Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Unintended Feedbacks: Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Conservation Effectiveness

Unintended Feedbacks: Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Conservation Effectiveness Integrated conservation and development; Human reactions to conservation interventions can trigger unintended feed- perverse outcomes; social-ecological system backs resulting in poor conservation outcomes. Understanding unintended (SES); system dynamics; theory of change; human-environment systems frameworks. feedbacks is a necessary first step toward the diagnosis and solution of envi- ronmental problems, but existing anecdotal evidence cannot support decision- Correspondence making. Using conservation examples, we present a conceptual framework Cecilia Larrosa, Department of Life Sciences, and typology of unintended feedbacks based on a social-ecological systems Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, (SES) approach. Three types of causal mechanisms for unintended feedbacks Buckhurst Road, Ascot SL5 7PY, UK. are distinguished: (1) flow unintended feedbacks when pre-existing feedbacks are Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 2351 enhanced or dampened; (2) deletion unintended feedbacks;and (3) addition unin- E-mail: cecilia.larrosa10@imperial.ac.uk tended feedbacks when interventions, respectively, remove or add actors or links Received to the SES structure. Application of this typology can improve conservation 26 September 2015 outcomes by enabling the inclusion of complex relationships into planning Accepted and evaluation. We show how widely used tools for conservation planning 18 February 2016 could produce misleading recommendations, and discuss future work to mit- igate the effect of unintended feedbacks in conservation practice. There is an Editor Joern Fischer urgent need to collect evidence in a structured way in order to understand the mechanisms by which human decision-making feeds through to conservation doi: 10.1111/conl.12240 outcomes at different scales, thereby minimizing negative unintended feed- backs. The framework presented in this article can support the development of this evidence-base. ment of fisheries businesses, potentially increasing pres- Actions lead to reactions sure on fisheries (Sievanen et al. 2005). Unintended effects of planned conservation interventions Conservation science needs to be able to predict and can have knock-on effects that result in perverse out- design for human reactions to interventions (St John comes. For example, the threatened Javan hawk eagle et al. 2013). Understanding the feedback loops that con- was declared a National Rare/Precious Animal to pro- stitute the unintended knock-on effects of conservation mote public attention for its conservation, but this atten- interventions is a key element in achieving this goal. tion also increased trade demand for the species (Nijman An unintended feedback exists when reactions to an et al. 2009). Potential land use restrictions under the En- intervention have an effect on the intended outcomes dangered Species Act resulted in preemptive timber har- directly or indirectly, as illustrated in the examples above. vesting, which destroyed an area of habitat that could Unintended feedbacks include both ecosystem dynamics have supported half the 129 colonies needed to meet the and human reactions to interventions. There are multiple red-cockaded woodpecker’s conservation target (Lueck & examples of perverse outcomes in natural resource man- Michael 2003). In Indonesia, increased income from sea- agement, such as management suppressing natural weed farming, promoted as a conservation tool to reduce disturbance regimes or altering slowly changing eco- pressure on fisheries, was invested in capital improve- logical variables, leading to unintended detrimental 316 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. C. Larrosa et al. Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation changes in soils, hydrology and biodiversity (Holling velopment projects enhancing the profitability of existing & Meffe 1996). However, the unintended feedbacks of environmentally harmful activities such as land clearance conservation interventions modulated through human (Jack et al. 2008), promoting development of new en- decision-making are poorly studied, and are likely to terprises that may impact other ecosystem components be significant determinants of conservation outcomes (Spiteri & Nepalz 2006), or leading to positive net migra- (Milner-Gulland 2012). Here, we highlight the role unin- tion (Oates 1995). Widely used market-based approaches tended feedbacks play in conservation outcomes, and the such as payments for ecosystem services (PES) bring into need for better evidence on their prevalence and types in play spatial and temporal scales that can differ from the different circumstances. In order to guide the collection target system, broadening the scope of potential effects and organization of evidence so that a strong empirical of feedbacks. For example, protection of forests from ex- underpinning can be built for future research, we de- ploitation under Reducing Emissions from Deforestation velop a new framework for understanding unintended and Forest Degradation initiatives can lead to displace- feedbacks. First, we modify an existing social-ecological ment of exploitation to distant areas (Angelsen 2007). system (SES) approach to provide a theoretical under- Studies addressing real-world unintended feedbacks in standing of how conservation interventions can trigger conservation are scarce, but modeling has been used to unintended feedbacks. Then, we present a new typology explore how interventions can backfire. Damania et al. of unintended feedbacks, drawing on a wide range (2005) used a household utility model to show how of conservation examples that show how unintended an alternative livelihoods approach to alter hunting be- feedbacks undermine conservation efforts. Finally, we havior could increase mortality of the most vulnerable use the typology to reflect on how best to plan for and species. Other modeling studies have shown how land mitigate unintended feedbacks in conservation practice, market feedbacks lead to highly cost ineffective conser- and discuss implications for future work. vation planning (Jantke & Schneider 2011), or that buy- ing land for conservation can sometimes condemn more species than it saves (Armsworth et al. 2006). Land pur- Undermined conservation efforts: chase for conservation can increase the price of nonde- how much do we know? veloped land, for example by reducing the stock of land It has been recognized that unintended feedbacks can for development, raising the prospect of future conserva- render conservation interventions inefficient and inef- tion land purchase, or increasing the amenity value of fective (Polasky 2006). However, there is still a relatively neighboring land. This can then displace development, simplistic narrative regarding how people will react when potentially to other biologically sensitive areas, or limit planning conservation interventions (St John et al. 2013). the amount of land that can be purchased for a given con- For example, a lack of success in the alternative liveli- servation budget. hoods approach is linked to its three simplistic assump- Reviews of unintended feedbacks are also few and tions of substitution, homogeneous community, and scattered. A review examining the extent to which the impact scalability (Wright et al. 2016). Even with the peer-reviewed literature addressed feedbacks between use of project design tools such as Miradi (Miradi conservation interventions and SESs found most articles focused either on the effect of conservation on people, 2007), which make the theory of change underlying the or of people on the environment, with few studies em- chosen intervention explicit, the indirect consequences of people’s reactions to conservation can still remain pirically addressing both the social dynamics resulting unaccounted for. With conservation interventions from conservation initiatives and subsequent environ- increasingly centered on changing human behavior, un- mental effects (Miller et al. 2012). There is a lot more derstanding how these interventions alter the incentives focus on feedbacks in the resilience and SESs literature and actions of the people causing biodiversity loss, and (Gunderson & Holling 2002). This literature is based on their knock-on effects, is of great relevance to the design a systems thinking approach that explicitly considers the and evaluation of such interventions. interaction between the social and ecological compo- The literature on unintended consequences of con- nents of a system, facilitating interdisciplinary analysis of servation interventions on people (Cernea & Schmidt- human–nature dynamics (Glaser et al. 2008). Within the Soltau 2006) or nontarget species (Harihar et al. 2011) last decade, significant progress has been made with re- is large; however, cases documenting how unintended spect to interdisciplinary investigation and modeling of consequences feedback to result in undermined conser- coupled SESs (Baur & Binder 2013). vation goals are uncommon and mostly anecdotal. Exam- Recently, the importance of explicitly accounting for ples of potential unintended feedbacks mediated through feedbacks to better manage complex systems has been human decisions include integrated conservation and de- highlighted with a Special Feature published in Ecology Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 317 Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation C. Larrosa et al. and Society (Hull et al. 2015). From a coupled human characteristics, and edge effects) significantly accelerated and natural systems perspective, the articles in this issue the effect of deforestation on biodiversity in the Brazilian identify feedbacks that stabilize and destabilize systems Amazon (Cumming et al. 2012). across agricultural, forest, and urban landscapes. Emerg- There are several frameworks to analyze environ- ing themes include multilevel feedbacks, time lags, and mental problems in the context of SESs. We take as our surprises as a result of feedbacks. starting point the SES Framework (SESF), developed by Ostrom (2009) as a diagnostic tool for understanding the sustainability of complex SESs. Binder et al. (2013) re- viewed 10 SES frameworks that were explicitly designed Building an understanding: an SES for application by both researchers and practitioners (SM perspective Table 1). Ostrom’s framework is the only one of these Systems thinking is especially attuned to explaining side that conceptualizes the bi-directional interaction be- effects and perverse outcomes due to its emphasis on tween the social and ecological systems, and treats both feedback loops; it has been recommended as a theoreti- systems in almost equal depth (Binder et al. 2013). The SESF is also relevant to a wide range of natural resource cal approach to underpin behavioral change policy design issues, has been increasingly applied in conservation, (Lucas et al. 2008). Systems dynamics modeling has been applied to manage and avoid unintended consequences and enables the visualization of the system’s structure and their feedbacks in designing hazards management with varying degrees of complexity. The extent to which and disaster relief policy (Gillespie et al. 2004). For ex- the theories underlying different SES frameworks would ample forest fire management (Collins et al. 2013), emer- lead to similar or diverging results would still require gency resource coordination (Wang et al. 2010), and ef- exploration. ficient positioning of relief services (Widener et al. 2015). Ostrom’s SESF (Figure 1) has a nested structure where Clearly articulated with systems thinking theory, the SES actors use and provide for the maintenance of resource literature is where most of the work on human-natural units, within a resource system, according to rules and systems has been done, providing a strong grounding for procedures determined by a governance system, in the work on unintended feedbacks. context of related ecological systems and broader so- An SES is a complex, adaptive system consisting of a cial, political and economic settings (McGinnis & Ostrom bio-geophysical unit and its associated social actors and 2014). The framework enables analyses of how attributes institutions, with boundaries that delimit a particular of the four core subsystems both affect and are affected ecosystem and its problem context (Glaser et al. 2012). by interactions and outcomes via feedbacks at a particular As complex systems, SESs present inherent properties time and place (Ostrom 2007). These subsystems are: (i) such as nonlinearity, emergence and self-organization, resource systems (e.g., protected area, lake); (ii) resource path dependence, and positive/negative feedback loops units (e.g., trees, amount and flow of water); (iii) gover- (definitions in Table 1; Becker 2012). These properties nance systems (e.g., the specific rules related to the use are relevant to the analysis and planning of conservation of the protected area or lake, and their implementation); interventions because they provide a framework for and (iv) actors (e.g. resource users, managers; Figure 1). Although the fact that conservation acts on complex understanding and describing SES behavior. Given the SESs is well accepted, the consequences of considering increasing spatial teleconnectedness of social actors and institutions through international trade, information the conservation intervention itself as embedded in the technologies and travel, the spatial boundaries of the SES system are less well appreciated. The moment a conser- can encompass multiple countries or represent a global vation action or policy is mooted, it becomes part of the system. SES, redefining it, affecting all four subsystems directly or In systems thinking, a feedback loop exists when re- indirectly (Figure 1). The triggered reactions to the con- sults from some action travel through the system and servation intervention flow through the SES and in turn eventually return in some form to the original action, affect the intended outcomes, forming feedback loops. It potentially influencing future actions. In a “negative or is via these interactions that reactions have the potential balancing” feedback the initial change to a system causes to undermine conservation outcomes or generate policy change in the opposite direction, dampening the effect; in resistant systems (Sterman 2000). a “positive or reinforcing” feedback the initial change to As it becomes a part of the SES, the conservation in- a system causes more change in the same direction, am- tervention can alter both the system’s structure and/or plifying the effect (Chin et al. 2014). For example, a re- the dynamics of the processes within it. These dynam- inforcing feedback loop between fragmentation processes ics include economic processes at the system scale, such (fire, logging) and landscape pattern (connectivity, patch as land market feedbacks (Armsworth et al. 2006) or 318 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. C. Larrosa et al. Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation Table 1 Properties of social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems Property Description Example Emergence Emergence means that a system’s Even without a specific blocking event we behavior is more than the sum of its get traffic jams, merely as a result of car parts. Nonlinear interactions between drivers following simple rules: drive a at elements of the system give rise to certain speed and do not crash into the novel structures, patterns, and car in front; slow down if there is a car properties that cannot be explained close ahead, speed up if not (Ratter only from the single elements (Ratter 2012). 2012). Self-organisation Self-organization is the appearance of Emergent structures can be found in new system structures without explicit many natural phenomena, for example pressure from outside the system bird flocks or hurricanes (Ratter 2012). (Ratter 2012). Feedback loops The process by which the results of an Increases in the size of farms increased action define the situation we face in investment, leading to agricultural the future. In “negative or balancing” intensification (reinforcing feedback). feedback the initial change to a system However, consequent soil degradation causes change in the opposite problems spurred wetland restoration direction, dampening the effect; in that reversed degradation in croplands “positive or reinforcing” feedback the (balancing feedback; Steen-Adams initial change to a system causes more et al. 2015). change in the same direction, amplifying the effect (Sterman 2000). Non-linearity Interactions between elements of the At low levels of herbivory overall system cannot be described by linear community responses lead to functions (e.g., s-shaped response nonproportional increases in curves; Folke 2006). production potential, whereas extreme herbivory causes extreme reduction in productivity (Dyer et al. 1993). Path-dependence Nonlinearity generates path dependence, Accumulation of nutrients in a lake which means that the evolution of the (eutrophication) in combination with a system depends on the history of the trigger such as flooding or warming can path it has so far taken. Path shift the system from a clear water lake dependence leads to the existence of to a turbid water lake (Folke et al. 2004). multiple equilibrium states and the potential for thresholds (tipping-points) and qualitative shifts in system dynamics under changing environmental conditions (Levin 1998). behavioral changes at the scale of the individual or com- for both structure and flow, based on the SESF. We use munity, such as are explored in psychology and de- their work as a basis for creating a typology of unintended cision science (Gintis 2007). For example, some PES feedbacks, whereby disturbance to the structure or flow schemes have increased inequity through processes such of an SES, caused by a conservation intervention, triggers as marginalization, elite capture of benefits and increased unintended feedbacks. vulnerability of some groups, resulting in reduced project We define an unintended feedback as a feedback trig- legitimacy, non-participation, corruption and even active gered by a conservation intervention, which was not resistance (Pascual et al. 2014). These types of process at built into intervention design, and that has an effect on a smaller scale can drive feedbacks at the system scale. conservation outcomes. It can consist of multiple rein- forcing or balancing loops, and the net effect can either undermine or enhance conservation outcomes. Here, A typology of unintended feedbacks we focus on feedbacks that undermine conservation outcomes because they are of greater concern to Schoon & Cox (2012) introduced a framework to ana- implementers. Three types of unintended feedback are lyze disturbance-response dyads in an SES that accounts Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 319 Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation C. Larrosa et al. Figure 1 Theoretical framework for understanding unintended feedbacks from conservation interventions adapted from the social-ecological system (SES) framework (McGinnis & Ostrom 2014). In black the SES framework: solid ovals denote core subsystems and full arrows denote direct links between subsystems. Core subsystems interact to produce outcomes that have feedback effects denoted by dashed arrows. In blue (grey in printed version) a modification to the SES framework: the conservation intervention becomes part of the system jointly affecting and affected by interactions and outcomes. The dotted-and-dashed line indicates the boundary of SES; exogenous social, economic, and political settings or related ecosystems can affect any element of the SES. identified: (1) Flow (relating to a change in a parame- ture. Most conservation interventions add actors, ter within the SES), (2) Deletion, and (3) Addition (both institutional structures or links, either human or relating to a change in SES structure). natural. For example, new legislation aimed at creating incentives for biodiversity conservation in (1) Flow unintended feedbacks are due to the enhance- Mexico allowed landowners to benefit directly from ment or dampening of preexisting feedback loops wildlife exploitation through the creation of wildlife within the SES, caused by the conservation inter- conservation units on their land. However, in some vention. For example, in the USA, land use restric- regions these new structures led to practices that re- tions imposed on Federal forest concessions by the duced native biodiversity in the long term, such as Endangered Species Act reduced lumber supply. This fencing and cultivation of exotic grasslands (Sisk et al. increased its price, thereby promoting logging in 2007). Re-introducing wild dogs generated negative private forests within that region (Murray & Wear attitudes and persecution of existing wild dog pop- 1998; Polasky 2006). Another study showed that, de- ulations in South Africa due to perceived and real pending on the structure of demand for bushmeat, threats of predation on livestock, despite a compen- a reduction in supply caused by enforcement of sation scheme being in place (Gusset et al. 2007). antipoaching laws could lead to an increase in prices inducing others to enter the market and increase Multiple unintended feedback loops can interact to hunting levels (Wilkie & Godoy 2001). undermine an outcome. For example, Osterblom et al. (2) Deletion unintended feedbacks occur when preexist- (2011) identified three unintended partial feedback loops ing feedback loops within the SES are lost due to the that explained in part the European Common Fish- conservation intervention. For example, in Kenya, eries Policy’s failure to deliver on its social and eco- impoundment by the government of an area along logical goals despite continuous efforts. These were: the Turkwel River curtailed traditional management the maintenance of overcapacity leading to short-term of this area. The loss of this institutional structure led decision-making and unsustainable quotas; depleted to increased forest degradation (Stave et al. 2001). stocks creating an incentive for non-compliance, fur- (3) Addition unintended feedbacks occur when inter- ther reducing stocks; and undermined scientific legit- ventions add components to the SES network struc- imacy contributing to unsustainable decision-making, 320 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. C. Larrosa et al. Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation Table 2 Examples for the operationalization of the typology of unintended feedbacks Unintended feedback type Example mechanisms Potential indicators to monitor Operationalization Flow Reduction in supply of lumber (Murray Price of lumber/ bushmeat/ land Surveys in key markets & Wear 1998), or bushmeat (Wilkie Volume traded/ sold in markets Satellite data & Godoy 2001), or land available for Land use change Household surveys agriculture (Jantke & Schneider Traded species abundance 2011) Deletion Loss of traditional management over Overlap between existing Household surveys an area (Stave et al. 2001) or loss of governance structures and new Listingsoftraditionallyused social norms regarding an area or regulations species or taboo species species (Jones et al. 2008) Accepted exploitation practices Participatory land use Perceived social norms mapping Addition Creating economic incentives for Impact of new regulation on land Household surveys conservation (Sisk et al. 2007), tenure and equity Satellite data species reintroduction (Gusset et al. Land use change Conflict reports 2007) Conflict: lost livestock or crops to reintroduced species further undermining the science. Additionally, a single A priori identification of potential unintended feed- intervention can produce different types of unintended backs can improve conservation practice by enabling the feedbacks. For example, the establishment of protected consideration of complex relationships. In Tarangire Na- areas can trigger a flow unintended feedback; increases in tional Park, consideration of SES dynamics suggested that land allocated to protected areas could increase the prices greater security of land tenure would be a better approach of agricultural commodities due to forgone agricultural to forestalling preemptive land conversion in anticipation production, which can result in highly cost ineffective of park expansion than the proposed increase in land use conservation (Jantke & Schneider 2011). The establish- restrictions (Baird et al. 2009). Explicitly considering the ment of a protected area can also trigger a deletion unin- way in which all four subsystems shown in Figure 1 could tended feedback: the imposition of external conservation be disturbed by the planned intervention, during con- rules brought by Ranomafana National Park in Mada- struction of Theories of Change or results chains during gascar resulted in a change of social norms concerning the conservation intervention design process, could high- accepted behavior when harvesting pandans (Pandanus light potential unintended feedbacks. Each of the three spp.) that led to unsustainable use in the villages sur- types of feedback needs to be considered, individually and rounding the park (Jones et al. 2008). The establishment in interaction. This process could substantially improve of a protected area can trigger an addition unintended the utility of project design tools such as Miradi (Miradi feedback as well: Tarangire National Park, in Tanzania, 2007). is a source of added risk for household decision makers, Interventions could then be designed to address the some of whom pursued aggressive land conversion in an- most critical potential feedbacks that were identified at ticipation of park expansion (Baird et al. 2009). the planning stage. This could involve including moni- toring for early warning of unintended consequences, or structuring the intervention differently (Table 2). Guide- Implications for applied conservation lines from other fields could be adapted. For example, evaluating the possible perverse outcomes of policy in- The prevalence and potentially disastrous effects of un- terventions is often highlighted as an important step intended feedbacks highlights the need to consider them in guidelines for social policy design (e.g., Hallsworth more fully as important elements of conservation inter- et al. 2011). To avoid feedbacks from negative impacts vention design. By representing the way a conservation on equity, it has been suggested that policy development intervention alters an SES as three easily identifiable dis- processes use standard assessment tools (such as Impact turbances, the typology presented here facilitates a di- Assessments), on top of which additional criteria can agnostic approach to identifying the potential for differ- be addressed (such as social or environmental justice; ent types of unintended feedbacks, supporting analysis of Brooks et al. 2006). how they may affect outcomes. Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 321 Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation C. Larrosa et al. Table 3 Questions for future work on unintended feedbacks of conserva- An incomplete understanding of an SES and its tion, and recommended next steps history is not the only cause of unintended feedbacks. Unintended behavior within an SES can also be due to Question for future work Suggested next steps emergent properties that, so far, cannot be predicted 1. How widespread are Establish a comparative database (Ratter 2012). An adaptive management approach unintended feedbacks, and that collates case studies, that monitors feedback structure and behavior could under what circumstances do structured using our framework improve the early detection of emerging properties of different types of feedback and typology. an SES. Recently, Mayer et al. (2014) proposed the use occur? of specific indicators that give insight into the structure 2. When and how should Include mechanisms causing unintended feedbacks be unintended feedbacks in and behavior of feedbacks, such as Shannon entropy and included in policy support tools? models underlying policy Fisher information, as monitoring tools for sustainable support tools and explore management. Our typology could guide the focus of tradeoffs between model indicator development for conservation interventions, to complexity and gain in better inform project monitoring and reporting. predictive power. For example Evaluations of conservation impact need to under- include land market feedbacks stand the mechanisms by which conservation interven- from land purchases for protected areas in InVEST. tions have impact, including both directly on the target 3. How do personal and social Use existing models of behavior and indirectly on other components of the ecosystem via factors influencing behavior that have been successful in changes in human behavior. A posteriori consideration of promote or inhibit unintended explaining pro-environmental potential feedbacks operating in an SES can help identify feedbacks from behavioral behavior to examine the roles the true drivers of observed patterns. For example, the change based conservation these factors play. For example, change at national scale from net deforestation to net re- interventions? theory of planned behavior. forestation that took place in Vietnam was a consequence 4. What are the different Explore models that include mechanisms by which individual and system dynamics of two separate forces: endogenous socio-ecological feed- unintended feedbacks operate and their interactions, to backs, such as local resource depletion, explained a slow- in conservation interventions at understand mechanisms by ing down of deforestation and stabilization of forest different scales? which human decision-making cover. However, it was exogenous socio-economic fac- can have consequences for tors, such as global trade, that better accounted for refor- conservation at different scales estation. Neither process represented a planned response to ecosystem degradation (Lambin & Meyfroidt 2010). Identifying how a conservation intervention changed the SES’s subsystems and their links after the project has fin- such as alternative livelihoods, may increase the like- ished would help to build the evidence base on the types lihood of promoting unintended feedbacks due to the of feedbacks which different interventions or SESs are higher number of actors and links comprising the system. prone to (Table 3). However, post-hoc quantification of However, there is not enough evidence to substantiate the role of unintended feedbacks in project outcomes re- this statement because currently the literature is inad- quires data from all subsystems, including social, institu- equate to support a systematic review. Studies of the tional, individual/household and ecological variables. Ro- correlates of conservation success have encountered bust and well-designed monitoring, including a baseline, similar limitations (Brooks et al., 2012). There is a need is required in order to attribute causation (Ferraro 2009). to establish comparative databases to collate case studies for analysis, in order to describe unintended feedbacks, their drivers and underlying mechanisms (Table 3). The Implications for future work typology presented provides a framework for compara- in conservation science tive studies of the mechanisms involved in different types The current anecdotal and scattered evidence is not of feedback, hence promoting better project design in enough to support general principles for conservation future. decision-making that minimize unintended feedbacks. It Data collection efforts to gather examples of interven- is difficult to say at present under which circumstances tions that are underway could inform this comparative unintended feedbacks may be most significant for conser- analysis. For example the social-ecological systems meta- vation outcomes, or which mechanisms of human behav- analysis database (SESMAD) project aims to enable anal- ior underlie them. The type of conservation intervention, ysis of case studies of a diversity of SESs by collating them and the complexity of the SES, may play a crucial in a comparable format (Cox 2015). SESMAD data re- role. For example, it is expected that indirect approaches, quirements include information on governance systems, 322 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. C. Larrosa et al. Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation actor groups and environmental commons, as well as the- pogenic dynamics (Pressey et al. 2007). Nonetheless, most ories on the relationship between variables. Additional conservation planning still uses static information to variables relating to the conservation intervention itself derive solutions. Scenario analysis is becoming more and the type of unintended feedback it triggers are also common, for example in designing landscapes robust to required if this database is to be useful for understanding climate change (Singh & Milner-Gulland 2011; Levy & unintended feedbacks in a conservation context. Ban 2013) but dynamic conservation planning studies Literature on behavioral change-based policy can shed that take into account trends in, for example, land prices light on which aspects of an intervention need to be are uncommon despite the existence of approaches to considered when analyzing evidence of unintended feed- account for land market feedbacks (Dissanayake & Onal backs. Darnton’s (2008) review of behavioral change 2011). Dynamic conservation planning approaches need found that three elements determine whether a pol- to be further developed, and assessed against static ap- icy intervention has negative impacts on equity or not: proaches (Table 3). For instance, empirical data have (1) what factors of a behavioral model are targeted by been used to suggest that the degree to which reserve se- an intervention, (2) the way in which those factors are lection could be improved by accounting for land market targeted, and (3) the theory of change underlying the feedbacks varied across landscapes (Butsic et al. 2013). intervention. These three elements could prove to be im- Ultimately, conservation outcomes derive from human portant aspects of a conservation intervention within the decision-making. Much work has been done using be- context of unintended feedbacks because policy interven- havioral theory to explore conservation outcomes. Tools tions that have negative impacts on equity can result at the individual or household level include bio-economic in unintended feedbacks such as corruption or sabotage models based on rational choice (e.g., Stephens et al., (Pascual et al. 2014). They also provide a way of structur- 2012) and social-psychological models based on the the- ing research into the behavioral mechanisms underlying ory of planned behavior (e.g. Williams et al., 2012). The unintended feedbacks. environmental psychology literature has identified social Feedbacks that enhance conservation outcomes are and personal factors that influence pro-environmental also possible, and present opportunities to magnify or ex- behavior (Gifford & Nilsson 2014). Personal factors in- tend conservation effectiveness by harnessing synergies clude childhood experience, knowledge and education, within the system. Similarly, there is a need to collect case personality and self-construal, sense of control, values, studies in order to start exploring the circumstances and political and worldviews, goals, felt responsibility, cog- mechanisms that enable this type of feedback. nitive biases, place attachment, age, gender, and chosen Currently, policy support tools widely used to explore activities. Social factors include religion, urban–rural dif- the potential impact of different interventions at large ferences, norms, social class, proximity to problematic en- scales are based on static models that cannot account vironmental sites, and cultural and ethnic variations. The for unintended feedbacks. InVEST (Nelson et al. 2009), role these factors play in inhibiting or promoting unin- for example, ranks relative biodiversity and ecosys- tended feedbacks triggered by behavior at the individual tem services outputs under different scenarios; the tool level needs to be explored (Table 3). Existing models of currently focuses on developing relatively simple models pro-environmental behavior can inform this research by to meet demand from decision-makers (Ruckelshaus et al. examining the role of different factors; for example, the 2015). Under some circumstances incorporating unin- theory of planned behavior has been successful in ex- tended feedbacks might not have a large effect on model plaining environmental behavior and considers a wide predictions (Zvoleff & An 2014), but this will depend range of factors, including contextual factors indirectly on the system (Armsworth et al. 2006). Mechanisms by in the form of perceived behavioral control (Steg & Vlek which unintended feedbacks occur could be incorporated 2009). into these models to assess the robustness of their predic- SESs have emergent properties that make responses tions; however, there will be a tradeoff between model to interventions different than the sum of individual re- complexity and the gain in predictive power given the sponses. It is important to understand the ways in which likely high uncertainties in developing and parameteriz- system behavior emerges from the collection of many ing a dynamic systems model. This tradeoff needs to be individual decisions, and how individual- and system- explored urgently to elucidate when more complex mod- level dynamics interact (Ratter 2012). Agent-based mod- els are necessary, to avoid generating misleading recom- els can capture these properties (Rounsevell et al. 2012), mendations from such tools, or when simpler models give but also need to include institutional dynamics and exter- robust results (Table 3). nal trends. Advanced tools for modeling complex adap- In systematic conservation planning, effectiveness de- tive systems can be applied to SES structure analysis, pends partly on accounting for natural and anthro- such as network topology (Janssen et al. 2006). Social Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 323 Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation C. Larrosa et al. network theory has been applied within the context of Baird, T.D., Leslie, P.W. & McCabe, J.T. (2009). The effect of social movement theory to explain how environmen- wildlife conservation on local perceptions of risk and behavioral response. Hum. Ecol., 37, 463-474. tal social movements develop (Ernstson 2013). These Baur, I. & Binder, C. (2013). Adapting to socioeconomic tools applied to the study of SES properties such as developments by changing rules in the governance of emergent behaviour and self-organization can start to un- common property pastures in the Swiss Alps. Ecol. Soc., 18. veil the mechanisms by which human decision-making http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05689-180460 could have consequences for conservation (Table 3). Becker, E. (2012). Social-ecological systems as epistemic objects. In M. Glaser, G. Krause, W.B.M. Ratter, & M. Conclusion Welp, editors. Human-nature interactions in the anthropocene: Potential of social-ecological system analysis. Routledge, There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that understanding London. unintended feedbacks is vital for effective interventions Binder, C., Hinkel, J., Bots, P.W.G. & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). to combat biodiversity loss. The recent interest in the cen- Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological tral role of feedbacks in managing complex systems (Hull systems. Ecol. Soc., 18, 37-59. et al. 2015) provides the right arena where a literature on http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426. unintended feedbacks could flourish. The fact that peo- Brooks, M., Darnton, A., Elster-Jones, J. & Lucas, K. (2006). ple adapt and respond to conservation interventions, and Promoting pro-environmental behaviour: existing evidence that their actions feed through into changes in the conser- to inform better policy- making, Chapter 2. Policy vation situation itself, is something that conservationists instruments. London, UK. rely on for their impact. However these same responses Brooks, J.S., Waylen, K.a & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2012). are being overlooked when they affect outcomes indi- How national context, project design, and local community rectly through unintended feedbacks. There is an urgent characteristics influence success in community-based need to collect evidence to understand the mechanisms conservation projects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 109, by which human decision-making feeds through to con- 21265–70. servation outcomes at different scales. Butsic, V., Lewis, D.J. & Radeloff, V.C. (2013). Reserve selection with land market feedbacks. J. Environ. Manage., 114, 276-284. Acknowledgments Cernea, M.M. & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Poverty risks and C.L. acknowledges support from the President Graduate national parks: policy issues in conservation and Fellowship of the National University of Singapore. L.R.C. resettlement. World Dev., 34, 1808-1830. acknowledges funding from the Ministry of Education of Chin, A., Florsheim, J.L., Wohl, E. & Collins, B.D. (2014). Singapore (grant WBS R154000574112). Feedbacks in human-landscape systems. Environ. Manage., 53, 28-41. Collins, R.D., de Neufville, R., Claro, J., Oliveira, T. & Conflict of interest Pacheco, A.P. (2013). Forest fire management to avoid The authors declare no conflict of interest. unintended consequences: a case study of Portugal using system dynamics. J. Environ. Manage., 130,1-9. Cox, M. (2015). Understanding large social-ecological Supporting Information systems: introducing the SESMAD project, 8,1-7. Additional Supporting Information may be found in the Cumming, G.S., Southworth, J., Rondon, X.J. & Marsik, M. online version of this article at the publisher’s web site: (2012). Spatial complexity in fragmenting Amazonian rainforests: do feedbacks from edge effects push forests Table S1. Frameworks considered for the analysis of towards an ecological threshold? Ecol. Complex., 11, 67-74. unintended feedbacks in conservation. Damania, R., Milner-Gulland, E.J. & Crookes, D.J. (2005). A bioeconomic analysis of bushmeat hunting. Proc. Biol. Sci., 272, 259-266. References Darnton, A. (2008). Reference report: an overview of Angelsen, A. (2007). Forest cover change in space and time: behaviour change models and their uses. Government combining the von Thunen ¨ and Forest Transition. World Social Research Behaviour change Knowledge review, 81 Bank Policy Res. Work. Pap. World Bank Publications. pages. London, UK. Armsworth, P.R., Daily, G.C., Kareiva, P. & Sanchirico, Dissanayake, S.T.M. & Onal, H. (2011). Amenity driven price J.N. (2006). Land market feedbacks can undermine effects and conservation reserve site selection: a dynamic biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A., 103, linear integer programming approach. Ecol. Econ., 70, 5403-5408. 2225-2235. 324 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. C. Larrosa et al. Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation Dyer, M.I., Turner, C.L. & Seastedt, T.R. (1993). Herbivory experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc. Natl. and its consequences. Ecol. Appl., 3, 10-16. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 105, 9465-9570. Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem Janssen, M., Bodin, O. & Anderies, J. (2006). Toward a services: a framework for studying environmental justice network perspective of the study of resilience in and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landsc. social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc., 11, 15. Urban Plan., 109, 7-17. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art15/ Ferraro, P.J. (2009). Counterfactual Thinking and Impact Jantke, K. & Schneider, U.a. (2011). Integrating land market Evaluation in Environmental Policy. Ner Dir. Eval., 75-84 in feedbacks into conservation llanning—a mathematical M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz, editors. Environ. Progr. Policy programming approach. Environ. Model. Assess., 16, Eval. New Dir. Eval. 227-238. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective Jones, J.P.G., Andriamarovololona, M.M. & Hockley, N. for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob. Environ. Chang., (2008). The importance of taboos and social norms to 16, 253-267. conservation in Madagascar. Conserv. Biol., 22, 976-986. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B. et al. (2004). Regime Lambin, E.F. & Meyfroidt, P. (2010). Land use transitions: shifts, resilience, in ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 35, 557-581. Land use policy, 27, 108-118. Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors Levin, S. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1, 431-436. areview, 49, 141-157. Levy, J.S. & Ban, N.C. (2013). A method for incorporating Gillespie, D.F., Robards, K.J. & Cho, S. (2004). Designing safe climate change modelling into marine conservation systems: using system dynamics to understand complexity. planning: an Indo-West Pacific example. Mar. Policy, 38, Nat. Hazards Rev., 5, 82-88. 16-24. Gintis, H. (2007). A framework for the unification of the Lucas, K., Brooks, M., Darnton, A. & Jones, J.E. (2008). behavioral sciences. Behav. Brain Sci., 30, 1-16; discussion Promoting pro-environmental behaviour: existing evidence 16–61. and policy implications. Environ. Sci. Policy, 11, 456-466. Glaser, M., Krause, G., Ratter, B. & Welp, M. (2008). Lueck, D. & Michael, J. (2003). Preemptive habitat Human-nature interactions in the Anthropocene. GAIA, destruction under the Endangered Species Act. J. Law 17, 77-80. Econ., 46, 27-60. Glaser, M., Krause, G., Ratter, B. & Welp, M. (2012). New Mayer, A.L., Donovan, R.P. & Pawlowski, C.W. (2014). approaches to the analysis of human-nature relations. Information and entropy theory for the sustainability of Pages 3-12 in M. Glaser, G. Krause, B.M.W. Ratter & M. coupled human and natural systems. Ecol. Soc., 19, 11. Welp, editors. Human-nature interactions in the anthropocene http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06626-190311 potential of social-ecological system analysis. Routledge Studies McGinnis, M.D. & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system in Environment, Culture and Society, Abingdon. framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Gunderson, L.H. & Holling, C.S. (eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Soc., 19, 30. understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Miller, B.W., Caplow, S.C. & Leslie, P.W. (2012). Feedbacks Island Press, Washington, D.C. between conservation and social-ecological systems. Gusset, M., Maddock, A.H., Gunther, G.J., et al. (2007). Conserv. Biol., 26, 218-227. Conflicting human interests over the re-introduction of Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2012). Interactions between human endangered wild dogs in South Africa. Biodivers. Conserv., behaviour and ecological systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 17, 83-101. B. Biol. Sci., 367, 270-278. Hallsworth, M., Parker, S. & Rutter, J. (2011). Policy making in Miradi. (2007). Miradi [WWW Document]. https://miradi. the real world: evidence and analysis. Institute for org/ Government, London, UK. Murray, B. & Wear, D. (1998). Federal timber restrictions and Harihar, A., Pandav, B. & Goyal, S.P. (2011). Responses of interregional arbitrage in U. S. lumber. Land Econ., 74, leopard Panthera pardus to the recovery of a tiger Panthera 76-91. tigris population. J. Appl. Ecol., 48, 806-814. Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., et al. (2009). Modeling Holling, C.S. & Meffe, G.K. (1996). Command and control multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, and the pathology of natural resource management. commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Conserv. Biol., 10, 328-337. Front. Ecol. Environ., 7, 4-11. Hull, V., Tuanmu, M., Liu, J. & Lags, T. (2015). Synthesis of Nijman, V., Shepherd, C.R. & van Balen, S. (2009). human-nature feedbacks. Ecol. Soc., 20, 17. Declaration of the Javan hawk eagle Spizaetus bartelsi as Jack, B.K., Kousky, C. & Sims, K.R.E. (2008). Designing Indonesia’s national rare animal impedes conservation of payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous the species. Oryx, 43, 122-128 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 325 Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation C. Larrosa et al. Oates, J.F. (1995). The dangers of conservation by rural Spiteri, A. & Nepalz, S.K. (2006). Incentive-based development —a case-study from the forests of Nigeria. conservation programs in developing countries: a review of Oryx, 29, 115–122. some key issues and suggestions for improvements. Osterblom,H.,Sissenwine, M.,Symes,D.,Kadin, M.,Daw,T. Environ. Manage., 37, 1-14. & Folke, C. (2011). Incentives, social–ecological feedbacks St John, F.A.V., Keane, A.M. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2013). and European fisheries. Mar. Policy, 35, 568-574. Effective conservation depends upon understanding Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond human behaviour. Key Top. Conserv. Biol., 2. 344-361. panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 15181-15187. Stave, J., Oba, G. & Stenseth, N.C.C. (2001). Temporal Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing changes in woody-plant use and the ekwar indigenous tree sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, management system along the Turkwel River, Kenya. 419-422. Environ. Conserv., 28, 150-159. Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., et al. (2014). Social Steen-Adams, M. (2015). Historical framework to explain equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. long-term coupled human and natural system feedbacks: Bioscience, 64, 1027-1036. application to a multiple-ownership forest landscape in the Polasky, S. (2006). You can’t always get what you want: northern. Ecol. Soc, 20. Conservation planning with feedback effects. Proc. Natl. Steg, L. & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental Acad., 103, 5245-5246. behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Pressey, R.L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M.E., Cowling, R.M. & Environ. Psychol., 29, 309-317. Wilson, K.a. (2007). Conservation planning in a changing Stephens, E.C., Nicholson, C.F., Brown, D.R., et al. (2012). world. Trends Ecol. Evol., 22, 583-592. Modeling the impact of natural resource-based poverty Ratter, B. (2012). Complexity and emergence: key concepts in traps on food security in Kenya: The Crops, Livestock and non-linear dynamic systems. Pages 90-104 in M. Glaser, G. Soils in Smallholder Economic Systems (CLASSES) model. Krause, B.M.W. Ratter & M. Welp, editors. Human-nature Food Secur., 4, 423-439. interactions in the anthropocene potential of social-ecological Sterman, J.D. (2000). Business dynamics: systems thinking and system analysis. Routledge Studies in Environment, Culture modeling for a complex world. The McGraw-Hill Companies, and Society, Abingdon. Inc, USA. Rounsevell, M.D. a, Robinson, D.T. & Murray-Rust, D. Wang, X., Wang, Q. & Chen, M. (2012). System dynamics (2012). From actors to agents in socio-ecological systems model of unconventional emergency resource coordination models. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 367, system. 2012 Fifth Int. Jt. Conf. Comput. Sci. Optim., 259-269. 271-275. Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, Widener, M.J., Horner, M.W. & Ma, K. (2015). Positioning G., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T., Bhagabati, N., disaster relief teams given dynamic service demand: a Wood, S.A. & Bernhardt, J. (2015). Notes from the field: hybrid agent-based and spatial optimization approach. Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches Trans. GIS, 19, 279-295. to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ., 115, 11-21. Wilkie, D. & Godoy, R. (2001). Income and price elasticities of Schoon, M.L. & Cox, M.E. (2012). Understanding bushmeat demand in lowland amerindian societies. disturbances and responses in social-ecological systems. Soc. Conserv. Biol., 15, 761-769. Nat. Resour., 25, 141-155. Williams, S.J., Jones, J.P.G., Clubbe, C. & Gibbons, J.M. Sievanen, L., Crawford, B., Pollnac, R. & Lowe, C. (2005). (2012). Training programmes can change behaviour and Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in encourage the cultivation of over-harvested plant species. ICM: seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. PLoS One, 7, e33012. Ocean Coast. Manag., 48, 297-313. Wright, J., Hill, Ni., Roe, D., Rowcliffe, M., Kumpel, N., Day, Singh, N.J. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2011). Conserving a M., Booker, F. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2016). Reframing moving target: planning protection for a migratory the concept of “alternative livelihoods.” Conserv. Biol., 30, species as its distribution changes. J. Appl. Ecol., 48, 7-13. 35-46. Zvoleff, A. & An, L. (2014). The effect of reciprocal Sisk, T., Castellanos, A.E. & Koch, W. (2007). Ecological connections between demographic decision making and impacts of wildlife conservation units policy in Mexico. land use on decadal dynamics of population and land-use Front. Ecol. Environ., 5, 209-212. change. Ecol. Soc., 19, 31. 326 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Letters Wiley

Unintended Feedbacks: Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Conservation Effectiveness

Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/unintended-feedbacks-challenges-and-opportunities-for-improving-RgHt82pAp0

