and connection to coastlines
is thriving:
“Tourism and recreation are…highly significant outdoor activities in the coastal zone.
Public lands along U.S. coastlines offer access to seashores, bays, and estuaries for
fishing and birding, boating and surfing, and other coastal activities within aesthetic
landscapes. Over 180 million people visit beaches and other coastal habitats every year,
and coastal recreation and tourism generate $8 billion to $12 billion annually.”
(http://americasgreatoutdoors.gov/files/2011/02/AGO-Report-Connecting-2-7-11.pdf,
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/abouthabitat/keyfacts.html)
Birdwatching is a major revenue stream
that converts internal values of birds to
economical values. In his article “Birder
Economics”, Kerlinger discusses the
fact that 100,000 visitors journey to
Cape May Jersey spending $10,000,000
(p.36) . In the 2006 Survey, there is a
well documented body of research
establishing that there is a lot of money
in recreational outdoor activities,
including hunting, fishing, birding, and
eco-tourism, a rising trend;. these funds
35
have a local effect as they generate renewable jobs and local livelihoods (Kerlinger)
within small scale economies, theoretically making a case that preserving land is more
valuable than converting it to development.
While there is an economic case to made for the preservation of birds and habitat,
as to the not-fully-tapped market of eco-tourism from wildlife/bird watchers, from an
environmental economic theory point of view, the fate of an endangered species is an
interesting test of whether humans (across a wide sample of human cultures at various
scales) are able or willing to sustain and safeguard unmodified wild nature for its own
sake. If we cannot use the argument of intrinsic value, it appears difficult to argue the
economics of conservation of something like a shorebird. Even adding in economic
externalities, shorebirds have little to no economic value to the majority of humans
because they offer no significant value or eco-system service (Daly 1997). Further, if
protection of their habitat means restrictions on development and usage of beachfront
property and coastline, then the presence/existence birds, doing what they’ve been built
to do through evolution, may be viewed as a curse for humans.
As Sustainers have argued for decades, conservationists and environmental
managers now realize that in order to avoid conservation failures, equal attention must be
paid to improving local livelihoods, providing for basic needs, living sustainably, and
ending poverty. Because self-preservation is the first rule of survival, “gradually we are
realizing that the environment is the economy” (Fraser p.8). Understanding the dynamics,
motivations, and needs of local people (which drive them to degrade the natural
environment and kill species) requires listening and engagement with communities and
individual citizens on the ground to discover what has worked and what will
36
truly/permanently work to allow Humans and Nature to co-exist locally. The diagram
below by Herman Daly, Environmental Economist attempts to represent the relationship
between ecology and the economy. This diagram is significant because it places the
human economy within the larger planetary ecosystem; this representation not only
erases the notion of duality between humans on one side and nature on the other, but it
serves to advance the idea that humans have an integral role to play within the planetary
ecosystem, where our species depends on and directly influences the healthy functioning
of the ecosystem.
When we operate from such a systems model of the economy/ecosystem, what seems like
an expense to locals in the short term can be seen as a money-saver over the long term. If
we consider the costs from lost revenue and property loss of value associated with the
imminent closing of beaches along the Eastern flyway to accommodate the Red Knot if it
becomes federally listed, versus the cost of using a different type of bait fish, acting
conservatively now is the better option, and having a clean and protected beach for the
37
long term is ultimately good for property and aesthetic values. This is true for many
sustainability problems, such as solar panel installations or taking action to stop climate
change; the Stern Report advocates economic support for exercising the precautionary
principle for the same reasons employed by conservationists: “The benefits of strong,
early action on climate change outweigh the costs”(p.1) Not acting according to the
suggestions of scientists has great costs and shows a lack of appreciation towards the
value of nature, represented in environmental economics as externalities (Daly). In
conservation concerns, we see that the lack of valuation of nature has life and death
effects on birds: “Humans are responsible for the threats to birds…These threats have
deeper causes, rooted in our failure to accord wild nature its true value” (BirdLife
International (2008). A better way to value nature is needed. While it compromises the
argument for intrinsic value, if economic arguments can show a financial benefit from
conservation in a money-centered culture, endangered species like the Red Knot will
benefit.
As captured in the social ecology model, humans do not affect or have access to
nature uniformly. It has been well established that there is a class element evident in
birder demographics. Active birders are highly educated: about three-quarters of the
respondents in their study held degrees from four-year colleges and 98% graduated from
high school (Wiedner and Kerlinger, 1990). The income levels of birders is above the
national average: income for American Birding Association members was nearly three
times the national average (Wauer 1991). In a 1990 study, less than 30 % of birders made
less than the national average. This is also a powerful force within the economy,
numbers-wise: 87.5 million people participate in wildlife related recreation.(U.S.
38
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation. (p. 87, 89). Commenting on this study on his blog, Dr.
Niles called for consolidating this constituency’s economic power and converting it to a
vehicle towards conservation, much like the Duck Stamp does for hunting; he writes,
“One way to look at this is to equate our care for wildlife with the money we pay for their
welfare (some people invest their care in volunteer efforts to help wildlife although
this group is small). Most invest money, some donating to groups, others pay for licenses
or permits. The amount of money paid could be seen as a crude measure of our collective
concern for the future of wildlife in this country. Supporting wildlife related non-profit
groups is the backbone of the system that focuses on red knots and other species like
them. It adds up to a lot of people, but in truth, these folks are only a fraction of the 71
million people who say they care for wildlife. In NJ, where surveys show 1.2 million
people identify themselves as caring for wildlife, less than 100,000 belong to non-profit
conservation groups. It is a guess how many more simply make donations, but its not
likely to be many more. Does this mean bird lovers don’t care?… Is it possible that these
wildlife loving people want to consume wildlife without paying for conservation system
as though all of gods creatures will manage and protect themselves?( Niles, L. 2012).
The economics of birding and funding mechanisms for conservation are central concerns
for future research.
Human Geography/Cultural Anthropology/Environmental Psychology
Expanding upon the concept of biocultural diversity in Part 1, human geographers and
cultural anthropologists examine the socio-spatial dynamics of human communities. How
individuals identify and societies organize themselves in relationship to the natural world
has many consequences for other species, the environment generally, for Sustainability,
and for the future experience of humans. Effective conservation must integrate such
perspectives to solve present and prevent further extinction crises, including our own.
The Red Knot and other endangered/migrating shorebirds are interesting subjects of
study because these unassuming little birds unwittingly offer occasion for cross-cultural
39
engagement, reveal the complex of socio-spatial relationships around them, and
frequently serve as flashpoints between governments and their citizens,
grassroots/indigenous communities and multi-national organizations, and between
nations, states, and localities. Callicott explains that conservation of species and
wilderness has a cultural anthropological element: “we are beginning to realize that
wilderness is an ethnocentric concept”(Callicot, p. 175). In order to save the bird,
conservation biologists must collect data throughout the range; however scientists are
often not prepared to serve as ambassadors. As well-funded foreign biologists and
conservation NGOs follow the shorebird throughout the Western Hemisphere to monitor
its population, they must attempt to skillfully navigate between diverse cultures and legal
systems, sometimes provoke backlash and environmental justice conflicts that complicate
progress for the bird. for example wildlife managers and biologists are often exasperated
and heart broken after the Red Knot stops over in several places where it is hunted for
food by subsistence villagers in Alaska and Brazil (where it is not protected by any laws)
and is killed, resulting in the loss of data, expensive monitoring devices, and wasted field
work hours bird tagging and monitoring.
While the Red Knot does travel to some of the most remote and unpopulated
places along the Atlantic Coast (the Arctic Tundra and the Patagonian Islands), in much
of its range we see increasing problems of human/nature conflicts as spaces are less and
less wild, i.e. spaces that are more productions of nature than healthy, self-sustaining
ecosystems. We see that the fate of the Red Knot is increasingly in human hands, and that
getting humans to agree to protect the bird throughout its range is an enormous social,
cultural, and political challenge. Kenneth Ian MacDonald explains stakes “conservation
40
initiatives that do not place people, history and culture at their core are doomed to resort
to violence or fail… the credibility of the conservation movement depends on its ability
to deal with the relation between history, culture and conservation in all its complexity
and beyond the clichés” (MacDonald, 2005, p. 5).
POLITICAL ECOLOGY:
Saving Biodiversity requires more than conservation biology, ecology, and
environmental science targets. Building on foundational values of nature, stewardship
(and Sustainability) must be facilitated through effective exchanges across various
cultures, legal and political systems, institutions, classes, different levels and scales of
Social Process.
The recovery of species of international concern requires large scale coordination
of conservation efforts as well as effective local stewardship. “at the international level,
the uniquely American wilderness idea is not a universalizable approach to conservation.
But the environmental crisis, and particularly the erosion of biodiversity, is global in
scope. Thus we need a conservation philosophy that is universalizable”(Callicot p.174).
In avian conservation, there are several umbrella organizations that manage, coordinate,
or assist local bird conservation, research, and stewardship programs in their many forms:
Birdlife International, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, The National Audubon Society,
Nature Conservancy, and State Audubon Societies are major/ important contributors to
protecting and educating about birds, and if not directly studied here, their influence and
assistance regionally was obvious at many levels of social process. In all of these
organizations, non-scientists are involved in collecting data, protecting species, and
41
achieving scientific (data-driven) conservation targets, many or most of which involve
birds. This inclusive approach to conservation-- where researchers are in constant
conversation with the community and work closely with non-scientists to collectively
develop solutions-- is modern, creative, place-based, and radical as it reappropriates
knowledge and power to the public, eroding the barrier between scientists and stewards,
sharing responsibility for nature.
LEGAL/POLICY
This paper focuses on the Red Knot, for which there has been much activity and
research towards its protection. The bird’s variable role within cultures can be seen in the
rights and protections it enjoys within a plethora human legal systems (see Figure ). In
many cases these protections can differ wildly, for example, in New Jersey the bird is
already listed as endangered, but is on the wait list for federal protection through the
Endangered Species Act, and does not enjoy any type of protection in several Carribean
countries, where it is hunted (Niles 2011, Birdlife International.org./Community 2011).
The result is a patchwork of laws and protections, intermittently enforced, if at all.
The legal status of the Red Knot in the United States begins with the Migratory
Bird Act of 1918—one of our earliest environmental protections; note that while the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects from harm, does not afford Red Knots protection
from human disturbance on migratory and wintering areas or ensure protection of food
resources. It is further protected internationally under the Convention on Wetlands,
signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971. In November 2005, there were 101 parties to The
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals including the rufa
42
subspecies of Red Knot, added to Appendix 1 of the Convention. The U.S., Canada and
Brazil are among the minority of countries not yet parties to the Convention.
As called for in an integrated approach to conservation, there are overlapping
protection networks at various levels of social process that monitor, advocate for, and
protect birds. Along the Red Knot migratory range, these networks include private and
public protection areas with supervisory organizations including Birdlife International,
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, North American Bird Conservation
Initiative, The Nature Conservancy, The National Audubon Society, The United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuges, Partners in Flight, North American
Waterbird Conservation Plan, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, New Jersey Audubon
and other State Audubon Societies, various State and local Fish & Wildlife officials &
enforcement officers, and volunteer Shorebird Stewards. So much organization and so
many people working for shorebirds is encouraging for a sustainable future which is built
upon a foundation of stewardship.
In acknowledging a need for sustainability and desire for change, humans are
expressing their relationship with nature and their responsibility to protect nature. The
evolution of humankind’s concern towards rights and protection for Nature has been
reflected and enshrined in biota-concerned politics, laws/regulations, and science-based
government environmental management decisions. In her 2010 book, Rewilding:
Dispatches from the Conservation Revolution, Caroline Fraser explains that “over time
nature has been afforded more and more consideration, citing evidence of a gradual
expansion of values exhibited in protection efforts over the years (p.7)”. Accelerating in
creation throughout the 20th century to the present day, environmentally concerned
43
regulatory/governing bodies, legislation, and policies—both national and international—
reflect growing citizen concern over unsustainable and cruel destruction of species and
the environment generally; these include federal political solutions such as the Humane
Slaughter Act, The US Animal Welfare Act, Endangered Species/ Preservation and
Conservation Acts, creation of Earth Day, Marine Mammal Species Act, The Clean Air
and Water Acts and subsequent Amendments, CERCLA, TSCA, NEPA, and
international regulatory and advisory panel solutions such as CITES, IUCN, IPCC,
UNEP, UNESCO, Kyoto and Montreal Protocols, Earth Summits and related Earth
Charter, The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, also resolutions such
as Sustainable Fisheries Resolution, Oceans and Law of the Sea resolution, commissions
such as The International Whaling Commission, and councils such as The Forest and
Marine Stewardship Councils. Around the world, top-down creation of national parks,
wildlife corridors, protected areas, sanctuaries, and refuges has helped slow biodiversity
and habitat loss, illustrating that conservation is a priority for humanity.
Looking at legal protections as a reflection of values and power differences within
a social ecology model, we see a struggle between the rich and the poor/other species
often being played out in the courts. While rights have expanded in previous centuries,
few would argue that the system at present delivers justice equitably among sectors of
society and across the species divide. Rights and their distribution are represented by the
ability to sue in a court of law; our policies flow from this legal basis for addressing
wrongs. This is most clearly evident in cases of the environment and International,
federal, and state policies which demonstrate a failure to provide fundamental rights to
the environment or equitable access to environmental/social justice for less powerful
44
minority groups. Because birds have no rights, they enjoy legal protection as it pleases
humans.
Attempts to secure rights for nature are evolving and ongoing. While this idea is
still scoffed at, of note is the historical piece “Should Trees have Standing?” in which
Christopher D. Stone discusses the evolution of rights in Western societies in recent
centuries, showing that “each time there is a movement to confer rights onto some new
“entity”, the proposal is bound to sound odd or frightening or laughable. This partly
because until the rightless thing receives its rights, we cannot see it as anything but a
