Intended consequences statement

Ryan Phelan; Bridget Baumgartner; Stewart Brand; Evelyn Brister; Stanley W. Burgiel; R. Alta Charo; Isabelle Coche; Al Cofrancesco; Jason A. Delborne; Owain Edwards; Joshua P. Fisher; Martin Gaywood; Doria R. Gordon; Gregg Howald; Margaret Hunter; Peter Kareiva; Aditi Mankad; Michelle Marvier; Katherine Moseby; Andrew E. Newhouse; Ben J. Novak; Gerry Ohrstrom; Steven Olson; Megan J. Palmer; Stephen S. Palumbi; Neil Patterson; Miguel Pedrono; Francisco Pelegri; Yasha Rohwer; Oliver A. Ryder; J. Royden Saah; Robert M. Scheller; Philip J. Seddon; H. Bradley Shaffer; Beth Shapiro; Mike Sweeney; Mark R. Tercek; Delphine Thizy; Whitney Tilt; Michele Weber; Renee D. Wegrzyn; Bruce Whitelaw; Matthew Winkler; Josh Wodak; Mark Zimring; Paul Robbins

doi:10.1111/csp2.371

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70230116

Intended consequences statement

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As the biodiversity crisis accelerates, the stakes are higher for threatened plants and animals. Rebuilding the health of our planet will require addressing underlying threats at many scales, including habitat loss and climate change. Conservation interventions such as habitat protection, management, restoration, predator control, translocation, genetic rescue, and biological control have the potential to help threatened or endangered species avert extinction. These existing, well-tested methods can be complemented and augmented by more frequent and faster adoption of new technologies, such as powerful new genetic tools. In addition, synthetic biology might offer solutions to currently intractable conservation problems. We believe that conservation needs to be bold and clear-eyed in this moment of great urgency.

Explore related subjects

Conservation Science and Practice Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Ryan Phelan, Bridget Baumgartner, Stewart Brand, Evelyn Brister, Stanley W. Burgiel, R. Alta Charo, Isabelle Coche, Al Cofrancesco, Jason A. Delborne, Owain Edwards, Joshua P. Fisher, Martin Gaywood, Doria R. Gordon, Gregg Howald, Margaret Hunter, Peter Kareiva, Aditi Mankad, Michelle Marvier, Katherine Moseby, Andrew E. Newhouse, Ben J. Novak, Gerry Ohrstrom, Steven Olson, Megan J. Palmer, Stephen S. Palumbi, Neil Patterson, Miguel Pedrono, Francisco Pelegri, Yasha Rohwer, Oliver A. Ryder, J. Royden Saah, Robert M. Scheller, Philip J. Seddon, H. Bradley Shaffer, Beth Shapiro, Mike Sweeney, Mark R. Tercek, Delphine Thizy, Whitney Tilt, Michele Weber, Renee D. Wegrzyn, Bruce Whitelaw, Matthew Winkler, Josh Wodak, Mark Zimring, Paul Robbins. 2021-03-15. Intended consequences statement. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.371

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Successes and opportunities for solutions-oriented conservation research: Lessons learned from avian science

Conservation science struggles with an ongoing divide between research and action. Given its history of broad public engagement and multi-scale management coordination, avian conservation typifies many of the challenges, successes, and opportunities across the broader field of conservation and is rich with examples that may guide solutions-oriented conservation science. In semi-structured focus groups composed of bird conservation scientists and practitioners from various backgrounds, we discussed the definition, characteristics, and examples of solutions-oriented conservation science. Our discussions highlighted several examples where successful application of avian conservation science led to change in programs, policy, regulations, and social systems, including several with co-benefits for local communities. These successes were characterized by communication, collaboration, and co-development with local communities, decision-makers, practitioners, and Indigenous communities. We identified remaining opportunities for improvement, including aligning incentives and priorities between research and practice, working across disciplines to mobilize solutions, dismantling barriers to inclusion, and emphasizing the importance of relationship-building in conservation science. We outline suggestions that researchers can use to incorporate these lessons from solutions-oriented avian conservation science into training and mentoring programs.

Conservation Science and Practice↗

USGS2026

Connecting and coordinating conservation action across landscapes through regional planning processes and syntheses

Modern threats to conservation are often global; however, relevant conservation decisions and actions typically occur within local jurisdictions. The socio-ecological complexity of these problems requires collaboration across large landscapes, diverse community interests, and geopolitical boundaries, yet a lack of interoperability of planning products among decision makers, jurisdictions, and objectives impedes collaboration. Here, we provide a working model for the collaborative, iterative development of a landscape conservation design (LCD) in the Midwest region of the United States, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint, and demonstrate its applicability to the coordination of voluntary conservation actions and investments across jurisdictional boundaries. We used spatial prioritization software to synthesize over 20 datasets to develop a basemap of priority lands and waters for conservation across a diverse set of societal and ecological values (e.g., water quality, biodiversity, recreation). The Midwest Conservation Blueprint is a living plan, updated annually based on improvements in underlying data, understanding of local conditions, and public input. Landscape-scale planning is not designed to replace local knowledge or supersede decision-making authorities. However, by synthesizing existing data that represent diverse socio-ecological values and planning at a broader scale, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint documents where there are shared priorities and opportunities for collaborative landscape conservation.

Midwest↗

USGS2026

Debunking the myth of the quintessential resource manager: Precision in actionable science

“Actionable science” is a widely held standard for identifying the merits of natural resources research. Yet, science is often framed as actionable to a vaguely identified quintessential “manager” without defining either the intended manager or use. Generic descriptions lack precision for identifying end users or their needs, limiting methodological rigor in research design and leading to contextual misalignments of outputs with the need they intended to serve. Further, imprecise terminology limits the ability to evaluate impact, replicate efforts, or foster adoption and implementation of findings. This perspective article presents the heuristic of “who, what, when, where, why, how” to help researchers be more precise when describing their actionable science. Through intentional reflection, researchers can move beyond generic framings of “managers” representing monolithic organizations. “Managers” become individuals, with unique responsibilities, functions, worldviews, and levels of authority, all influencing their use of and need for scientific information and data.

Conservation Science and Practice↗