References (87)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
1755-263X
eISSN
1755-263X
DOI
10.1111/conl.12240
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Integrated conservation and development; Human reactions to conservation interventions can trigger unintended feed- perverse outcomes; social-ecological system backs resulting in poor conservation outcomes. Understanding unintended (SES); system dynamics; theory of change; human-environment systems frameworks. feedbacks is a necessary first step toward the diagnosis and solution of envi- ronmental problems, but existing anecdotal evidence cannot support decision- Correspondence making. Using conservation examples, we present a conceptual framework Cecilia Larrosa, Department of Life Sciences, and typology of unintended feedbacks based on a social-ecological systems Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, (SES) approach. Three types of causal mechanisms for unintended feedbacks Buckhurst Road, Ascot SL5 7PY, UK. are distinguished: (1) flow unintended feedbacks when pre-existing feedbacks are Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 2351 enhanced or dampened; (2) deletion unintended feedbacks;and (3) addition unin- E-mail: cecilia.larrosa10@imperial.ac.uk tended feedbacks when interventions, respectively, remove or add actors or links Received to the SES structure. Application of this typology can improve conservation 26 September 2015 outcomes by enabling the inclusion of complex relationships into planning Accepted and evaluation. We show how widely used tools for conservation planning 18 February 2016 could produce misleading recommendations, and discuss future work to mit- igate the effect of unintended feedbacks in conservation practice. There is an Editor Joern Fischer urgent need to collect evidence in a structured way in order to understand the mechanisms by which human decision-making feeds through to conservation doi: 10.1111/conl.12240 outcomes at different scales, thereby minimizing negative unintended feed- backs. The framework presented in this article can support the development of this evidence-base. ment of fisheries businesses, potentially increasing pres- Actions lead to reactions sure on fisheries (Sievanen et al. 2005). Unintended effects of planned conservation interventions Conservation science needs to be able to predict and can have knock-on effects that result in perverse out- design for human reactions to interventions (St John comes. For example, the threatened Javan hawk eagle et al. 2013). Understanding the feedback loops that con- was declared a National Rare/Precious Animal to pro- stitute the unintended knock-on effects of conservation mote public attention for its conservation, but this atten- interventions is a key element in achieving this goal. tion also increased trade demand for the species (Nijman An unintended feedback exists when reactions to an et al. 2009). Potential land use restrictions under the En- intervention have an effect on the intended outcomes dangered Species Act resulted in preemptive timber har- directly or indirectly, as illustrated in the examples above. vesting, which destroyed an area of habitat that could Unintended feedbacks include both ecosystem dynamics have supported half the 129 colonies needed to meet the and human reactions to interventions. There are multiple red-cockaded woodpecker’s conservation target (Lueck & examples of perverse outcomes in natural resource man- Michael 2003). In Indonesia, increased income from sea- agement, such as management suppressing natural weed farming, promoted as a conservation tool to reduce disturbance regimes or altering slowly changing eco- pressure on fisheries, was invested in capital improve- logical variables, leading to unintended detrimental 316 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. C. Larrosa et al. Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation changes in soils, hydrology and biodiversity (Holling velopment projects enhancing the profitability of existing & Meffe 1996). However, the unintended feedbacks of environmentally harmful activities such as land clearance conservation interventions modulated through human (Jack et al. 2008), promoting development of new en- decision-making are poorly studied, and are likely to terprises that may impact other ecosystem components be significant determinants of conservation outcomes (Spiteri & Nepalz 2006), or leading to positive net migra- (Milner-Gulland 2012). Here, we highlight the role unin- tion (Oates 1995). Widely used market-based approaches tended feedbacks play in conservation outcomes, and the such as payments for ecosystem services (PES) bring into need for better evidence on their prevalence and types in play spatial and temporal scales that can differ from the different circumstances. In order to guide the collection target system, broadening the scope of potential effects and organization of evidence so that a strong empirical of feedbacks. For example, protection of forests from ex- underpinning can be built for future research, we de- ploitation under Reducing Emissions from Deforestation velop a new framework for understanding unintended and Forest Degradation initiatives can lead to displace- feedbacks. First, we modify an existing social-ecological ment of exploitation to distant areas (Angelsen 2007). system (SES) approach to provide a theoretical under- Studies addressing real-world unintended feedbacks in standing of how conservation interventions can trigger conservation are scarce, but modeling has been used to unintended feedbacks. Then, we present a new typology explore how interventions can backfire. Damania et al. of unintended feedbacks, drawing on a wide range (2005) used a household utility model to show how of conservation examples that show how unintended an alternative livelihoods approach to alter hunting be- feedbacks undermine conservation efforts. Finally, we havior could increase mortality of the most vulnerable use the typology to reflect on how best to plan for and species. Other modeling studies have shown how land mitigate unintended feedbacks in conservation practice, market feedbacks lead to highly cost ineffective conser- and discuss implications for future work. vation planning (Jantke & Schneider 2011), or that buy- ing land for conservation can sometimes condemn more species than it saves (Armsworth et al. 2006). Land pur- Undermined conservation efforts: chase for conservation can increase the price of nonde- how much do we know? veloped land, for example by reducing the stock of land It has been recognized that unintended feedbacks can for development, raising the prospect of future conserva- render conservation interventions inefficient and inef- tion land purchase, or increasing the amenity value of fective (Polasky 2006). However, there is still a relatively neighboring land. This can then displace development, simplistic narrative regarding how people will react when potentially to other biologically sensitive areas, or limit planning conservation interventions (St John et al. 2013). the amount of land that can be purchased for a given con- For example, a lack of success in the alternative liveli- servation budget. hoods approach is linked to its three simplistic assump- Reviews of unintended feedbacks are also few and tions of substitution, homogeneous community, and scattered. A review examining the extent to which the impact scalability (Wright et al. 2016). Even with the peer-reviewed literature addressed feedbacks between use of project design tools such as Miradi (Miradi conservation interventions and SESs found most articles focused either on the effect of conservation on people, 2007), which make the theory of change underlying the or of people on the environment, with few studies em- chosen intervention explicit, the indirect consequences of people’s reactions to conservation can still remain pirically addressing both the social dynamics resulting unaccounted for. With conservation interventions from conservation initiatives and subsequent environ- increasingly centered on changing human behavior, un- mental effects (Miller et al. 2012). There is a lot more derstanding how these interventions alter the incentives focus on feedbacks in the resilience and SESs literature and actions of the people causing biodiversity loss, and (Gunderson & Holling 2002). This literature is based on their knock-on effects, is of great relevance to the design a systems thinking approach that explicitly considers the and evaluation of such interventions. interaction between the social and ecological compo- The literature on unintended consequences of con- nents of a system, facilitating interdisciplinary analysis of servation interventions on people (Cernea & Schmidt- human–nature dynamics (Glaser et al. 2008). Within the Soltau 2006) or nontarget species (Harihar et al. 2011) last decade, significant progress has been made with re- is large; however, cases documenting how unintended spect to interdisciplinary investigation and modeling of consequences feedback to result in undermined conser- coupled SESs (Baur & Binder 2013). vation goals are uncommon and mostly anecdotal. Exam- Recently, the importance of explicitly accounting for ples of potential unintended feedbacks mediated through feedbacks to better manage complex systems has been human decisions include integrated conservation and de- highlighted with a Special Feature published in Ecology Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 317 Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation C. Larrosa et al. and Society (Hull et al. 2015). From a coupled human characteristics, and edge effects) significantly accelerated and natural systems perspective, the articles in this issue the effect of deforestation on biodiversity in the Brazilian identify feedbacks that stabilize and destabilize systems Amazon (Cumming et al. 2012). across agricultural, forest, and urban landscapes. Emerg- There are several frameworks to analyze environ- ing themes include multilevel feedbacks, time lags, and mental problems in the context of SESs. We take as our surprises as a result of feedbacks. starting point the SES Framework (SESF), developed by Ostrom (2009) as a diagnostic tool for understanding the sustainability of complex SESs. Binder et al. (2013) re- viewed 10 SES frameworks that were explicitly designed Building an understanding: an SES for application by both researchers and practitioners (SM perspective Table 1). Ostrom’s framework is the only one of these Systems thinking is especially attuned to explaining side that conceptualizes the bi-directional interaction be- effects and perverse outcomes due to its emphasis on tween the social and ecological systems, and treats both feedback loops; it has been recommended as a theoreti- systems in almost equal depth (Binder et al. 2013). The SESF is also relevant to a wide range of natural resource cal approach to underpin behavioral change policy design issues, has been increasingly applied in conservation, (Lucas et al. 2008). Systems dynamics modeling has been applied to manage and avoid unintended consequences and enables the visualization of the system’s structure and their feedbacks in designing hazards management with varying degrees of complexity. The extent to which and disaster relief policy (Gillespie et al. 2004). For ex- the theories underlying different SES frameworks would ample forest fire management (Collins et al. 2013), emer- lead to similar or diverging results would still require gency resource coordination (Wang et al. 2010), and ef- exploration. ficient positioning of relief services (Widener et al. 2015). Ostrom’s SESF (Figure 1) has a nested structure where Clearly articulated with systems thinking theory, the SES actors use and provide for the maintenance of resource literature is where most of the work on human-natural units, within a resource system, according to rules and systems has been done, providing a strong grounding for procedures determined by a governance system, in the work on unintended feedbacks. context of related ecological systems and broader so- An SES is a complex, adaptive system consisting of a cial, political and economic settings (McGinnis & Ostrom bio-geophysical unit and its associated social actors and 2014). The framework enables analyses of how attributes institutions, with boundaries that delimit a particular of the four core subsystems both affect and are affected ecosystem and its problem context (Glaser et al. 2012). by interactions and outcomes via feedbacks at a particular As complex systems, SESs present inherent properties time and place (Ostrom 2007). These subsystems are: (i) such as nonlinearity, emergence and self-organization, resource systems (e.g., protected area, lake); (ii) resource path dependence, and positive/negative feedback loops units (e.g., trees, amount and flow of water); (iii) gover- (definitions in Table 1; Becker 2012). These properties nance systems (e.g., the specific rules related to the use are relevant to the analysis and planning of conservation of the protected area or lake, and their implementation); interventions because they provide a framework for and (iv) actors (e.g. resource users, managers; Figure 1). Although the fact that conservation acts on complex understanding and describing SES behavior. Given the SESs is well accepted, the consequences of considering increasing spatial teleconnectedness of social actors and institutions through international trade, information the conservation intervention itself as embedded in the technologies and travel, the spatial boundaries of the SES system are less well appreciated. The moment a conser- can encompass multiple countries or represent a global vation action or policy is mooted, it becomes part of the system. SES, redefining it, affecting all four subsystems directly or In systems thinking, a feedback loop exists when re- indirectly (Figure 1). The triggered reactions to the con- sults from some action travel through the system and servation intervention flow through the SES and in turn eventually return in some form to the original action, affect the intended outcomes, forming feedback loops. It potentially influencing future actions. In a “negative or is via these interactions that reactions have the potential balancing” feedback the initial change to a system causes to undermine conservation outcomes or generate policy change in the opposite direction, dampening the effect; in resistant systems (Sterman 2000). a “positive or reinforcing” feedback the initial change to As it becomes a part of the SES, the conservation in- a system causes more change in the same direction, am- tervention can alter both the system’s structure and/or plifying the effect (Chin et al. 2014). For example, a re- the dynamics of the processes within it. These dynam- inforcing feedback loop between fragmentation processes ics include economic processes at the system scale, such (fire, logging) and landscape pattern (connectivity, patch as land market feedbacks (Armsworth et al. 2006) or 318 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. C. Larrosa et al. Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation Table 1 Properties of social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems Property Description Example Emergence Emergence means that a system’s Even without a specific blocking event we behavior is more than the sum of its get traffic jams, merely as a result of car parts. Nonlinear interactions between drivers following simple rules: drive a at elements of the system give rise to certain speed and do not crash into the novel structures, patterns, and car in front; slow down if there is a car properties that cannot be explained close ahead, speed up if not (Ratter only from the single elements (Ratter 2012). 2012). Self-organisation Self-organization is the appearance of Emergent structures can be found in new system structures without explicit many natural phenomena, for example pressure from outside the system bird flocks or hurricanes (Ratter 2012). (Ratter 2012). Feedback loops The process by which the results of an Increases in the size of farms increased action define the situation we face in investment, leading to agricultural the future. In “negative or balancing” intensification (reinforcing feedback). feedback the initial change to a system However, consequent soil degradation causes change in the opposite problems spurred wetland restoration direction, dampening the effect; in that reversed degradation in croplands “positive or reinforcing” feedback the (balancing feedback; Steen-Adams initial change to a system causes more et al. 2015). change in the same direction, amplifying the effect (Sterman 2000). Non-linearity Interactions between elements of the At low levels of herbivory overall system cannot be described by linear community responses lead to functions (e.g., s-shaped response nonproportional increases in curves; Folke 2006). production potential, whereas extreme herbivory causes extreme reduction in productivity (Dyer et al. 1993). Path-dependence Nonlinearity generates path dependence, Accumulation of nutrients in a lake which means that the evolution of the (eutrophication) in combination with a system depends on the history of the trigger such as flooding or warming can path it has so far taken. Path shift the system from a clear water lake dependence leads to the existence of to a turbid water lake (Folke et al. 2004). multiple equilibrium states and the potential for thresholds (tipping-points) and qualitative shifts in system dynamics under changing environmental conditions (Levin 1998). behavioral changes at the scale of the individual or com- for both structure and flow, based on the SESF. We use munity, such as are explored in psychology and de- their work as a basis for creating a typology of unintended cision science (Gintis 2007). For example, some PES feedbacks, whereby disturbance to the structure or flow schemes have increased inequity through processes such of an SES, caused by a conservation intervention, triggers as marginalization, elite capture of benefits and increased unintended feedbacks. vulnerability of some groups, resulting in reduced project We define an unintended feedback as a feedback trig- legitimacy, non-participation, corruption and even active gered by a conservation intervention, which was not resistance (Pascual et al. 2014). These types of process at built into intervention design, and that has an effect on a smaller scale can drive feedbacks at the system scale. conservation outcomes. It can consist of multiple rein- forcing or balancing loops, and the net effect can either undermine or enhance conservation outcomes. Here, A typology of unintended feedbacks we focus on feedbacks that undermine conservation outcomes because they are of greater concern to Schoon & Cox (2012) introduced a framework to ana- implementers. Three types of unintended feedback are lyze disturbance-response dyads in an SES that accounts Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 319 Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation C. Larrosa et al. Figure 1 Theoretical framework for understanding unintended feedbacks from conservation interventions adapted from the social-ecological system (SES) framework (McGinnis & Ostrom 2014). In black the SES framework: solid ovals denote core subsystems and full arrows denote direct links between subsystems. Core subsystems interact to produce outcomes that have feedback effects denoted by dashed arrows. In blue (grey in printed version) a modification to the SES framework: the conservation intervention becomes part of the system jointly affecting and affected by interactions and outcomes. The dotted-and-dashed line indicates the boundary of SES; exogenous social, economic, and political settings or related ecosystems can affect any element of the SES. identified: (1) Flow (relating to a change in a parame- ture. Most conservation interventions add actors, ter within the SES), (2) Deletion, and (3) Addition (both institutional structures or links, either human or relating to a change in SES structure). natural. For example, new legislation aimed at creating incentives for biodiversity conservation in (1) Flow unintended feedbacks are due to the enhance- Mexico allowed landowners to benefit directly from ment or dampening of preexisting feedback loops wildlife exploitation through the creation of wildlife within the SES, caused by the conservation inter- conservation units on their land. However, in some vention. For example, in the USA, land use restric- regions these new structures led to practices that re- tions imposed on Federal forest concessions by the duced native biodiversity in the long term, such as Endangered Species Act reduced lumber supply. This fencing and cultivation of exotic grasslands (Sisk et al. increased its price, thereby promoting logging in 2007). Re-introducing wild dogs generated negative private forests within that region (Murray & Wear attitudes and persecution of existing wild dog pop- 1998; Polasky 2006). Another study showed that, de- ulations in South Africa due to perceived and real pending on the structure of demand for bushmeat, threats of predation on livestock, despite a compen- a reduction in supply caused by enforcement of sation scheme being in place (Gusset et al. 2007). antipoaching laws could lead to an increase in prices inducing others to enter the market and increase Multiple unintended feedback loops can interact to hunting levels (Wilkie & Godoy 2001). undermine an outcome. For example, Osterblom et al. (2) Deletion unintended feedbacks occur when preexist- (2011) identified three unintended partial feedback loops ing feedback loops within the SES are lost due to the that explained in part the European Common Fish- conservation intervention. For example, in Kenya, eries Policy’s failure to deliver on its social and eco- impoundment by the government of an area along logical goals despite continuous efforts. These were: the Turkwel River curtailed traditional management the maintenance of overcapacity leading to short-term of this area. The loss of this institutional structure led decision-making and unsustainable quotas; depleted to increased forest degradation (Stave et al. 2001). stocks creating an incentive for non-compliance, fur- (3) Addition unintended feedbacks occur when inter- ther reducing stocks; and undermined scientific legit- ventions add components to the SES network struc- imacy contributing to unsustainable decision-making, 320 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. C. Larrosa et al. Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation Table 2 Examples for the operationalization of the typology of unintended feedbacks Unintended feedback type Example mechanisms Potential indicators to monitor Operationalization Flow Reduction in supply of lumber (Murray Price of lumber/ bushmeat/ land Surveys in key markets & Wear 1998), or bushmeat (Wilkie Volume traded/ sold in markets Satellite data & Godoy 2001), or land available for Land use change Household surveys agriculture (Jantke & Schneider Traded species abundance 2011) Deletion Loss of traditional management over Overlap between existing Household surveys an area (Stave et al. 2001) or loss of governance structures and new Listingsoftraditionallyused social norms regarding an area or regulations species or taboo species species (Jones et al. 2008) Accepted exploitation practices Participatory land use Perceived social norms mapping Addition Creating economic incentives for Impact of new regulation on land Household surveys conservation (Sisk et al. 2007), tenure and equity Satellite data species reintroduction (Gusset et al. Land use change Conflict reports 2007) Conflict: lost livestock or crops to reintroduced species further undermining the science. Additionally, a single A priori identification of potential unintended feed- intervention can produce different types of unintended backs can improve conservation practice by enabling the feedbacks. For example, the establishment of protected consideration of complex relationships. In Tarangire Na- areas can trigger a flow unintended feedback; increases in tional Park, consideration of SES dynamics suggested that land allocated to protected areas could increase the prices greater security of land tenure would be a better approach of agricultural commodities due to forgone agricultural to forestalling preemptive land conversion in anticipation production, which can result in highly cost ineffective of park expansion than the proposed increase in land use conservation (Jantke & Schneider 2011). The establish- restrictions (Baird et al. 2009). Explicitly considering the ment of a protected area can also trigger a deletion unin- way in which all four subsystems shown in Figure 1 could tended feedback: the imposition of external conservation be disturbed by the planned intervention, during con- rules brought by Ranomafana National Park in Mada- struction of Theories of Change or results chains during gascar resulted in a change of social norms concerning the conservation intervention design process, could high- accepted behavior when harvesting pandans (Pandanus light potential unintended feedbacks. Each of the three spp.) that led to unsustainable use in the villages sur- types of feedback needs to be considered, individually and rounding the park (Jones et al. 2008). The establishment in interaction. This process could substantially improve of a protected area can trigger an addition unintended the utility of project design tools such as Miradi (Miradi feedback as well: Tarangire National Park, in Tanzania, 2007). is a source of added risk for household decision makers, Interventions could then be designed to address the some of whom pursued aggressive land conversion in an- most critical potential feedbacks that were identified at ticipation of park expansion (Baird et al. 2009). the planning stage. This could involve including moni- toring for early warning of unintended consequences, or structuring the intervention differently (Table 2). Guide- Implications for applied conservation lines from other fields could be adapted. For example, evaluating the possible perverse outcomes of policy in- The prevalence and potentially disastrous effects of un- terventions is often highlighted as an important step intended feedbacks highlights the need to consider them in guidelines for social policy design (e.g., Hallsworth more fully as important elements of conservation inter- et al. 2011). To avoid feedbacks from negative impacts vention design. By representing the way a conservation on equity, it has been suggested that policy development intervention alters an SES as three easily identifiable dis- processes use standard assessment tools (such as Impact turbances, the typology presented here facilitates a di- Assessments), on top of which additional criteria can agnostic approach to identifying the potential for differ- be addressed (such as social or environmental justice; ent types of unintended feedbacks, supporting analysis of Brooks et al. 2006). how they may affect outcomes. Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 321 Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation C. Larrosa et al. Table 3 Questions for future work on unintended feedbacks of conserva- An incomplete understanding of an SES and its tion, and recommended next steps history is not the only cause of unintended feedbacks. Unintended behavior within an SES can also be due to Question for future work Suggested next steps emergent properties that, so far, cannot be predicted 1. How widespread are Establish a comparative database (Ratter 2012). An adaptive management approach unintended feedbacks, and that collates case studies, that monitors feedback structure and behavior could under what circumstances do structured using our framework improve the early detection of emerging properties of different types of feedback and typology. an SES. Recently, Mayer et al. (2014) proposed the use occur? of specific indicators that give insight into the structure 2. When and how should Include mechanisms causing unintended feedbacks be unintended feedbacks in and behavior of feedbacks, such as Shannon entropy and included in policy support tools? models underlying policy Fisher information, as monitoring tools for sustainable support tools and explore management. Our typology could guide the focus of tradeoffs between model indicator development for conservation interventions, to complexity and gain in better inform project monitoring and reporting. predictive power. For example Evaluations of conservation impact need to under- include land market feedbacks stand the mechanisms by which conservation interven- from land purchases for protected areas in InVEST. tions have impact, including both directly on the target 3. How do personal and social Use existing models of behavior and indirectly on other components of the ecosystem via factors influencing behavior that have been successful in changes in human behavior. A posteriori consideration of promote or inhibit unintended explaining pro-environmental potential feedbacks operating in an SES can help identify feedbacks from behavioral behavior to examine the roles the true drivers of observed patterns. For example, the change based conservation these factors play. For example, change at national scale from net deforestation to net re- interventions? theory of planned behavior. forestation that took place in Vietnam was a consequence 4. What are the different Explore models that include mechanisms by which individual and system dynamics of two separate forces: endogenous socio-ecological feed- unintended feedbacks operate and their interactions, to backs, such as local resource depletion, explained a slow- in conservation interventions at understand mechanisms by ing down of deforestation and stabilization of forest different scales? which human decision-making cover. However, it was exogenous socio-economic fac- can have consequences for tors, such as global trade, that better accounted for refor- conservation at different scales estation. Neither process represented a planned response to ecosystem degradation (Lambin & Meyfroidt 2010). Identifying how a conservation intervention changed the SES’s subsystems and their links after the project has fin- such as alternative livelihoods, may increase the like- ished would help to build the evidence base on the types lihood of promoting unintended feedbacks due to the of feedbacks which different interventions or SESs are higher number of actors and links comprising the system. prone to (Table 3). However, post-hoc quantification of However, there is not enough evidence to substantiate the role of unintended feedbacks in project outcomes re- this statement because currently the literature is inad- quires data from all subsystems, including social, institu- equate to support a systematic review. Studies of the tional, individual/household and ecological variables. Ro- correlates of conservation success have encountered bust and well-designed monitoring, including a baseline, similar limitations (Brooks et al., 2012). There is a need is required in order to attribute causation (Ferraro 2009). to establish comparative databases to collate case studies for analysis, in order to describe unintended feedbacks, their drivers and underlying mechanisms (Table 3). The Implications for future work typology presented provides a framework for compara- in conservation science tive studies of the mechanisms involved in different types The current anecdotal and scattered evidence is not of feedback, hence promoting better project design in enough to support general principles for conservation future. decision-making that minimize unintended feedbacks. It Data collection efforts to gather examples of interven- is difficult to say at present under which circumstances tions that are underway could inform this comparative unintended feedbacks may be most significant for conser- analysis. For example the social-ecological systems meta- vation outcomes, or which mechanisms of human behav- analysis database (SESMAD) project aims to enable anal- ior underlie them. The type of conservation intervention, ysis of case studies of a diversity of SESs by collating them and the complexity of the SES, may play a crucial in a comparable format (Cox 2015). SESMAD data re- role. For example, it is expected that indirect approaches, quirements include information on governance systems, 322 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. C. Larrosa et al. Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation actor groups and environmental commons, as well as the- pogenic dynamics (Pressey et al. 2007). Nonetheless, most ories on the relationship between variables. Additional conservation planning still uses static information to variables relating to the conservation intervention itself derive solutions. Scenario analysis is becoming more and the type of unintended feedback it triggers are also common, for example in designing landscapes robust to required if this database is to be useful for understanding climate change (Singh & Milner-Gulland 2011; Levy & unintended feedbacks in a conservation context. Ban 2013) but dynamic conservation planning studies Literature on behavioral change-based policy can shed that take into account trends in, for example, land prices light on which aspects of an intervention need to be are uncommon despite the existence of approaches to considered when analyzing evidence of unintended feed- account for land market feedbacks (Dissanayake & Onal backs. Darnton’s (2008) review of behavioral change 2011). Dynamic conservation planning approaches need found that three elements determine whether a pol- to be further developed, and assessed against static ap- icy intervention has negative impacts on equity or not: proaches (Table 3). For instance, empirical data have (1) what factors of a behavioral model are targeted by been used to suggest that the degree to which reserve se- an intervention, (2) the way in which those factors are lection could be improved by accounting for land market targeted, and (3) the theory of change underlying the feedbacks varied across landscapes (Butsic et al. 2013). intervention. These three elements could prove to be im- Ultimately, conservation outcomes derive from human portant aspects of a conservation intervention within the decision-making. Much work has been done using be- context of unintended feedbacks because policy interven- havioral theory to explore conservation outcomes. Tools tions that have negative impacts on equity can result at the individual or household level include bio-economic in unintended feedbacks such as corruption or sabotage models based on rational choice (e.g., Stephens et al., (Pascual et al. 2014). They also provide a way of structur- 2012) and social-psychological models based on the the- ing research into the behavioral mechanisms underlying ory of planned behavior (e.g. Williams et al., 2012). The unintended feedbacks. environmental psychology literature has identified social Feedbacks that enhance conservation outcomes are and personal factors that influence pro-environmental also possible, and present opportunities to magnify or ex- behavior (Gifford & Nilsson 2014). Personal factors in- tend conservation effectiveness by harnessing synergies clude childhood experience, knowledge and education, within the system. Similarly, there is a need to collect case personality and self-construal, sense of control, values, studies in order to start exploring the circumstances and political and worldviews, goals, felt responsibility, cog- mechanisms that enable this type of feedback. nitive biases, place attachment, age, gender, and chosen Currently, policy support tools widely used to explore activities. Social factors include religion, urban–rural dif- the potential impact of different interventions at large ferences, norms, social class, proximity to problematic en- scales are based on static models that cannot account vironmental sites, and cultural and ethnic variations. The for unintended feedbacks. InVEST (Nelson et al. 2009), role these factors play in inhibiting or promoting unin- for example, ranks relative biodiversity and ecosys- tended feedbacks triggered by behavior at the individual tem services outputs under different scenarios; the tool level needs to be explored (Table 3). Existing models of currently focuses on developing relatively simple models pro-environmental behavior can inform this research by to meet demand from decision-makers (Ruckelshaus et al. examining the role of different factors; for example, the 2015). Under some circumstances incorporating unin- theory of planned behavior has been successful in ex- tended feedbacks might not have a large effect on model plaining environmental behavior and considers a wide predictions (Zvoleff & An 2014), but this will depend range of factors, including contextual factors indirectly on the system (Armsworth et al. 2006). Mechanisms by in the form of perceived behavioral control (Steg & Vlek which unintended feedbacks occur could be incorporated 2009). into these models to assess the robustness of their predic- SESs have emergent properties that make responses tions; however, there will be a tradeoff between model to interventions different than the sum of individual re- complexity and the gain in predictive power given the sponses. It is important to understand the ways in which likely high uncertainties in developing and parameteriz- system behavior emerges from the collection of many ing a dynamic systems model. This tradeoff needs to be individual decisions, and how individual- and system- explored urgently to elucidate when more complex mod- level dynamics interact (Ratter 2012). Agent-based mod- els are necessary, to avoid generating misleading recom- els can capture these properties (Rounsevell et al. 2012), mendations from such tools, or when simpler models give but also need to include institutional dynamics and exter- robust results (Table 3). nal trends. Advanced tools for modeling complex adap- In systematic conservation planning, effectiveness de- tive systems can be applied to SES structure analysis, pends partly on accounting for natural and anthro- such as network topology (Janssen et al. 2006). Social Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 323 Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation C. Larrosa et al. network theory has been applied within the context of Baird, T.D., Leslie, P.W. & McCabe, J.T. (2009). The effect of social movement theory to explain how environmen- wildlife conservation on local perceptions of risk and behavioral response. Hum. Ecol., 37, 463-474. tal social movements develop (Ernstson 2013). These Baur, I. & Binder, C. (2013). Adapting to socioeconomic tools applied to the study of SES properties such as developments by changing rules in the governance of emergent behaviour and self-organization can start to un- common property pastures in the Swiss Alps. Ecol. Soc., 18. veil the mechanisms by which human decision-making http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05689-180460 could have consequences for conservation (Table 3). Becker, E. (2012). Social-ecological systems as epistemic objects. In M. Glaser, G. Krause, W.B.M. Ratter, & M. Conclusion Welp, editors. Human-nature interactions in the anthropocene: Potential of social-ecological system analysis. Routledge, There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that understanding London. unintended feedbacks is vital for effective interventions Binder, C., Hinkel, J., Bots, P.W.G. & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). to combat biodiversity loss. The recent interest in the cen- Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological tral role of feedbacks in managing complex systems (Hull systems. Ecol. Soc., 18, 37-59. et al. 2015) provides the right arena where a literature on http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426. unintended feedbacks could flourish. The fact that peo- Brooks, M., Darnton, A., Elster-Jones, J. & Lucas, K. (2006). ple adapt and respond to conservation interventions, and Promoting pro-environmental behaviour: existing evidence that their actions feed through into changes in the conser- to inform better policy- making, Chapter 2. Policy vation situation itself, is something that conservationists instruments. London, UK. rely on for their impact. However these same responses Brooks, J.S., Waylen, K.a & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2012). are being overlooked when they affect outcomes indi- How national context, project design, and local community rectly through unintended feedbacks. There is an urgent characteristics influence success in community-based need to collect evidence to understand the mechanisms conservation projects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 109, by which human decision-making feeds through to con- 21265–70. servation outcomes at different scales. Butsic, V., Lewis, D.J. & Radeloff, V.C. (2013). Reserve selection with land market feedbacks. J. Environ. Manage., 114, 276-284. Acknowledgments Cernea, M.M. & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Poverty risks and C.L. acknowledges support from the President Graduate national parks: policy issues in conservation and Fellowship of the National University of Singapore. L.R.C. resettlement. World Dev., 34, 1808-1830. acknowledges funding from the Ministry of Education of Chin, A., Florsheim, J.L., Wohl, E. & Collins, B.D. (2014). Singapore (grant WBS R154000574112). Feedbacks in human-landscape systems. Environ. Manage., 53, 28-41. Collins, R.D., de Neufville, R., Claro, J., Oliveira, T. & Conflict of interest Pacheco, A.P. (2013). Forest fire management to avoid The authors declare no conflict of interest. unintended consequences: a case study of Portugal using system dynamics. J. Environ. Manage., 130,1-9. Cox, M. (2015). Understanding large social-ecological Supporting Information systems: introducing the SESMAD project, 8,1-7. Additional Supporting Information may be found in the Cumming, G.S., Southworth, J., Rondon, X.J. & Marsik, M. online version of this article at the publisher’s web site: (2012). Spatial complexity in fragmenting Amazonian rainforests: do feedbacks from edge effects push forests Table S1. Frameworks considered for the analysis of towards an ecological threshold? Ecol. Complex., 11, 67-74. unintended feedbacks in conservation. Damania, R., Milner-Gulland, E.J. & Crookes, D.J. (2005). A bioeconomic analysis of bushmeat hunting. Proc. Biol. Sci., 272, 259-266. References Darnton, A. (2008). Reference report: an overview of Angelsen, A. (2007). Forest cover change in space and time: behaviour change models and their uses. Government combining the von Thunen ¨ and Forest Transition. World Social Research Behaviour change Knowledge review, 81 Bank Policy Res. Work. Pap. World Bank Publications. pages. London, UK. Armsworth, P.R., Daily, G.C., Kareiva, P. & Sanchirico, Dissanayake, S.T.M. & Onal, H. (2011). Amenity driven price J.N. (2006). Land market feedbacks can undermine effects and conservation reserve site selection: a dynamic biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A., 103, linear integer programming approach. Ecol. Econ., 70, 5403-5408. 2225-2235. 324 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. C. Larrosa et al. Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation Dyer, M.I., Turner, C.L. & Seastedt, T.R. (1993). Herbivory experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc. Natl. and its consequences. Ecol. Appl., 3, 10-16. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 105, 9465-9570. Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem Janssen, M., Bodin, O. & Anderies, J. (2006). Toward a services: a framework for studying environmental justice network perspective of the study of resilience in and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landsc. social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc., 11, 15. Urban Plan., 109, 7-17. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art15/ Ferraro, P.J. (2009). Counterfactual Thinking and Impact Jantke, K. & Schneider, U.a. (2011). Integrating land market Evaluation in Environmental Policy. Ner Dir. Eval., 75-84 in feedbacks into conservation llanning—a mathematical M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz, editors. Environ. Progr. Policy programming approach. Environ. Model. Assess., 16, Eval. New Dir. Eval. 227-238. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective Jones, J.P.G., Andriamarovololona, M.M. & Hockley, N. for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob. Environ. Chang., (2008). The importance of taboos and social norms to 16, 253-267. conservation in Madagascar. Conserv. Biol., 22, 976-986. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B. et al. (2004). Regime Lambin, E.F. & Meyfroidt, P. (2010). Land use transitions: shifts, resilience, in ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 35, 557-581. Land use policy, 27, 108-118. Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors Levin, S. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1, 431-436. areview, 49, 141-157. Levy, J.S. & Ban, N.C. (2013). A method for incorporating Gillespie, D.F., Robards, K.J. & Cho, S. (2004). Designing safe climate change modelling into marine conservation systems: using system dynamics to understand complexity. planning: an Indo-West Pacific example. Mar. Policy, 38, Nat. Hazards Rev., 5, 82-88. 16-24. Gintis, H. (2007). A framework for the unification of the Lucas, K., Brooks, M., Darnton, A. & Jones, J.E. (2008). behavioral sciences. Behav. Brain Sci., 30, 1-16; discussion Promoting pro-environmental behaviour: existing evidence 16–61. and policy implications. Environ. Sci. Policy, 11, 456-466. Glaser, M., Krause, G., Ratter, B. & Welp, M. (2008). Lueck, D. & Michael, J. (2003). Preemptive habitat Human-nature interactions in the Anthropocene. GAIA, destruction under the Endangered Species Act. J. Law 17, 77-80. Econ., 46, 27-60. Glaser, M., Krause, G., Ratter, B. & Welp, M. (2012). New Mayer, A.L., Donovan, R.P. & Pawlowski, C.W. (2014). approaches to the analysis of human-nature relations. Information and entropy theory for the sustainability of Pages 3-12 in M. Glaser, G. Krause, B.M.W. Ratter & M. coupled human and natural systems. Ecol. Soc., 19, 11. Welp, editors. Human-nature interactions in the anthropocene http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06626-190311 potential of social-ecological system analysis. Routledge Studies McGinnis, M.D. & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system in Environment, Culture and Society, Abingdon. framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Gunderson, L.H. & Holling, C.S. (eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Soc., 19, 30. understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Miller, B.W., Caplow, S.C. & Leslie, P.W. (2012). Feedbacks Island Press, Washington, D.C. between conservation and social-ecological systems. Gusset, M., Maddock, A.H., Gunther, G.J., et al. (2007). Conserv. Biol., 26, 218-227. Conflicting human interests over the re-introduction of Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2012). Interactions between human endangered wild dogs in South Africa. Biodivers. Conserv., behaviour and ecological systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 17, 83-101. B. Biol. Sci., 367, 270-278. Hallsworth, M., Parker, S. & Rutter, J. (2011). Policy making in Miradi. (2007). Miradi [WWW Document]. https://miradi. the real world: evidence and analysis. Institute for org/ Government, London, UK. Murray, B. & Wear, D. (1998). Federal timber restrictions and Harihar, A., Pandav, B. & Goyal, S.P. (2011). Responses of interregional arbitrage in U. S. lumber. Land Econ., 74, leopard Panthera pardus to the recovery of a tiger Panthera 76-91. tigris population. J. Appl. Ecol., 48, 806-814. Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., et al. (2009). Modeling Holling, C.S. & Meffe, G.K. (1996). Command and control multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, and the pathology of natural resource management. commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Conserv. Biol., 10, 328-337. Front. Ecol. Environ., 7, 4-11. Hull, V., Tuanmu, M., Liu, J. & Lags, T. (2015). Synthesis of Nijman, V., Shepherd, C.R. & van Balen, S. (2009). human-nature feedbacks. Ecol. Soc., 20, 17. Declaration of the Javan hawk eagle Spizaetus bartelsi as Jack, B.K., Kousky, C. & Sims, K.R.E. (2008). Designing Indonesia’s national rare animal impedes conservation of payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous the species. Oryx, 43, 122-128 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 325 Unintended feedbacks: implications for conservation C. Larrosa et al. Oates, J.F. (1995). The dangers of conservation by rural Spiteri, A. & Nepalz, S.K. (2006). Incentive-based development —a case-study from the forests of Nigeria. conservation programs in developing countries: a review of Oryx, 29, 115–122. some key issues and suggestions for improvements. Osterblom,H.,Sissenwine, M.,Symes,D.,Kadin, M.,Daw,T. Environ. Manage., 37, 1-14. & Folke, C. (2011). Incentives, social–ecological feedbacks St John, F.A.V., Keane, A.M. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2013). and European fisheries. Mar. Policy, 35, 568-574. Effective conservation depends upon understanding Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond human behaviour. Key Top. Conserv. Biol., 2. 344-361. panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 15181-15187. Stave, J., Oba, G. & Stenseth, N.C.C. (2001). Temporal Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing changes in woody-plant use and the ekwar indigenous tree sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, management system along the Turkwel River, Kenya. 419-422. Environ. Conserv., 28, 150-159. Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., et al. (2014). Social Steen-Adams, M. (2015). Historical framework to explain equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. long-term coupled human and natural system feedbacks: Bioscience, 64, 1027-1036. application to a multiple-ownership forest landscape in the Polasky, S. (2006). You can’t always get what you want: northern. Ecol. Soc, 20. Conservation planning with feedback effects. Proc. Natl. Steg, L. & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental Acad., 103, 5245-5246. behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Pressey, R.L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M.E., Cowling, R.M. & Environ. Psychol., 29, 309-317. Wilson, K.a. (2007). Conservation planning in a changing Stephens, E.C., Nicholson, C.F., Brown, D.R., et al. (2012). world. Trends Ecol. Evol., 22, 583-592. Modeling the impact of natural resource-based poverty Ratter, B. (2012). Complexity and emergence: key concepts in traps on food security in Kenya: The Crops, Livestock and non-linear dynamic systems. Pages 90-104 in M. Glaser, G. Soils in Smallholder Economic Systems (CLASSES) model. Krause, B.M.W. Ratter & M. Welp, editors. Human-nature Food Secur., 4, 423-439. interactions in the anthropocene potential of social-ecological Sterman, J.D. (2000). Business dynamics: systems thinking and system analysis. Routledge Studies in Environment, Culture modeling for a complex world. The McGraw-Hill Companies, and Society, Abingdon. Inc, USA. Rounsevell, M.D. a, Robinson, D.T. & Murray-Rust, D. Wang, X., Wang, Q. & Chen, M. (2012). System dynamics (2012). From actors to agents in socio-ecological systems model of unconventional emergency resource coordination models. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 367, system. 2012 Fifth Int. Jt. Conf. Comput. Sci. Optim., 259-269. 271-275. Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, Widener, M.J., Horner, M.W. & Ma, K. (2015). Positioning G., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T., Bhagabati, N., disaster relief teams given dynamic service demand: a Wood, S.A. & Bernhardt, J. (2015). Notes from the field: hybrid agent-based and spatial optimization approach. Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches Trans. GIS, 19, 279-295. to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ., 115, 11-21. Wilkie, D. & Godoy, R. (2001). Income and price elasticities of Schoon, M.L. & Cox, M.E. (2012). Understanding bushmeat demand in lowland amerindian societies. disturbances and responses in social-ecological systems. Soc. Conserv. Biol., 15, 761-769. Nat. Resour., 25, 141-155. Williams, S.J., Jones, J.P.G., Clubbe, C. & Gibbons, J.M. Sievanen, L., Crawford, B., Pollnac, R. & Lowe, C. (2005). (2012). Training programmes can change behaviour and Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in encourage the cultivation of over-harvested plant species. ICM: seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. PLoS One, 7, e33012. Ocean Coast. Manag., 48, 297-313. Wright, J., Hill, Ni., Roe, D., Rowcliffe, M., Kumpel, N., Day, Singh, N.J. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2011). Conserving a M., Booker, F. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2016). Reframing moving target: planning protection for a migratory the concept of “alternative livelihoods.” Conserv. Biol., 30, species as its distribution changes. J. Appl. Ecol., 48, 7-13. 35-46. Zvoleff, A. & An, L. (2014). The effect of reciprocal Sisk, T., Castellanos, A.E. & Koch, W. (2007). Ecological connections between demographic decision making and impacts of wildlife conservation units policy in Mexico. land use on decadal dynamics of population and land-use Front. Ecol. Environ., 5, 209-212. change. Ecol. Soc., 19, 31. 326 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 316–326 Copyright and Photocopying: 2016 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Journal

Conservation Letters – Wiley

Published: Sep 1, 2016

Keywords: ; ; ; ; ;

There are no references for this article.