thing for the use of “us” – those who are holding rights at the time” (Stone, 1976). He
gives examples which demonstrate how civilizations do eventually adapt to perceive the
expanded set of rights as natural; examples include expanded rights for children,
corporations, and minorities. International efforts such as a push for a U.N. resolutions
calling for a Universal Declaration on The Rights of Mother Earth or Rights of Nature
reflect attempts at the expansion of legal protection for the environment at a global level.
The trend towards expanding rights to nature has not yet fully manifested, but has been
consistently evolving on the whole, with some setbacks.
While there has been much social progress in advancing legal, political, and
democratic governance protections for Nature, society has failed to control unsustainable
development, poaching, illegal exotic animal capture/trade, deforestation, the spreading
of invasive species which destroys native populations, overfishing/by-catch, and climate
change. It remains to be seen how effective top down measures can be, especially when
they are not actually enforced, unless there is a true valuing of nature reflected in
economics and an environmental ethic of stewardship.
45
The legislation surrounding the protection of Red Knots and Horseshoe Crabs
upon which they rely during spring migration, illustrates how incongruous policies
between the state and federal level result in disjointed conservation efforts that have not
been successful thus far. The bird is currently protected as follows “The red knot was
added to the list of Federal candidate species in 2006. Red knots are federally protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and are State-listed as threatened” (US Fish &
Wildlife). The State of NJ announced a moratorium on Horseshoe Crab Harvesting in
2008, citing Red Knot conservation concerns and triggers. The Federal Government is
further behind: on July 8 of 2011, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that
they promise to begin to speed up the federal listing process; nevertheless as of today,
Red Knots are still languishing in candidate status under the Endangered Species Act,
despite a loss of 5000 birds (or 1/3rd of its population) in 2011. Their status listing has
been rejected several times due to insufficient evidence or lack of priority.
We can use several models of policy and political system models to understand
this situation from a multitude of perspectives.
(Using the Competing Factions Model)
Using the policy model of competing, unstable factions, we see the Red Knot and
Horseshoe crab as the subject of fierce and controversial public policy and political
debate between competing factions. Thanks to well publicized public awareness
campaigns, members of the public are concerned over Red Knot and Horseshoe Crab
species extinctions and seek remedy. Individuals (of all means) voice their concerns to
State and Federal Representatives who may or may not pass protective legislation on
46
their behalf. Non-Governmental and Non-Profit Organizations, such as Defenders of
Wildlife and The New Jersey Audubon organize indivduals, channel concerns, and lobby
congress to seek the adoption of protective measures for The Red Knot and Horseshoe
Crabs. Conversely, powerful industry Interest groups, such as those in the biomedical,
pharmaceutical, and fishing industry, lobby business-friendly representatives to resist and
shut down any policy measures that would result in tighter regulatory control. This has
been brought to a head with the submission of several petitions presented to the
government on behalf of citizens, pressing for greater legal protection for the bird.
(Using the Mutualist, Non-Interefence model of a few stable government Committee
Model)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have held up listing the Red Knot for years.
Since 2006 it is stalled in the candidate consideration phase. This may seem stable as the
political status of the bird drifts through the system, still in official channels and
procedures. This is good for business because as long as it appears like its being
considered, environmentalists are pacified and businesses don’t have to accommodate the
hassle of protections.
(Using a Soft Systems Model of the Political System)
Using the dynamic response model conceptual diagram on page 14 of Shafritz, we
understand that our Political system exists within the confines of a wider human and
natural “Environment”, but that The Political system, under its mandate to meet
constituent human demands (inputs), make decisions and take actions (outputs) which
spill over into the surrounding environment (including the natural environment; ie. the
47
realm of the Red Knot, Horseshoe Crab, and the coastline real estate/habitat they depend
on).
(Using the power elites/Marx Weber analysis)
The Red Knot and Horseshoe Crab have no political or economic power. Their
role in the market is that of a commodity and as such make fisherpeople and
pharmaceutical businesses a lot of money. The tourism value for the Red Knot is small by
comparison. Elites in Industry and their rich friends have a lot of money to lose if the Red
Knot gets listed as an endangered species and so they jam up the mechanisms of
democracy and compassion to a halt minus overwhelming pressure from below. The
moral impetus for saving a species does not have the requisite profit to conserve the
species. It’s science against business, and the science can be sidelined, at least for now.
Protection for Red Knot
The FWS must also consider whether there are areas of habitat believed to be
essential to red knot conservation. If prudent and determinable, those areas will be
proposed for designation as Critical Habitat. The FWS has authority to designate Critical
Habitat only within the U.S. and its territories; it is anticipated that the Proposed Rule /
48
Proposed Critical Habitat will be published in the Federal Register by late 2012 for public
comment. (http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/, FWS listing fact sheet, FWS
Listing and Critical Habitat webpage). Dr. Niles describes what benefits he expects to be
the benefits of federal protection of Red Knots through the Endangered Species Act:
“Once listed, the red knot will be front-and-center in decisions affecting migratory
stopovers, such as Delaware Bay that have been diminished by short-sighted management
and wintering areas that have been worn to tatters by beachfront development and
disturbance. It will also help other Arctic-nesting shorebirds, most of which are also
quickly declining in numbers, their own futures much in doubt. It will help biologists
and conservationists raise money to do the work necessary to restore the species. At the
very least, it should arrest the ongoing declines” (Saturday, July 23, 2011 at 11:44AM)
Protections for Horseshoe Crabs:
Federal protections of the Horseshoe Crab are designated via the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission and some additional protections provided by National Seashores.
Cape Cod National and Fire Island National Seashore are the only seashores that prohibit
the harvesting and landing of Horseshoe Crabs. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission finalized the Fisheries Management Plan for Horseshoe Crabs in 1999 and
regularly revisit targets.
With enough public support and amenable state governments, states are
sometimes able to go further in their protections than the Federal system. Thanks to the
leadership of Dr. Larry Niles, who ran the New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Endangered and
Non-Game Species Program for 25 years, New Jersey protections on horseshoe crab
takings, spawning habitats, and shorebird disturbances prohibitions are some of the
strongest in the country, exceeding the reach of national protections. In 2008, New Jersey
established a prohibition on the possession of Horseshoe Crabs or Horseshoe Crab eggs.
49
The prohibition can be lifted if US Fish and Wildlife determines that populations such as
the Red Knot have reached recovery targets when New Jersey will consider a limited
harvest season. Horseshoe Crabs can be used as bait if taken from other states with
suitable documentation indicating horseshoe crab origin. In a strain of anthropocentrism,
New Jersey allows the limited taking of horseshoe crabs for biomedical and research
purposes, as long as the person possesses a scientific collection permit and returns the
horseshoe crab alive to the ocean (Eckel, p. 12).
POLITICS:
The politics of conservation, when not grounded in a culture of stewardship, are
subject to pendulum swings of ideology depending on the partisan makeup of the current
administration. While conservationists pray for federal listing of their favorite
endangered species, regulation is not a cure-all for the long-term recovery of endangered
species as it is both slow to react and subject to political whims and swings of sentiment.
Because they divorce people from being part of the environment, its problems and
solution, exclusive models of conservation are often unpopular and seed bitterness that is
seized upon by politicians eager for office: Callicott explains “at the political level, the
wilderness preservation philosophy of nature conservation is defensive and ultimately
represents a losing strategy” (p. 174). An example of how protection not rooted in
stewardship can backfire on the political and cultural level is the plight of the adorable
piping plover, one of the most hated birds along the shore, which serves as political
fodder for Republicans ranting against “big government”. Because of its reactive nature,
inciteful rhetoric, and short term/crisis thinking, the herky-jerky vicissitudes of politics
50
(and conservation actions resulting from political campaigns) may be seen to pose a
threat to birds and conservation. For example, in New Jersey the legal protections above
were put through by a Democrats and the current Republican administration is at work
stripping environmental protections. In his blog post, “Burying our Political Differences
for Conservation” Dr. Niles discusses the influence of partisan politics on wildlife; he
writes
“This…partisan division goes on in government agencies that we depend upon to solve
conservation problems. In most states, including NJ, each new governor brings in a long
list of appointees that spends at least the first two years of their four-year tenure trying to
undo the actions of the previous partisan appointees. “Red” solutions lean toward
making the government pay for protection (by buying land); “Blue” solutions tend
toward increased regulation to prevent inappropriate use. Both solutions fail in absence
of the other, and the appointees, who rarely have any real conservation experience (or
ultimate responsibility for long-term outcomes) rely on their respective conservation
partisans for answers” (Monday, January 9, 2012 at 10:22AM
http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/2012/1/9/burying-our-political-differences-forconservation.html).
The power of factions within government lies with power in numbers. According to the
USFW Survey of 2006, of all the wildlife in the United States, birds attracted the biggest
following. Approximately 47.7 million people observed birds around the home and on
trips in 2006. A majority of 88 percent (41.8 million), observed wild birds around the
home; 42 percent (19.9 million) travelled to observe wild birds. Participants averaged a
115 days of birding in due to the 124 days of around-the-home birding while traveling
birders averaged 14 days (See figure ). These facts reveal a substantial voting block in the
United States which if mobilized effectively, as with the League of Conservation Voters,
could help elect Sustainability candidates who could influence eco-friendly policy
making. Further, these numbers indicate a promise of nascent stewardship ready to be
developed and translated into action; as Dr. Niles explains, “If some big portion of the
51
72 million US citizens who appreciate wildlife had direct, “hands-on” experiences with
wildlife, it would naturally compel them to express their interest politically (Niles,
Monday, January 9, 2012)” and “the issues that divide these two groups of
conservationists, sportsmen and wildlife watchers, can be fixed. Doing so would push
everyone toward a more cohesive conservation movement that would become a mighty
force for New Jersey wildlife. Keep in mind that the combined population of sportsmen
and wildlife watchers would equal a voting block of nearly one fifth of the state’s
population (~1.5 million of a total population of ~8 million). (Dr. Niles, Saturday, July
23, 2011 at 10:05AM).
PART IV: Solution: A Stewardship Model of Conservation
STEWARDSHIP
Stewardship is a layered concept that is extremely valuable to promote for those
seeking progress towards sustainability (and conservation by definition). For this paper’s
analysis, I propose that to fully realize the concept of Stewardship, an individual or
community would exemplify pro-nature:
 Connection: from an ecological perspective, stewards recognize that they are
actors within and upon a larger system, dependent on its healthy functioning with an
ability to affect this system. As Fraser explains,
“the 20th and 21st century have proved to be an of connecting…everything is
interdependent. There are no spare parts. (p.4)”…”With agriculture and livestock, we
may have stepped outside the local habitats that rule other creatures’ lives, making
ourselves at home in places too cold or nutritionally marginal for any other primate. But
we are still subordinate to natural forces. No species survives in a vacuum, including our
own” (p.5).
52
 Values: While motivations and the quality of relationship may vary, stewards,
recognizing their connection to nature, recognize the value of a “healthy” environment:
stewards will possess an environmental ethic, pro-nature values, and positive attitudes
towards conservation. Kellert discusses in Chart X the nine values that qualify the human
connection with nature, and any of these may motivate behavior.
 Responsibility: Crisis or not, stewards experience a transmutation and activation
of these connections and values towards a self-reflective acknowledgement of personal
accountability and responsibility for preserving the integrity of nature.
 Action and Engagement: each person plays the active role of guardian over a
victimized environment to resist forces of natural destruction
Without coming across as dogmatic, self-righteous, or bossy, the term stewardship gently
reminds people that if and when they accept their connection to, values of, and
responsibility for nature, that they are compelled/have a duty to get involved and take
action to protect the integrity of nature. This idea builds on the Judeo-Christian biblical
notion of stewardship ["And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of
Eden to dress it and to keep it" (Genesis 2:15) and "The land must not be sold
permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants"(Leviticus
25:23)] which heralds back to the traditional meaning that stewards take care of someone
else’s property, cognizant of restrictions of choice based on duty to safeguard something
larger than one’s own sphere. As a concept it promotes an ideal posture of engagement
and puts demands on individuals, insisting that we contribute towards a sustainable
world, accountable for the well-being of the natural beings and systems that surround and
53
support us. Stewardship might assume an ethic towards and appreciation for nature but it
does not rely on such a motivation; stewards might be motivated by self or species’ selfinterest and still make a meaningful contribution to conservation.
The term stewardship goes beyond sustainability and biocultural diversity. Unlike
the two latter terms, stewardship is not just a concept (a perspective on our place in the
world and an ethical foundation), it has an inherently active component—prescribing an
element of engagement with the natural world as a form of environmental experience and
understanding.
The secret of Sustainability is the promotion of local stewardship. Stewardship is an
invaluable element to Sustainability because it is both an ethical foundation and a call to
action. Stewardship prompts us to ask such questions as “Are we living sustainably? Are
we hurting the planet and other species? How can we tell?” Science and data gathering
flow naturally from stewardship to answer these questions; but once data is gathered and
analyzed, it must flow back into stewardship for it to inform sustainable decisions and
actions. A Stewardship Model of Conservation may be visualized as a continuous loop
where Stewardship is the start and end point with Science in the middle; such a
representation captures the fact that without an ethic to inspire science towards
Sustainability Studies and without Stewardship as an active force within society to realize
Sustainability, Science is useless.
54
I would like to offer a Stewardship Model of Conservation. The graphic below is
an illustration of the concept: In the main box you see the word “Stewardship”, which I
define as a posture of responsibility for and proactive engagement within the larger
ecosystem. Stewardship is at the top here because it is our starting point to how we view
our role on Earth--it’s an ethical foundation which prompts us to ask such questions as
“are we living sustainably? Are we hurting the planet and other species? How can we
tell?”. Science is important because it helps us answer those questions but it is not as
prominent within the model because while it is a tool to help us solve sustainability
problems, it has proved insufficient to ending or preventing problems such as extinction
crises. Science, like the data on Red Knots, must flow back into stewardship to be put
into action, because data is worthless unless people use knowledge to make more
sustainable choices.
The Scientist/Citizen Divide
If conservation is treated as a matter of science, can non-scientists be involved in
conservation? Is it important to retain the separation between scientist and citizen? What
are the benefits of involving citizens in conservation? Kleinmann, in his article “Beyond
55
the Science Wars: Contemplating the Democritization of Science” critiques the
separation between scientist and citizen. He suggests that there is a spectrum of
involvement among citizens in science: from the very involved citizen who plays an
equal role in decision making on study design to the more passive role of commenter or
free labor—the spectrum variation may be explained by the intensity or relaxation of
scientist control of the project (p. 134). He sees the more restrictive end of the spectrum
as excessive, dismissive, and self-defeating; he states,
“the inability of laypeople to grasp the subtle content, difficult concepts, and
methodological complexity of science is not a valid basis for a priori rejection of
to efforts democratize science…the real obstacles to the democratization of
science are rooted in widespread social and economic inequalities and an
unexamined commitment to expert authority” (Kleinmann, p. 133).
Perhaps the most common argument in favor of democratic involvement is that lay
citizens have a right to participate in decisions about scientific research "which is
financed with taxpayer dollars and which has broad social impact" (Goggin,1984:29).
A more radical justification or citizen involvement in the realm of science and
technology is the anti-expert [Sustainability] principle of democratization of
process (Sclove, 1995:25). There are many reasons why non-scientists ought to
have access to science and there are even more reasons why scientists should
welcome non-scientists into the scientific process.
I chose The Shorebird Stewards Program in the Delaware Bay, started by Dr.
Niles and managed by Larissa Smith [see interviews], as a best practice for the
promotion of stewardship through the use of Citizen Science. In his blog, a Rube
with a View, Dr. Niles suggests that involving citizens in conservation is essential for
56
future success of conservation. In several posts, he ties the success of Red Knot and
horseshoe crab conservation to the utilization and involvement of non-scientists;
“one new approach is to give people a direct appreciation of wildlife and encourage
crowd-sourced answers to longstanding problems. For example, allowing citizens with
an interest to band birds to do so, under peer supervision, will increase our scientific
understanding of all birds in the process. Or we can speed the recovery of horseshoe
crabs on Delaware Bay by enlisting thousands of people to rescue trapped and overturned
crabs. In both cases, the public gets a truly intimate understanding of individual animals
and the problems they face (Niles, Monday, January 9, 2012)”.
Dr. Niles is an exceptional leader in the field of conservation because he advocates the
erosion of borders between scientists and non-scientists. The description above of the
ideal of stewardship in practice at the Delaware Bay exists today because of a desire to
transform an ethic of stewardship into real results for species. Finally, Dr. Niles interest
in writing and thinking about the scientific process and meta issues of conservation
illustrates the potential and need for conservationists to go beyond biology in pursuit of
species recovery.
57
Citizen Science
Scientists and human capital managers are involving non-scientists in
conservation efforts, with resulting stewardship opportunities that are improving quality
of life for all species while bringing us closer to sustainability. People want to get
involved and not strictly for selfish reasons: The Corporation for National and
Community Service, Office of Research and Policy Development cites that American
volunteers served 8.1 billion hours in 2010, valued at an estimated $173 billion (2011).
Through empowerment, participation, inspiration, and education, conservation leaders are
teaching people a renewed way of thinking of themselves as stewards on the Earth that
sustains them.
Citizen Science programs foster connection to the big picture state of nature, and
lead toward an ethic of conservation as people recognize the outsized role they play
within a single planetary system. In practice, these programs build upon individuals’
unique strengths/talents and provide the encouragement/opportunity to imagine a
different way of interacting with themselves/others/the planet, involving them in
stewardship and the creating /implementing of solutions. Volunteer bird enthusiasts [such
as the Delaware Bay Shorebird Stewards] are being recognized and respected for the role
they play in avian conservation specifically ecosystem maintenance, including
monitoring and site safeguarding (Greenwood 2007). Birdlife International describes the
power of harnessing this collective group; “with birdwatching such a popular activity,
harnessing people's observations has provided a huge reservoir of previously unavailable
data that can feed into conservation planning and policy” (2008). The Cornell Lab of
Ornithology is the leader in this field, pioneering many successful citizen science projects
58
(see Table x on previous page). They describe their model of citizen science project
design as involving the following steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Choose a scientific question.
Form a scientist/educator/technologist/evaluator team.
Develop, test, and refine protocols, data forms, and educational support materials.
Recruit participants.
Train participants.
Accept, edit, and display data.
Analyze and interpret data.
Disseminate results.
Measure outcomes.
(Bonney, December 2009). [See Part III Interview with NJAS Nelliw Tsipoura for
evidence of similar approach employed locally.] The movement of involving nonscientists in science represents “a growing reversal of the traditional top-down approach
to the creation and dissemination of geographic information” (Bookchild, 2007). But
citizen science has its limits: Dickinson reminds us of these pros and cons;
“Citizen science, the involvement of volunteers in research, has increased the scale of
ecological field studies with continent-wide, centralized monitoring efforts and, more
rarely, tapping of volunteers to conduct large, coordinated, field experiments. The unique
benefit for the field of ecology lies in understanding processes occurring at broad
geographic scales and on private lands, which are impossible to sample extensively with
traditional field research models. Citizen science produces large, longitudinal data sets,
whose potential for error and bias is poorly understood. Because it does not usually aim
to uncover mechanisms underlying ecological patterns, citizen science is best viewed as
complementary to more localized, hypothesis-driven research. In the process of
addressing the impacts of current, global “experiments” altering habitat and climate,
large-scale citizen science has led to new, quantitative approaches to emerging questions
about the distribution and abundance of organisms across space and time (2010)”.
Solutions to these concerns can be ameliorated by smart study design which minimizes
room for observer error by a small selection of variables with a user-friendly protocol,
supportive reference materials, and proper training (Cohn 2008). When non-scientists get
involved in science, they become managers of natural resources within their
59
communities; once trusted to be a part of this process, more approaches to conservation
become available than just top-down or hierarchical approaches.
INCLUSIVE MODELS/COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE
International conservation methods have been evolving in principle towards
inclusive, innovative, place-based solutions managed in collaboration with stakeholders,
rather than top-down, exclusive, traditional expert-managed solutions developed and
executed often by international, often foreign-based advocates (Borrini-Feyerabend
2004). This is significant for migratory shorebird conservation strategy because it
advocates a comprehensive and integrated/interdisciplinary social, as well as scientific,
situation analysis of stopover sites while mandating inclusive practices involving local
stakeholders at all phases of management. This approach draws on the resolutions of the
most recent Worlds Park Congress in 2003, where The World Conservation Union or
(IUCN) set out several targets in the Durban Accord as to how biodiversity rich areas
should be “maturely” managed. In Durban, 1000 representatives from governmental,
non-profit, and private sectors mutually agreed upon the need for cooperation and
coordination across various levels of social process--directly involving local stakeholders
in solutions and planning of solutions, sharing in any benefits that arise from
management. In other words, a top-down, expert-based and executed management
approach is no longer considered effective. To assist in the transition to this more
integrated paradigm of conservation, Principles for Good Governance (for protected
areas) were established. These include:
60
“legitimacy and voice” – ensuring the capacity of men and women to influence
decisions…“subsidiarity” – attributing management authority and responsibility to the
institutions closest to the resources at stake; “fairness” – sharing equitably the costs and
benefits, “do no harm!”…”direction” – establishing long-term conservation objectives
grounded in an appreciation of ecological, historical, social and cultural complexities;
“performance” – meeting the needs and concerns of all stake holders while making a wise
use of resources; and “accountability” (Durban Accord 2004).
By incorporating inclusive principals into endangered species recovery planning,
field managers, drawing on science and social science consensus building
techniques, can involve stakeholders in data gathering and solution-finding—as a
result applying these principles in conservation practices helps to strengthen
communities and bridge the gap between scientists and the community at the local
level to the end benefit of species recovery in total (Vaughn 2007, Bonney 2004 &
2009). As each community is different, various tools and approaches from various
disciplines are needed with which to may work creatively and inclusively with
stakeholders, collaborating in research and planning, attending to local concerns,
encouraging participation in execution, and allowing space for future management
improvements: “Sustainable change happens when people create and implement
their own ideas rather than only accept and implement the ideas of others. Existing
power relationships between ‘experts’ and ‘trainees’ are demolished and more
democratic forms of working developed. (McNiff and Whitehead (2009) p.12).” The
need for conservation to be more inclusive of non-scientists is heralded by Dr Niles
who writes
61
“if conservationists want greater support for programs they need to allow greater access
to wildlife. All the rules that were intended to protect wildlife from those who would do
them harm, are choking out the people who could play a much more expansive role in
their protection. All these rules should be rethought to allow the public greater access to
wildlife…we should rethink the delivery of conservation,” he asks “can conservation, and
the science on which it is based , be re-seen as recreation” (Niles, L. Tuesday, December
20, 2011 at 9:46AM).
Translating a biophilic desire to engage with wildlife into recreational conservation is a
promising direction for conservation.
PRIDE CAMPAIGNS
There have been decades of environmental education and awareness campaigns
about environmental problems. Yet young people are less likely to care for others and for
the environment than previous generations (Twenge 2012). In Southern New Jersey, we
have seen that conservation biology driven projects and environmental education have
not translated fully into strong biocultural diversity-based identification with the struggle
of native/local species, like the Red Knot; as Dr Niles explains, “the main component
missing is the public will” (Swain 2012).
To respond to this status quo, a new approach to conservation is in its
development phase for shorebird conservation along the Delaware Bay. Charles Duncan,
director of Manomet’s Center for Conservation Sciences’ Shorebird Recovery Project
explains the idea is to galvanize public opinion for regulators and lawmakers to take
notice; he states “We want to start with an emotional hook,” Then the organization will
supply a wealth of information and suggest steps that people can take to make a
difference, he said. The hope is that local pride will generate a constituency for saving the
red knot and keeping Delaware Bay healthy (SWAIN, 2012). The model is based on
62
RARE Pride Campaigns, which are based in the developing world. Dave Bornstein of the
New York Times writes “RARE…may have one of the most critical, and under
appreciated, social technologies to protect ecosystems and biodiversity” (2012). Founded
in 1973, at work in over 50 countries, RARE combines social and cultural studies with
local conservation biology targets. On their website, they describe their approach:
1) Determining human behaviors causing threats to biodiversity, such as overfishing,
illegal logging, or unsustainable agriculture
2) Conducting an ongoing search for the most innovative community-based solutions
proven to change these behaviors – what Rare calls conservation “bright spots”
3) Launching social marketing campaigns to increase adoption of these alternative
behaviors in the world’s highest priority areas for conservation.
These steps reflect a model of conservation that is both inclusive and sensitive to local
culture:
“While Rare sources solutions, it does not directly implement outreach at the local level.
Changing behaviors requires a nuanced understanding of social and cultural norms and
trusted messengers from within each community. Therefore, Rare trains local partners
and supports them during all stages of implementing what’s known as a “Pride
campaign…A Pride campaign inspires people to take pride in the species and habitats
that make their communities unique, while also giving them alternatives to
environmentally destructive behaviors” (http://www.rareconservation.org/about)
A version of a Pride Campaign should be tried in the Delaware Bay to attempt to redefine
the local relationship with nature to include shorebirds.
No matter which combination of stewardship models of conservation are
employed, such approaches will eventually benefit people as well as wildlife, being
consistent with Sustainability principles. As individuals, communities, grassroots
organizations, networks, non-profits, NGOs , or as part of state and multi-national
initiatives, people are at work trying a multitude of approaches to save species while
63
promoting stewardship at the local level to get people connected to nature. Sustainers are
meeting the challenge of our time to achieve conservation/environmental successes while
promoting stewardship.
PART V: CASE STUDY: SHOREBIRDS and STEWARDSHIP
My applied focus case study is Shorebird Steward Program within the Conserve
Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey, and the protection efforts to secure a future for the
endangered Red Knot shorebird (Calidris Canutus Rufa), whose extensive migration
through many different environments, cultures, across geographical borders has proven to
be a wonderful topic of ecological as well as cross-cultural study.
Site SELECTION
Avalon, New Jersey is located in an Important Bird (& Birding) Area as defined
by the National and State Audubon Societies. To qualify as an Important Bird Area, sites
must satisfy at least one of the following criteria. The site must support:
•
Species of conservation concern (e.g. threatened and endangered species)
•
Restricted-ranges species (species vulnerable because they are not widely
distributed)
•
Species that are vulnerable because their populations are concentrated in one
general habitat type or biome
•
Species, or groups of similar species (such as waterfowl or shorebirds), that are
vulnerable because they occur at high densities due to their congregatory behavior
[http://web4.audubon.org/bird/iba/iba_intro.html].
64
SPATIAL ANALYSIS:
To measure existing indicators of biocultural diversity and stewardship in my
study area (critical Red Knot habitat), I conducted a gap and fuzzy analysis with guidance
from Ramapo College GIS Professor Mark Becker and assistance from Erin Araujo,
Master of Geography. My goal was to illustrate the relationship between species
distribution and the quality of habitat/protections along Southern New Jersey Shoreline.
The areas chosen for mapping and spatial analysis were The Delaware Bay (in
Spring) and the New Jersey Atlantic Coast (in Fall), critical stopover habitat for the Red
Knot. Analyzing the geography at such species-important sites (both human and physical)
is an essential first step for reversing declining Red Knot population trends.
GAP ANALYSIS and FUZZY MEMBERSHIP ANALYSIS:
Two species were featured in this abridged gap analysis: In the case of the Red
Knot and Horseshoe Crab, any efforts to study these species must accommodate for
highly mobile subjects; plans for species recovery must consider and be extended across
wide geographic ranges, constituted by a mix of habitat types of various qualities, within
a patchwork of varying legal protections, along a constantly changing coastline
landscape, amongst distinctive human communities and cultures.
Geography can be utilized to plan for species recovery through the process of Gap
Analysis. In their foundational article, ``Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach To
Protection Of Biological Diversity,'' Scott et al characterized the importance of Gap
Analysis; “Gap Analysis is a powerful and efficient first step toward setting land
management priorities. It provides focus, direction, and accountability for conservation
65
efforts. Areas identified as important through Gap Analysis can then be examined more
closely for their biological qualities and management needs”. On page 9, the authors
outline the general steps of a Gap Analysis (summarized and abridged here):






map vegetation and species distribution data
map biodiversity management areas and land ownership
adding point or line data for rare species and high interest habitats (such as wetland or
stream)
mapping, delineating, and ranking areas of high community diversity and species
richness
identify gaps in protection areas
apply to future land use decisions, policy, and other conservation actions
The process above has guided the process of this GIS Project, though abridged. For our
maps, we studied, processed, and analyzed the following data layers/variables from these
sources:





NJ Shoreline and Horseshoe Crab Spawning Habitat Suitability (ranked) along the
Delaware Bay (Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis at Rutgers University)
Designated conservation protected areas along this range (Center for Remote Sensing &
Spatial Analysis at Rutgers University)
Red Knot Range (NJDEP Landscape Project)
Historic Coastline (NJDEP)
Land Use/Land Cover for the Delaware Bay and Coastal Watersheds (NJDEP)
A Gap Analysis was attempted using the above steps and sources in conjunction with a
Fuzzy Analysis.
Fuzzy Membership and Fuzzy analysis which attempts to compensate for
imperfect classification. “Fuzzy” is a self-conscious acknowledgement of preference
which implies fuzziness of categorization, qualitative delineation which is subjective.
Fuzzy membership and fuzzy overlay analysis of the categories above lends to the
creation of a more telling dataset and geographic representation of where the animals are
actually occurring in classified by protection status of habitat. Writing about the use of
fuzzy membership within gap analysis, Wood writes, “The use of fuzzy set theory when
developing criterion layers is considered to allow more flexible…operations, and
66
explicitly take into account the continuity and uncertainty in the relation between the
criteria and the decision set…For example, standardizing criterion layers to fuzzy
measures means that the criterion value for each cell is standardized to a measure of the
possibility of belonging to the set along a continuous scale from 0 to 1 (real number
scale)” (p.243).1 Once ranked in categories of membership, regions can be compared; for
example a comparison between area protection and species presence. Using gap analysis
and fuzzy membership analysis allows for a spatial analysis of where to prioritize
conservation efforts.
STUDY AREA:
This paper focuses generally on the Delaware Bay and specifically on Avalon, NJ
which is part of 7 Mile Island on the Atlantic Coast in Cape May County. The study area
most often conforms to the boundaries of Critical Horseshoe Crab Spawning Habitat
along the Southern New Jersey coast; as a result, many of our maps conform to the
boundaries of available geographic data on horseshoe crab habitat. We chose to orient our
study area based on horseshoe crab spawning habitats because Red Knots desperately
need to feed on horseshoe crab eggs in spring during their most critical stopover time,
and will thus disperse to where horseshoe crabs are most likely to spawn. For most of the
maps to follow, we aligned our boundaries therefore to our source horseshoe crab habitat
study area, copied below in Figure 1. Maps to follow which specifically feature Avalon,
New Jersey, are large scale versions of the region wide horseshoe crab habitat suitability
area maps, shown at the scale of 1:17,000 through 1:24,000.
1
Wood, Louisa J., Suzana Dragicevic. GIS-based multicriteria evaluation and fuzzy sets to identify priority sites for
marine protection. Biodivers Conserv (2007) 16:2539–2558. DOI 10.1007/s10531-006-9035-8
67
GIS METHODS:
Because species occur in habitats of various designations, we utilized the GIS
concepts of Gap Analysis and Fuzzy Membership to overlay and assess the Coincidence
of Horseshoe Crab Suitability Habitat, Red Knot Range, Habitat Conservation Protection
Status, and Land Use/Land Cover Designation in Southern New Jersey in 2007. For our
purposes of looking for areas where there is high strength land protection, we can
categorize the areas where the management status of the area is federal, connoting the
highest strength of conservation commitment to as well as a theoretically different level
and quality of enforcement and implementation in habitat management.
Ranking of data and choosing of membership criteria allowed for fuzzy
membership geoprocessing. The Rutgers sourced data was already ranked as 5= federally
listed, 4=State endangered, 3= State threatened, 2= Special Concern, and 1=habitat
68
specific requirements. While all of the rankings indicate protection, the first three
indicate a stronger protection in an area. As such in creating the fuzzy membership, layer
5 was ranked as the high point and 3 as the midpoint with the Special Concern and
Habitat Specific Requirements being removed from the fuzzy membership status because
these indicate a relatively weaker commitment to area protection. For the Horseshoe
Crab Spawning Habitat the rankings of 4, Optimal Habitat, and 5= Suitable Habitat we
classified as pertaining to the fuzzy membership while the habitats to be avoided were
classified as not pertaining to fuzzy membership.
Overlay geoprocessing operations were employed to create new layers. We
computed through the fuzzy overlay analysis; specifically utilizing the “AND” and
“SUM” functions:

where “AND” means that high rankings in the fuzzy membership layers are both
included as high ranking membership in the fuzzy overlay layers.

where the “SUM” function combines the high rankings in the fuzzy membership
layers and the sum of the cells with high numbers classifies the new raster as high
membership in the overlay layer.

Where the “AND” function reveals rasters with more polarized data while the
“SUM” function has a more inclusive dataset.
The Fuzzy overlay analysis, which provides a more differentiated visualization of the
data is very useful for our purposes because it distinguishes between the different levels
of protection in the area of analysis. When the red knot range layer is placed on top of
the fuzzy overlay layers we see that there exists a great deal of protection in the regions
69
where the red knots are found. Finally we compared three maps of 15 years of Land
Use/Land Cover data for Avalon, NJ and found very static land use/land cover patterns.
The results of our land use/land cover, gap, and fuzzy analysis reveal both
comforting as well as worrisome indicators of stewardship for biodiversity protection.
Our maps present the Southern New Jersey coast as a mostly static matrix of fixed land
use and a variety of protected areas. Lathrop reports that 37% of optimal horseshoe crab
spawning habitat [which is also critical shorebird foraging habitat] in New Jersey is
currently under some form of conservation protection (p.3).2 Migratory species such as
the Red Knot need a network of protected areas throughout their range; so while 37% is a
significant % of preserved habitat, it must be looked at in conjunction with efforts in
other states and countries; in other words, shoreline protection areas are good for Red
Knots when they reach New Jersey, but these protections are not fully effective unless
extended throughout the range, beyond New Jersey, where protections for species are
weaker. The significant amount of conserved land is comforting in fact, but worrisome in
implication because despite the setting aside of habitat, the species is suffering and not
recovering.3 Similarly, fuzzy analysis revealed a coincidence of highly protected land and
horseshoe spawning habitat optimal/suitable sites. Like the population of Red Knots, if
horseshoe crab populations are declining in these protected areas, we might conclude
that although areas are protected, protection of land alone is not sufficient to reverse
declines. As such, there are other factors outside of the bounds of this study that are
impacting the population and by inference, the red knot populations.
2
Lathrop, Allen and Love. 2006. Mapping and Assessing Critical Horseshoe Crab Spawning Habitats of Delaware
Bay. Walton Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis, Rutgers University.
3
Brian T. Murray. February 28, 2010. Scientists say red knots population still endangered despite recent rise in
numbers. The Star Ledger. Published: Sunday, 7:20 PM
70
Looking at Land Use Land Cover trends in Avalon Borough, we found very little
change [maps not included before 2007 therefore]. The permanence of infrastructure
presents creative challenges to conservation schemes in places like Avalon. Land Use
Land Cover data presents a mostly static mix of intense urban development, barren land,
and wetlands which, in conjunction with Protection Areas, suggests either high and
persisting stewardship or the effects of development restrictions and being “built out”.
Rather than an increase in stewardship, if Avalon is effectively built out any decrease in
the rate of development reflected in static land use patterns might be attributed to the fact
that there is nothing left to build on that is not protected or off-limits to development.
Green space can be found in Avalon that is federally protected land, which is not
surprising when we look at the historic shoreline map, showing that these green spaces
have been underwater in the past.
While land use, gap, and fuzzy analysis are helpful in determining conservation
priorities, there are many more questions to be addressed. The maps included here
highlight areas of high importance for Red Knot and Horseshoe Crab recovery efforts;
these maps can be used to determine locations for the selection of count surveys in the
field in order to collect data. A Density and cluster analysis could be done to analyze
coincidence of a host of species required for a complete biodiversity gap analysis of the
area.
Further research on the human geography and political ecology of the study area
is necessary. Humans are not mere observers of species: human habitat alteration and
disturbance of species influences migration patterns and reproductive success. Land use
decisions affect species: A chicken-and-egg question at this stage of heavy development
71
is “does habitat protection result in preferred habitat or do preferred habitats drive
protection?” Understanding how we alter species behavior, preferred usage patterns, and
migration choices is necessary so that we can appreciate the human role in species
recovery. Additionally, having the habitat under some form of human protection, while
not showing a gap in analysis, does not mean equal protection in quality—i.e., not all
protected areas were made equal and vary in the quality of protection. Finally, future
threats such as climate change should be anticipated in the planning of future
conservation efforts and growth patterns to allow for species to shift as needed.
These maps show us that while New Jersey has set aside much needed habitat
along the shore, to the benefit of shorebirds and horseshoe crabs, there are still gaps in
protected areas that can be filled, but more importantly, we learn that existing protections
do not sufficiently meet the task of reversing species decline. If the approaches of
command and control, top-down conservation is not working, it might be time for a
stewardship approach to conservation that is community-driven, holistic, and bottom-up.
INTERVIEWS:
Dr. Larry Niles, Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey
Interview Questions For Larry:

You wrote in my letter, “The protection of wildlife is now entering a new stage where we
need new approaches to replace those that have mostly failed in this political climate.”
Can you explain what you meant and why you think the approaches failed? ? Ie what are
the limits of conservation bio/env management as a field of practice in addressing the
holistic problem of species loss?
You can read my blogs to get more detail, but I think we can split conservation politics
fairly in to a liberal and conservative approach. Mostly what we have seen in wildlife is
the prevalence of the liberal approach, push for tight regulations ( listing etc) and create
72
a govt approach that is well funded. This has failed to some extent because it has
alienated much of the public and lock many out of direct contact with wildlife. The
conservative approach is mostly unknown, because they insist on relagating the interest
of wildlife to the background. But if one existed it would be close to game mgt, which is
more considerate of the impact to local economy( economics in general) and would rely
more heavily or users to do the job of surviellance and create more opertunities to
recreate in that vien ( like hunting and fishing).


o
o
o
o

What research projects are missing? Where are the biggest holes that drive you crazy?
What data are you missing and why? What is standing in the way to collect/publish it?
The biggest problem in all way is the lack of support from birders. they sit on the
sidelines and expect conservation to happen without their fiscal support or time. All
other problems flow from that.
My questions from reading the red knot action plan:
Ex: from Conservation plan it says that there is Missing data re: factors that lead
knots to arrive late in Delaware Bay and/or in poor condition. Any guesses or ideas on
what human causes may be? Knot are not arriving late, the hc egg resources on delaware
bay are too sparse at the end of may and birds are failing to gain wt properly. Birds
arriving late was something put forward by the fisheries folks to get out of doing
something about the overharvest of crabs.
Ex: why isn't there more surveys/data on the florida and brazil
populations/subspecies? social impediments to getting a complete picture/surveys about
species? For all these thinkgs it takes money, and one has to consider all the other
problem in florida with endangered endemics. Still comes back to the lack of support
from birders.
Explain lack of understanding/data in Arctic? The Arctic costs alot, its the main
reason
You mention lack of time and resources to write up and publish results. All too
often, data have been analyzed and partly written up, only to be overtaken by the
accumulation of more data. Do partnerships (like with Rutgers or NJ Audubon) help? Or
what else is needed? There is nothing to be done about this but doing it. Think about
how hard it is for you to write things, pretend you have a full time job that doesn't value
peer reviewed papers. The way I deal with it is with partnership with joanna, rick lathrup
and other professors whose job is to write papers.
What research projects would you like to get funding for? Ie if you had unlimited funds,
what would it go to in order to recover species? I have a list, we just finished a ATlantic
Coast flyway list of projects.
NE Florida—trouble to implement even modest restrictions, near Jacksonville==managed
by three different agencies “tortured” FLA Audubon- receiving funds. Instead of
evaluating the field technique, we want to evaluate the managers, why they can’t come to
an integrated approach—cost/impact is minor. Two places w Avalon as a third. Drilling
down to figure out what actions could add to the project—creating a handbook for
managers on how to control the impact of disturbance—create an objective understanding
of costs versus to benefits of the birds. Guidelines but experience of complexity in such
cases. Holy grail being to prove that there is a survival impact—assess the impact of
73
experimental protection. You can’t prove if disturbance is really a problem: excuse to not
act. Protection/survival impacts, wintering areas are being destroyed. A way that agency
people can work. Texas trucks/
(2) Volunteer organizers:
Conserve Wildlife: Larissa Smith,

What specific or general skills are essential for someone in your position? Why? How do
you see yourself/role within conservation: as a scientist? Communicator? Educator?
Facilitator? Translator? Mix? Please explain
To work with volunteers you need to have good people skills. Good communication skills
are also important. A large part of a volunteer project is organization and keeping in
contact with the volunteers. I’m a biologist who ended up working with volunteers
because they were part of the projects I was hired to work on. So I see myself as a mix of
different things biologist, educator and communicator.

How do the citizen science programs provide you with the reliable data you need in your
research programs?
Each volunteer project is different as to whether we are gathering data or not and what
type. For instance the Shorebird steward project is more of an outreach and education
project. We use the bald eagle project volunteers observations to record important
nesting dates such as incubation, hatching and fledging. The Calling Amphibian
Monitoring Project (CAMP) volunteers survey and record for frogs and toads using a
specific protocol.

How is this data received by scientific peers? Is this “real science”? Does “real science”
require supervising experts?
The data collected by the projects I supervise are well received by other biologists in the
program. (can discuss more on phone)

How would you describe your average volunteer? What do these people have in
common? Why do they volunteer? Any notable exceptions?
I have high school kids contact me who want to get involved up to retired senior citizens.
They all are interested in protecting NJ’s wildlife and want to help.

How are your average volunteers different from the average American? Similar?
74
Well I think just that the fact that they volunteer makes them different from the average
American. They actually get out and make a difference.

What features do your programs have in common? What makes them different? What
type of people like which programs? Why does this pairing work?
All the volunteer programs get people outside. The CAMP (Calling Amphibian
Monitoring Project) is a project where the volunteer doesn’t interact with the public or
other volunteers. The shorebird steward project is one where the volunteers “job” is to
interact with people. The eagle project can vary depending upon the nest that volunteers
monitor. Some volunteers won’t see any other people, while others interact with
interested landowners, neighbors, people passing by etc.

Do you think these projects could be exported to a foreign country or how is this
local/specific?
Sure I think the general structure of these projects could be used in foreign countries. Of
course species and the situations would be different.

Do you see a gap between science/scientists and the community? How does it benefit
scientists to work with the public? Vice versa?

Do you see a connection between involvement in citizen science and stewardship on a
personal level? Is it a means to an end?
I think many people who volunteer for our projects tend to be environmental stewards.

In its administration/execution, are citizen science projects education programs? How are
they different? Better?
Some of our volunteer projects have an education component. But they are not
considered education projects. Of course the shorebird steward project is largely
education, as in the volunteers educating the public. A component of the eagle project is
volunteers educating people about eagles.

Do you think that citizen science involvement could play a role in achieving
sustainability? Reversing Biodiversity loss? Is this the best way to get local people
involved for protecting species? Your opinion
It think it’s a great way to get people involved in protecting species. I think the more
“ownership” people have for a species or area, the more they will work to protect it.
******************************************************************
**
75
NELLIE TSIPOURA, (New Jersey Audubon)
The following is a summary of a phone interview with Ms. Tsipoura, answering the same
questions as Ms. Smith, above:
Nellie Tsipoura is a Senior Scientist with a PhD in Ecology and Evolution, she is a bird
specialist. Her role at the New Jersey Audubon is to create the study design for projects.
Determine the important questions/conservation issues needing to be addressed. Best
ways to answer these questions through is research; “In order to be successful you need
knowledge, in order to have credibility in the field. The creative element of this position
is asking questions to resolve in the conservation and figuring out what’s important—
from there – it’s about asking the right questions such as what is it that is truly
important?” while the design element is purely science/methodology drawing on skills of
research, appropriate statistics, and bird biology. She considers her role to be primarily
that of scientist—not an educator, more like scientist who is doing outreach along with
science.
3. Good Study design deals with not reliable data concern—real science is designed that
way. Not designed any difference.
4. The data that cits collect are not supervised at all- they are provided with protocol and
survey sites then set loose. Right off the bat they are not supervised—nellie are there to
help them out. Data collection is in their hands. Supervising experts’ input come in study
design of what will be acceptable, best approach or the data is not going to be worth
anything. High level of coordination takes work: know sites, map, recruit, coordinate site
assignments. Train people. Some projects are set up that they can enter their own data.
Experts review/analyze data.
5. Average male, betw 30-65, some women same age range, a few younger/high
school/college are male, some retirees but not at all is “grannies with sneakers”. Young
kids are less interested, less structured, less committed. Some seniors can’t do physical
things. Most of these people are birders, competitive, more than outdoor stuff. White,
mostly college educated, middle class. Like to get outdoors, want to help science????
Birders age. Not easy to get people involved when their community isn’t interested in
that type of hobby/activity.
6. On average, are much aware of environmental issues, even before doing any of the
projects. Believe in conservation and want to make a difference.
7. Similar all involve bird surveys, follow basic standard—training, site assigns.
Different—frequency, duration, # of required times within time frame. Grassland versus
Harbor Heron—May to October. Commmitment difference. More walks, more hiking at
some projects—3 miles on the beach carrying heavy scope, access, physical challenge,
site differences. Bird constraints—easy ID, versus grassland birds for skilled ear hearing
difficulties. Pairing/selection process is about skill and commitment. Separate recruitment
for each program—self-selecting.
8. Programs are box-able, put them out. Used regional protocol, methodology. Not really
specific methodologies. Difficulty in packaging is not so much the methodology, it’s
76
more the audience selection—selecting the volunteers—this is more local/specific. In
Mexico, it would need to be initiated by a local person to recruit people in a local area.
The questions/conservation issues specific. In NJ this is a hotspot for birding, outdoors
interest, really interested/committed to conservation. Outdoors stuff, conservation is in
the back of their mind—activity is linked to conservation. Versus hiking where
conservation is not on the top of their agenda.
There is not a gap between leaders and citizen scientists—already bought into the
purpose of what they’re doing. Similar values. Different thoughts though—interesting to
engage with people of all walks of life. It benefits conservation—cits are “eyes and ears
in the field”, bring issues to attention of scientists = huge benefit. There is a gap with the
community at large.
Good feedback, many have been doing it for years.
Being proactive, being good citizens, pushing conservation agenda, doing what needs to
be done for their community.
Get them to really understand better the issues—to repeatedly go to site. Science part of
view they are thinking about cause and effect, how things work. From conservation
perspective, they become protectors “they’re going to pick up the phone and let us
know”.
It offers Education but is really a participatory project—different. People learn through
cit science project. There’s always that tie with non-traditional edu. Most don’t have the
level of discovery or commitment that’s required for citizen science. Commitment is
probably a bigger than discovery itself. It’s the difference betw going to school and
having a job. Tests and classes may be fun—a job takes a diff level of commitment than
educ—even if the discovery part of it has ended, you still go. Educ has broader/greater
reach, cit science is much more focused on people who have already made a commitment
to edu.
Cit science is being used is because they’re trying to do these broad regional projects
where you can’t really use staff because the tasks are just so big. Sust is a big job—they
need “eyes and ears in the field”
Yes, sust is broad. Sustainability bothers me, more of philosophical concept—means
different things to different people. Depends on definition. Think carefully. Sustainability
is too broad, often tied into economics, resource use—or develop new models, use.
Moving away from use more holistically—how can we improve our natural resources for
the long run—cit science is integral to sustainability. Individually effective political than
a grassroots movement. Sustainability becomes a market based commodity.
There are lots of different ways to interact with the community, different
audiences/focuses/conservation issues at different scales. Scientists are doing the wrong
thing in terms of closing gap—scientists are doing their own thing and its not
communicated well to the public.
Scale of NJ Audubon, independent thinker a lot of freedom.
77
SHOREBIRD STEWARDS & VOLUNTARY AVOIDANCE STUDY:
Applied Stewardship Model Of Conservation
This past Fall, I managed a team of Shorebird Stewards in Avalon, NJ to test an
inclusive conservation approach to protecting birds called “Voluntary Avoidance”.
During our study we asked residents to voluntarily avoid the birds in a spirit of
stewardship.
Many species of shorebirds have been decreasing in numbers over the last few
decades. One potential cause is loss of and disturbance in places that migrant shorebirds
rest and eat. Shorebirds are very sensitive to disturbance. Disturbance is any action that
interrupts the feeding, breeding, or resting of shorebirds. If the bird takes flight to avoid
you, a truck, or a predator, it is losing valuable energy. It is best to leave as much space
between you and shorebirds because shorebirds have to gain weight to migrate, often
hundreds of miles in a short time span. As a matter of politics and policy, because birds
need the same beaches that are preferred by humans for fishing and other recreational
activities, as a alternative to and compromise between beach closure and allowing human
disturbance of shorebirds, voluntary avoidance is a win-win-win because species save
energy, people get to keep beaches open, and governments get points for protecting
nature at the same time.
The study area was selected by Dr. Niles and approved by the Borough of Avalon.
Due to the high number of Red Knots present on the beach in early November, the study
boundaries were set at 47 and 67th Street. Signs were put up at the beach entrances and
on the beach itself recommending that beach users: 1) stay up at the high tide line or as
78
far away as possible to avoid the birds 2.)Keep children from playing or running at/near
birds 3) Keep dogs on a leash. 4) Drive trucks as high up on the beach as possible. 5) Fish
away from shorebirds and avoid the study area. In an attempt to gauge the effectiveness
of voluntary avoidance, the study period was from November 5th through November 20th,
divided into three periods: No Stewards, with Stewards, No Stewards. Blank Protocol
sheets were distributed to stewards, both paid and volunteer, who received training on
site and captured both public interview and bird count data along a designated line
transect.
ANALYSIS of RESULTS/Discussion of FINDINGS
PUBLIC INTERVIEW RESPONSES:
135 responses: 17 negative, 9 neutral, 75 positive (generally), 3 positive for both, 30 for
pos on study, neg on closure,
Negative
Neutral
Positive
We found that most people don’t
realize that when birds fly in the air or
run away from you, they are losing
energy needed for their migration.

Weekend visitor in a mercedes suv: "the strong survive", do not close the beach, "any
awareness program is a good idea", "I am stunned that people are that interested in birds
with the economy the way it is, people being without jobs, it's a difference in priorities I
guess...A psychologist would have a field day".

Surfer w dog/truck, resident, 33, associates: "it's their natural defense"
79

2 walkers would rather birds avoid them. Humans have bigger brains and are more
important "natural selection". "have you talked with the feral cats about this?" "I see
where this is going..closing down the beaches" referenced piping plover defense
mechanisms as sufficient.

Middle aged walker with college and disruptive dog: "are you a tax payer here?" was
hostile and turned around after.
Utilitarian
Disturbance Results:
Variables: # of birds per census, per hour, amt of time birds per census, that per
census/per hour. Only red knots for this talk.
80
1) # of birds Per census (per distance)_Total 1 census = 1 replicate (total # of birds per
census). 4 per day. Each replicate is its own data point. Compare closed v open. Every
census total # of all/species
4) do the above for disturbances (stewards versus no stewards)
disturbance indices:
1)
% of species disturbed per census
2)
Total Amt of time any birds were disturbed per census basis (ex 60 min census, 4
min 46 seconds of dist) and per hour basis = amt of time in air in census, amt of time
birds were disturbed during the time it took a person to walk the distance
3)
Total amount of time disturbed per census (*60)/total census minutes
4)
Table: Human Behavior split up groups (if substantial), #positive versus negative
5)
Longer question (total, by groups) #of those who said positive to #4 (above)
Convert % of disturbance response divide by 100= weight, disturbance index per hour
81
We confirmed that as time went on in the closed period, there were fewer beach goers
using the study area over time and fewer responses collected; we hypothesize that this
could be visitors possibly avoiding study area or already surveyed.
In the case studies above, I was surprised to find how the science played a
secondary role in conservation as it happened to the delivery of the science. Those who
were most successful in achieving real results in the field were good communicators to
people who also had a firm grasp of the science but could express it well—in a way that
was easy to understand, friendly, engaging, patient, confident, and respectful. Many times
those with the most scientific or expert knowledge were the worst at actually advancing
the conservation agenda they cared most about.
82
CONCLUSION
Conservation, like Sustainability, is a global-community wide effort and there are
not enough well-funded scientists to steward over every corner of every ecosystem. Even
when the science is clear, conservation often fails. A gap between scientists and the
community is obvious and acknowledged in several interviews, but in organizations like
Conserve Wildlife and the NJ Audubon which promote stewardship and save
species/habitat by building this awareness of the insufficiency of the hard science into the
structure of their organizations, including outreach and education as separate but equal
departments requiring different skillsets to forward their main mission of conserving
wildlife and wild places. In all of these organizations, they go a step further by creating
opportunities for local people to act as stewards, responsible citizens, for these
ecosystems, wildlife and wild places, erasing the divide between scientific expert
communities and the public, democratizing conservation, promoting local selfgovernance, and facilitating a deeper relationship with nature (one that goes beyond
education or recreation).
Though the agenda and target goals may be set by biologists, protecting birds,
habitat, and endangered species is a social challenge. In the case study above, through
participatory action research, I met and worked beside people whose purpose and actions
serve to foment a paradigm shift on the ground, within their communities, towards a
greater sensitivity to and responsibility for the needs of wildlife. Different individuals
bring different strengths, experience, and training to the cause, but all share a deep love
of the natural world and a concern for the health of ecosystems and the fate of other
species. The people mentioned here operate from a philosophy which places high value
83
on the integrity of nature; they take action in their communities based upon an
environmental ethic which recognizes the intrinsic value of wildlife and wild places as
well as the need for all individuals to act as stewards locally. Their collective efforts are
helping to raise awareness among local stakeholders in New Jersey about threats to
nature, one citizen at a time, often for little or no monetary reward or incentive other than
satisfaction bought from doing the right thing. These stewards act as advocates on behalf
of nature, hoping to change public minds and behavior toward a way of interacting with
the planet that is less anthropocentric, and as such are helping to realize Sustainability. In
the face of ignorance, cross-cultural conflicts, disturbances, entrenched antagonism, and
logistical challenges faced by these stewards, they persist, against all odds because to
give up is not an option:
“All this may seem utopian, impossibly idealistic. No matter. There comes a point
at every crisis in human affairs when the ideal must become the real--or nothing.
It is my contention that if we wish to save what is good in our lives and give our
children a taste of a good life, we must bring a halt to the ever-expanding
economy and put the growth maniacs under medical care” (Abbey Freedom and
Wilderness, Wilderness and Freedom, p.236).
Human conflicts with nature can be minimized by changing the dynamic of
competition with other species over scarce resources to a relationship of human
stewardship of nature. I have seen firsthand how people can come together around
conservation and what a positive experience it is for those involved and the species that
benefit. I believe that the one true path to Sustainability relies upon respecting,
reestablishing, and reinforcing the connection of people to the natural world around them,
to the ecosystems which surround and define cultures. Therefore to save biodiversity we
must promote and cultivate community-based stewardship, in as many diverse cultural
84
forms as the diverse landscapes across which migrating birds travel. While I firmly
believe that stewardship must blossom from within individual communities, I know that
the Red Knot cannot wait for half the planet to decide to care about them—these birds are
threatened and only a massive effort, perhaps forcing exchange between cultures, will
save them. Conservation is an occasion to celebrate diversity between cultures and
through cooperation manifest species’ recovery.
When humans take responsibility for the health of the natural world around them,
they act as stewards; therefore the presence of stewardship may also serve as an Indicator
of Sustainability. sustainability, biocultural diversity, and stewardship requires the
fulfillment of the others as a satisfying condition. Taken together, these terms offer the
three central tenets of a path towards the reestablishment of a benign relationship
between human beings and nature.
PART VI: QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Creating Framework to Address and Solve for Social and Cultural Disparities
throughout the range of migrating species: Elements to consider might include
Conserv Bio Trends: Look for data on:
1. Horseshoe crab population trend and crab counts/
2. ISA data (Nichols 2002-5, Index of spawning activity) for egg availability during spring,
healthy harvest levels (1999-present) SPAWNAR database
3. Horseshoe crab catches per locality
4. Horseshoe crab recovery prediction trends
5. Potential habitat for horseshoe crab—define—id with remote analysis
6. Protected areas (during roosting and foraging habitat within migration and wintering
areas)
7. Loss of habitat—erosion
8. Loss of habitat—coastal development
9. Loss of habitat—habitat conversion
85
10. Magnitude of human disturbance
11. Site specific threats (mitigation)
12. Bird count surveys
13. Weight gain data – % of departing birds above 180 grams
14. Knot specific conservation actions
15. Existing regulation
16. Climate change related predicted changes to habitat due to increased storms
17. Temporal
18. Coastal Shorebird habitat by type (mudflats, beaches, tidal creeks, saltmarshes) and
change by type (time spent in each relatively)
19. Habitat suitability (2002 DOQ imagery)
20. Land Use/Land cover NJ_bayshore.shp
21. water consistency (brackish?) and quality stream and water bodies/classified as pristine























Stewardship and Biocultural Diversity Indicators along Jersey Shore:
adapt from Sustainable Jersey Benchmarks and
http://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_Main_Report.pdf
Nature Centers (Audubon, park service)
Annual festivals or nature-themed events
sustainable jersey program benchmarks
Access to education-- educational institutions, continuing education
nature articles published /local papers or online
nature friendly ordinances, formed environmental commission/board/plan
land use/land cover trends—development rate/area, conservation rate/area, Easements
and variances, planned development,
contaminated EPA sites/landfills/waste sites
housing price, people per household, square footage average, % of full year residents,
property taxes collected
public transportation, cars per household
Biodiversity loss: Percentage of country's territory in threatened ecoregions, Threatened
bird species as percentage of known breeding bird species in each, Threatened mammal
species as percentage of known,Threatened amphibian species as percentage of known
Conservation orgs: nonprofit centers—private contribution, membership, active
programs, rate of volunteerism
Age demographic, income,
political vote by district,
Local business--presence of CSAs versus chain stores/wholefoods/walmarts, local coffee
shops versus starbucks and dunkin donuts (false correlation?), main streets program, ,
# of green jobs/projects, companies, research centers
Enforcement actions taken—tickets given out for harrassment
LEED buildings
Retail purchases by zip code
Industries breakdown--%
Green or open space designation (low to high anthropogenic impact)
Fresh and Groundwater usage/capacity/need (% imported?)
86


Power sources and % already generated of 20 by 2020
Figure out estimated average CARBON FOOTPRINT
PhD Follow Up Projects (2012-2016)
I.
Methodology- Decolonizing, Culturally sensitive
II.
Deciding on Stewardship Indicators
III.
Creating community assessments
IV.
Field Work: Participatory Workshop/Listening Sessions: Models of
V.
Future needs: Map of range of the Red Knot, with high/low stewardship features
VI.
GEOHUMANITIES: What non-scientist/biologist skillset is best suited for 21st century
conservation will increasingly be recognized as a social science, humanities reflective,
interpersonal, creative skillset. Develop original thesis idea about creative skillset needed
for sustainability.
VII.
Develop Rubric/Ranking System for Stewardship per Indicator set. Sample rankings
delivered in ranking examples of case studies.
VIII.
Quantitative: Analyze community spending priorities, contrast interview responses.
IX.
Qualitative: Participation based anecdotes/interviews from field experience case studies
which focus on biodiverse communities specifically serving avian conservation purposes
which employ the public as stewards.
X.
2 sets of Stewardship Summary Recommendations: For Scientists, For Nonscientists
Aggregating components of various Stewardship models, Create 3 sets of Stewardship
Indicators
o Place-Based Indicators for Cities/Towns/Communities/Localities,
87
o Species-Based/Habitat Corridor Indicators throughout species range
o Organization-based State Agency/Institutions/Local Action Groups/Non-Profit
Environmental Protection Orgs throughout reach of Org


Identify elements of unique conservation challenges that are site specific and require
special attention. Provide background necessary to understand the social and ecological
dynamics of these site-specific challenges, detailing areas needing resolution and
variables of conflict per site.
Compare these social (human ecological) conditions with shorebird biological needs.
Explain significance of each site and challenges presented by social conditions on the
ground.
Possible Additional Study Areas: 3 sites (Avalon plus two more in New Jersey or
drawing from list below)





Other Interesting Sites to research:
Hatteras Island, SC and/or Jacksonville, Florida (as highly disturbed/poorly protected ex)
Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada (interesting cultural contrast and indigenous
implications around policy)
Rio Grande City, Argentina or Maranhao/ Lagoa Do Peixe, Brazil (for
pollution/oil/mining/local hunting impacts)
Guadelupe Island, French Guyana/Carribean (for hunting, diverse range or lack of policy
between islands, challenge of regional coordination)
Tierra Del Fuego - (for examples of human engagement/safe zone/oversight and
comprehensive legal protection/study).
88
APPENDIX
89
90
91
PUBLIC INTERVIEW COMMENTS/CONCERNS:
SUPPLEMENTAL
1. People avoid the birds without prompting. Thinks that most people will comply but dogs
are a problem.
2. "the strong survive", do not close the beach, "any awareness program is a good idea", "I
am stunned that people are that interested in birds with the economy the way it is, people
being without jobs, it's a difference in priorities I guess...A psychologist would have a
field day".
3. not a problem to go up and around, "it's their natural defense"
4. Dogs are biggest problem. Saw dog eat a shorebird. Trucks don't seem to bother them if
you drive slow.
5. "as long as it's not prohibitive"
6. this time of year is ok but not in summer. Brought up plovers
7. locals will be ok with it as long as you don't close the beach
8. roping off is easier, not work in summer
9. during the summer "forget it"
10. "birds don't seem to be too bothered", "they always move around a little", they "look
plump"
11. roping off is easier,not work in summer
12. would rather birds avoid them. Humans have bigger brains and are more important
"natural selection". "have you talked with the feral cats about this?" "I see where this is
going..closing down the beaches" referenced piping plover defense mechanisms.
13. Hopes for coexistence with the birds, thinks coinservation is important though measures
shouldn't inconvenience people too much.-- feral cats are abundant and many people feed
them, they prey on birds. Talked with a researcher on the beach many years agao and has
since shared the shore with the birds "to be careful"
14. closures annoying. Man rolled his eyes and would not listen/talk. Sje said she will stay
away from birds.
15. Here to take pictures of birds, won't disturb unless wants pic of flock. "Education is fine
but restrictions on beach usage arre totally inappropriate. "95% of the populous acts
responsibly anyway", "biggest problem is the dogs"
16. "Common sense is all you need." Mentioned they take theirsmall dog and don't always
use a leash but will keep that in mind from now on.
17. "the beach is here for us to use…been coming for years, the birds are all right".
18. Elderly woman needs to walk on harder surface near the shoreline. Both said that the bird
populations seem to be increasing and are quite large. They moved further back.
19. She flushed a group of birds before speaking but had seen the signs. Always tries to leave
the birds alone--willing to stay off if necessary.
20. sea glass hunter
92
21. "basically it's saying that birds are more important than people" If res can't use the beach,
property values will go down, people are here for the beach. Willing to compromise to a
certain degree.
22. "a good idea, not many people around though"
23. they love birds--works for wildlife org
24. Wants to share beach, no closure for birds.
25. Not during striper season. Would interfere wish right to fish.
26. will agree with closure if govt is not involved (non-profit science/research ok). Doesn't
trust govt agencies or their studies. Plovers waste of $. Will relocate to different sections
of beach if study is meaningful.
27. "given enough up for co-existence with wildlife" More should be done about skunks and
feral cats than protecting a migrating species"
28. likes the birds but wants to still be able to use the beach
29. there's no reason why people can't share beach with the birds
30. he would be upset about a longer closure but feels she "would have to do it"
31. thought survey was on nesting and was interested in bird migration
32. "a shame that this is necessary"
33. "plenty of birds around"
34. "keep it up!"
35. avoid total closure
36. doesn't think birds are disturbed too much
37. doesn't understand why people get so upset by closure
38. none
39. wants to share beach, no closure for birds, but understands
40. has noticed drop in piping plovers doesn't want to see happen w red knots
41. certainly in favor of asking questions and finding answers. Noticed drop in fish
42. "are you a tax payer here?"
43. "they do it on their own", people drive on hard sand, peregrines, dogs, gulls are a problem
44. "great idea" people that are here in November love the ocean, don't care.
45. "good idea" people should respect what's here. If they don't respect what's here it won't be
here in the future"
46. "good idea"
47. good idea, doesn't mind
48. would wear a sticker. People are a problem.
49. "Birds are used to people"
50. not in summer
51. marine biology college class trip
52. busy times harder. Pro awareness campaigns. Depends on bird density.
53. "good luck:
54. dogs problem
55. "do I really have to stop?"
56. everyone should comply
57. pick up trash
58. bird lover
59. don't close
93
60. "Nature is important but [people] go overboard". Dogs are problem
61. all for protecting wildlife. Never see people actively disturb. Leave section to fish
62. off season only
63. a good survey idea
64. "It could go on all winter"
65. residents would avoid the birds
66. off season only
67. don't close. Concerns about teens
68. People here know what they have and won't disturb the birds
69. don't close "they'd have a fit if the beach was closed". Vol avoidance"All the guys I know
are in favor of that."
70. already walks around birds
71. would walk around for several blocks of beach if closed
72. she tells other people about the birds
73. I make my living off the beach
74. didn't know [of study]
75. we can share
76. "they get disturbed by waves!"
77. "I'm a nature guy"
78. voluntary ok
79. controlled for plovers already--wouldn't be happy w more closures
80. closure ok if not whole beach
81. put signs on boards so they can be read
82. good idea, doesn't mind
94
95
96
Red Knot - Peak Count from Aerial Survey
100,000
Abundance
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
0
Year
*2009 peak from ground count, Mispillion Harbor, DE 526-09,Source: NJ and DE Divisions of Fish & Wildlife
97
List of Tables
List of Figures
APPENDIX A: INFORMATIONAL GRAPHICS
98
99
100
101
102
Error!
103
104
105
APPENDIX B: MAPS CREATED
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I.
BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY EXTINCTION CRISIS
Biodiversity & cultural diversity & habitat interconnections, loss of, extinction data,
human causes. Definitions,
BirdLife International (2008) A range of threats drives declines in bird
populations. Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website.
Available from: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/120. Checked:
12/05/2012)
2. Birdlife International: Community page on website. Thu, Sep 15, 2011 Shooting
of Whimbrels sparks calls for regulation of shorebird hunting in the Caribbean.
Accessed at http://www.birdlife.org/community/2011/09/shooting-of-whimbrelssparks-calls-for-regulation-of-shorebird-hunting-in-the-caribbean/ on 12/6/2011.
3. Carroll, C. Dennis; Meffe, Gary K. (1997). Principles of conservation biology.
Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer
4. Ehrlich, Paul R. and Robert M. Pringle. 2008. Where Does Biodiversity Go from
Here? A Grim Business-as-Usual Forecast and a Hopeful Portfolio of Partial
Solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America , Vol. 105, In the Light of Evolution II: Biodiversity and Extinction
(Aug. 12, 2008), pp. 11579-11586 . Published by: National Academy of Sciences
.Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25463380
5. Eckel, Sarah. 2010. Current State and Federal Policies and Ten Recommendations
to Protect this Keystone Species. Citizens Campaign for the Environment.
Accessed at http://www.citizenscampaign.org/PDFs/HSC%20white%20paper.pdf
on 5/10/2012.
6. Farnham, Timothy. 2007. Saving Nature’s Legacy; Origins of the Idea of
Biological Diversity. Yale University, CT.
7. Faurby, Søren, Tim L. King, Matthias Obst, Eric M. Hallerman, Cino Pertoldi,
Peter Funch. Population dynamics of American horseshoe crabs-historic
climatic events and recent anthropogenic pressures. Molecular Ecology, 2010;
19 (15): 3088 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04732.x
8. Glowka, Lyle (1994), "A Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity",
IUCN-The World Conservation Union. 9.
9. Jensen, Derrick. 2006. Endgame, Vol. 1: The Problem of Civilization. Seven
Stories Press, NY.
10. Kellert, Stephen and Wilson, E.O. 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island Press.
Washington D.C.
11. Kellert, Stephen R. 1996. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human
Society. Island Press. Washington D.C
12. Leopold, Aldo, A Sand County Almanac , (Oxford University Press, 1966)
13. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2003. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
14. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
1.
116
15. MacDonald, Kenneth Iain. 2011. “Conservation as Cultural and Political
Practice”. Policy Matters: Issue 13: http://www.terralingua.org/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2011/01/policy.pdf
16. Maffi, Luisa . 2001. On biocultural diversity : linking language, knowledge, and
the environment. Smithsonian Institute Press. Washington, DC :.
17. Maffi, Luisa ; Woodley, Ellen. 2010. Biocultural diversity conservation : a global
sourcebook. Earthscan
18. Maffi, Luisa. “Policy for Biocultural Diversity: Where are we now” Policy Matters (IUCN, Issue 17, October 2010). Policy Matters, Issue 17, Part 2 (.pdf)
19. Maffi, Luisa. “Talking Diversity” featured in IUCN’s World Conservation Magazine Issue 1, January 2008. Policy Matters (IUCN, Issue 17, October 2010).
20. May, Robert Lewis; Lawton, John (1995). Extinction rates. Oxford [Oxfordshire]:
Oxford University Press.
21. McGowan, Conor P., James E. Hines, James D. Nichols, James E. Lyons, David
R. Smith, Kevin S. Kalasz, Lawrence J. Niles, Amanda D. Dey, Nigel A. Clark,
Philip W. Atkinson, Clive D. T. Minton, William Kendall. Demographic
consequences of migratory stopover: linking red knot survival to horseshoe crab spawning
abundance. Ecosphere, 2011; 2 (6): art69 DOI: 10.1890/ES11-00106.1
22. Myers N (1998) Global biodiversity priorities and expanded conservation
policies. In: Mace GM, Balmford A, Ginsberg JR (eds) Conservation in a
changing world. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, p 273−285
23. Niles, Larry. Saturday, July 23, 2011 at 11:44AM. The Red Knot Will Be Listed
Accessed at http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/2011/7/23/the-redknot-will-be-listed.html on 5/15/12.
24. Niles, L. Monday, January 9, 2012.burying our political differences for
conservation at 10:22AM , accessed at
http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/2012/1/9/burying-our-politicaldifferences-for-conservation.html on 5/11/2012.
25. Niles, L. Saturday, July 23, 2011 at 10:05AM; More on Transforming the
Conservation of Wildlife on Delaware Bay. Accessed at
26. http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/2011/7/23/more-on-transformingthe-conservation-of-wildife-on-delaware.html on 4/15/2012.
27. Niles, L. Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 9:46AM, Why is the public not inspired
to defend wildlife? http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/?currentPage=2)
28. Olson, D.M., and E. Dinerstein. 1998. The Global 200: a representation approach
to conserving the Earth's most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation
Biology 12:502-515.Wilson, E.O. 2002. The Future of Life. Knopf, New York.
29. Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, et al. 2004. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A
New Map of Life on Earth (PDF, 1.1M) BioScience 51:933-938
30. Zalasiewicz, Jan & Mark Williams, et al. FEBRUARY 2008 = Are we now living
in the Anthropocene? GSA Today: v. 18, no. 2, doi: 10.1130/GSAT01802A.1
31. Daly, Gretchen C. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural
Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C. – talk about pricing ecosystems as a
whole
32. Daly, Herman, 1996. Beyond Growth: the Economics of Sustainable
Development. Beacon Press Books, Boston.
117
33. Senge, Peter. 2008. A Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations
are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. Doubleday, NY.
34. STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change, 2006
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/2262711170911056314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf
35. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department
of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
36. Wiedner, D. S. and P. Kerlinger. 1990. Economics of birding: a national survey of
active birders. American Birds (TCBP Section) 44209-2 13.
37. World Bank, 2003. Cornerstones for Conservation—World Bank Assistance for
Protected Areas. Report prepared for the Fifth World Parks Congress, Durban.
38. Abbey, Edward “Freedom & Wilderness, Wilderness & Freedom” (227-238) in
The Journey Home, NY: Penguin, 1977
39. Atran, S., Medin, D.L. & Ross, N.O. 2005. The Cultural Mind: Environmental
Decision Making and Cultural Modeling Within and Across Populations.
Psychological Review 112, 744-776.
40. Cronon, William. 1990. Modes of Prophecy and Production: Placing Nature in
History. The Journal of American History, Vol 76, No. 4, 1122-1131.
41. Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 1998. Beyond the Science Wars: Contemplating the
Democratization of Science. Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Sep.,
1998), pp. 133-145
42. Devall, Bill & Sessions, George. 1985.Deep Ecology; Living as if Nature
Mattered. Layton, Utah: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc.
43. Earth Charter:
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/echarter_english.pdf
44. Foreman, Dave. “Around the Campfire.” Earth First! 2, no. 8 (21 September
1982): 2
45. Gilbert Daniel July 02, 2006| If only gay sex caused global warming. LA Times:
http://articles.latimes.com/print/2006/jul/02/opinion/op-gilbert2
46. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
Synthesis, at v (2005), available at
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.
47. Niles, Larry. Monday, December 5, 2011 at 4:37PM. Knot Like Quail
(http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/2011/12/5/knot-like-quail.html)
48. Rodríguez, J. P. et Al.Globalization of Conservation: A View from the
South.Science 10 August 2007: 317 (5839), 755-756.
[DOI:10.1126/science.1145560]
49. Swain, Glenn. March 23, 2012, 1:56 Pm. A Shorebird, a Crab and a Call to
Action, New York Times.
50. Steiner A (2005) Biodiversity Science and Governance (Museum National
d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris)
51. Weston Anthony (1985). Beyond Intrinsic Value: Pragmatism in Environmental
Ethics. Environmental Ethics 7 (4):321-339
118
52. Williams, Raymond. 1980. “Ideas of Nature” in Problems in Materialism and
Culture: Selected Essays. London
53. Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 1997. Beyond Fences: Seeking Sustainability in
Conservation.
54. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A. and Oviedo, G. (2004). Indigenous and Local
Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xviii + 111pp.
55. Burnett, R. D., T. Gardali, and G. R. Geupel. 2005. Using songbird monitoring to
help guide and evaluate salmonid focused stream rehabilitations projects. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR 191, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research
Station
56. Callicott, J.B. and Mumford, K. 1997. Ecological sustainability as a conservation
concept. Conservation Biology 11:32-40.
57. Capistrano D, Samper C, Lee MJ, Raudsepp-Hearne C, eds (2005) Ecosystems
and Human Well-Being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and Island Press,
Washington, DC), Vol 4.
58. Fraser, Caroline. 2009. Rewilding the World; Dispatches from the Conservation
Revolution.Metropolitan Books, NY.
59. Groves, C.R., Jensen, D.B., Valutis, L.L., Redford, K.H., Shaffer, M.L., Scott, J.M.,
Baumbartner, J.V., Higgins, J.V., Beck, M.W., and Anderson, M.G. 2002.
Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting conservation science into
practice (PDF file). BioScience 52:499-512.
60. Scott, J. Michael. Frank Davis, Blair Csuti, Reed Noss, Bart Butterfield, Craig
Groves, Hal Anderson, Steve Caicco, Frank D'Erchia, Thomas C. Edwards, Jr.,
Joe Ulliman and R. Gerald Wright. Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach to
Protection of Biological Diversity. Wildlife Monographs , No. 123, Gap Analysis:
A Geographic Approach to Protection of Biological Diversity (Jan., 1993), pp. 341
61. Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies; Research and
Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books Ltd, NY.
62. Soule, M.E. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35:727-734.
63. Stone, Christopher D. 1976. Should Trees Have Standing? Los Altos, Calif.:
Kaufmann.
64. Wilson. 1998. Rethinking Environmental Management. Progress in Human
Geography 22(3): 321-343.
65. World Commission on Environment and Development (aka, Brundtland
Commission), (2010). Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.
Key definition of sustainability with mandate to develop the potential and worth
of individuals, not just resources/land/natural capital.World Conservation Union
(IUCN), Gland, Switzerland.
66. Chapin, Mac. 2004. A Challenge to Conservationists. World Watch Magazine.
November/ December.
67. World Resources Institute (2005) World Resources 2005 (World Resources
Institute in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme,
United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Bank, Washington, DC).
119
68. Agrawal and Gibson eds. 2001. Communities and Nature. Rutgers University
Press. Piscataway, NJ.
69. Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
104(39): 15188-15193.
70. Berkes, Fikret. 2004. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation
Biology, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jun., 2004), pp. 621-630
71. BirdLife International (2008) Citizen scientists help push conservation forwards.
Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website. Available
from: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/276. Checked:
14/05/2012
72. Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, et al. 2009. Citizen
science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific
literacy. BioScience 59:977–84
73. Bornstein, David. Feb 16, 2012. Harnessing Local Pride for Global
Conservation. New York Times.
74. Cohn, Jeffrey P.2008. Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research?
BioScience, Vol. 58, No. 3 (March 2008), pp. 192-197
75. Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Policy
Development. Volunteering in America 2011: Research Highlights
http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/assets/resources/FactSheetFinal.pdf
76. Dickinson, Janis L. & Benjamin Zuckerberg and David N. Bonter. 2010. Citizen
Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits. Annual Review
of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics (Vol. 41, (2010) (pp. 149-172)
77. Fernández-Juricic, Esteban. 2000. Conservation Education: The Need for
Regional Approaches Supporting Local Initiatives. Wildlife Society Bulletin , Vol.
28, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 164-167. Published by: Allen Press Article Stable
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4617299
78. Goodchild, Michael F.2007. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered
geography. GeoJournal, Vol. 69, No. 4 (2007), pp. 211-221
79. Goggin, M. (1984). "The Life Sciences and the Public: Is Science to Be Left to
the Scientists?" Politics and the Life Sciences 3:28-40.
80. Greenwood JJD. 2007. Citizens, science and bird conservation. J. Ornithol.
148:S77—124
81. Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Ken MacDonald and Luisa Maffi, November 2004,
Editorial. p. 5, Policy Matters: 13)
82. http://americasgreatoutdoors.gov/files/2011/02/AGO-Report-Connecting-2-711.pdf
83. http://www.usanpn.org/files/shared/files/USA-NPN_factsheet_March2011.pdf
84. Lepczyk CA, Boyle OD, Vargo TL, Gould P, Jordan R, et al. 2009. Citizen
science in ecology: the intersection of research and education. Bull. Ecol. Soc.
Am. 2009:308–17
85. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Freeman, E. C. (2012, March 5).
Generational Differences in Young Adults' Life Goals, Concern for Others, and
Civic Orientation, 1966–2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0027408
120
86. World Bank 2004a. Indigenous Knowledge – Local Pathways to Global
Development. Africa Region.
121