What difference do protected areas make on vegetation extent and condition?

Picture 1.png

Logging road in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Photo by Roshan Sharma.

Biodiversity is the variety of all life forms on Earth and underpins the health of our planet. It provides important ecosystem services like food and fibre that are the basis of human existence. However, exploitative human activities on Earth have created an unprecedented breakdown of the environment, causing global biodiversity loss at an unprecedented rate and scale. Land cover change, mainly the conversion of vegetation – the state and processes that support biodiversity – is by far the most important driver of biodiversity loss. This conversion is led by the expansion of croplands, urban areas, infrastructure, logging, mining and fire (Curtis et al., 2018). 

The establishment of protected areas (PAs) is one of the most important and globally applicable approaches to reducing these conversions. PAs are clearly defined geographical areas that limit human activities in prescribed areas. Since the campaign to expand PAs in the World’s Park Congress in 1982, nations have strived to increase the extent of land under protection. The global PAs have grown to cover more than 28.4 million square kilometres or around 13 per cent of the Earth’s land surface (UNEP-WDPA, 2019). Further, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has called to increase the protected area state to 17 per cent of the Earth’s land surface (Aichi Target 11). 

Picture 2.png

With the vast areas of land already under protection and calls to increase it, are PAs making a difference? PAs are known to be disproportionately established on marginal lands with least pressure of conversion and places unimportant for biodiversity. This means that PAs may not be having the intended impact – a reason many have criticised them. To understand the difference a PA is making, the outcome after the PA has been implemented needs to be compared with what would have happened without the PA in place (referred to as the counterfactual scenario). Estimating the counterfactual is the crux of finding such a difference or impact. However, estimating counterfactuals can be difficult due to the non-random allocation of PA. Evaluations that fail to accurately estimate the counterfactuals without considering non-random allocation of PAs and other spatial processes will cause bias and result in invalid estimates of impact.

This issue intrigued ICON Science PhD candidate Roshan Sharma, who started searching for literature for impact evaluation studies on PAs. He found that the literature is largely scattered, varied, and in many cases contradicting regarding how much difference PAs were making. There was a clear research gap that needed to be addressed.

Roshan decided to conduct a systematic review to address this research gap. Systematic reviews can be a great approach to synthesising evidence and generating higher quality evidence than individual studies. If done correctly, these reviews can allow researchers to come closer to understanding the true effect of an intervention. 

In an effort to increase the transparency and reproducibility of the review, Roshan developed a protocol with the help of ICON Science peers Ascelin Gordon and Marco Gutierrez, and fellow researchers from the University of Helsinki, the University of Western Australia, the University of Cambridge, and James Cook University. The protocol follows the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence guidelines and ROSES (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Synthesis) reporting framework. Following the standard guidelines and frameworks ensures that the review covers all relevant literature, implements a dual consistency checking in screening and data extraction to remove reviewer bias, has a quality appraisal of all selected studies, and synthesizes only high-quality studies. Publishing the protocol ensures the results of the review will be published regardless of the findings, effectively removing publication bias. The protocol has been recently published in Environmental Evidence and can be found here

Now that the protocol has been published, Roshan and the team will be moving forward to undertake the review. They hope the results of the review will be useful for the larger scientific community and policymakers. There is an ongoing debate on whether the successor of Aichi Target 11 will be on setting higher area targets for PAs or emphasize more on impact measures. Thus, they hope that their findings will be relevant to the development of new post-2020 CBD targets. 

References

Curtis PG, Slay CM, Harris NL, Tyukavina A, Hansen MC. Classifying drivers of forest loss. Science. 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445

Sharma, R., Eklund, J., Barnes, M. et al. The impact of terrestrial protected areas on vegetation extent and condition: a systematic review protocol. Environ Evid 9, 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-020-00191-y

UNDEP-WDPA. The world database on protected areas. 2019.

Haptic pathways: co-designing inclusive, civil and sensorial moments in the city

by Freya Thomas

A few members of ICON Science recently collaborated with Dr Zoe Myers from the Australian Urban Design Research Centre in the School of Design at the University of Western Australia by entering a design challenge set by The City of Melbourne.

Our design was titled:

Haptic pathways: co-designing inclusive, civil and sensorial moments in the city

Our winning design sought to create a design for new and improved opportunities for immersive nature experiences that focus on the use of native vegetation to provide a sensory connection to nature in cities. Our design specifically focused on producing diverse sensory experiences, including previously under-emphasised and under-explored facets of sensory connection, such as touch and smell.

Our Haptic Pathway imagined urban greening along an inner-city residential street in Melbourne that was:

  • Inclusive – space and pathways to empower all residents, although particularly those who struggle to move through standard urban spaces and have reduced capacity to engage through sight and sound, to feel comfortable moving through a public space through everyday routines and through all seasons.
  • Civic – a design on a ‘regular’ urban street to invite people of all abilities, perceptions and ages to engage with biodiversity through incidental experiences.
  • Sensorial – a space with diverse and layered multi-sensory natural elements. A design that actively works with senses of touch and smell instead of just sight.
  • Ecological – we incorporated indigenous and native plants to provide sensorial experience but also biodiversity benefits by encouraging ecological interactions with birds and insects, highlighting the local ecology of the area.

Design elements we incorporated into Haptic Pathways include:

  • Colour blocking in central road verges specifically aimed at being striking to visually impaired people. The ecological value of this intervention is through mass plantings of floral resources for pollinators. Plants such as Wahlengergia species could be used which provide resources for native bees, butterflies and hoverflies.
  • Small aromatic, colour and sound blocks along footpath verges were designed particularly to smell and touch on rainy days. Aromatic plant species chosen, like Prostanthera species, also provide habitat for bird species.
  • Accessible sensory spaces designed to be used by wheelchairs, walking frames and prams, where people would be surrounded by colourful, textual and aromatic plants such as Chocolate lillies and fluffy Ptilotus species flowers.
  • Braille graffiti walls highlighting amazing local biodiversity where the ecological information about species is written in braille at an accessible height.

We included a comprehensive plant list of indigenous and Australian species using categories such as colour, trees and shrubs for rainy days, other aromatic species, small shrubs and ground cover textual plants to touch, plant for aural experiences, plants for temporally changing plantings.

Screen Shot 2020-04-29 at 3.04.07 pm

Image: Zoe Myers

It was an excellent collaborative and creative experience and we hope our design will inspire creative, accessible and ecologically minded plantings in urban areas.

Time to focus on reducing beef consumption as US faces meat shortage

The US may soon start experiencing meat shortages as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 virus crisis impacting slaughterhouses, increasing the cost of meat and the likelihood of beef imports from Brazil. In Brazil beef production contributes to deforestation resulting in biodiversity loss and global greenhouse emissions. Now is an important time to reassess our relationship with beef and reduce overall consumption. But how do we do it?

cow-932817_1920

Researchers at ICON explored the most feasible and effective ways for individuals in the US to reduce their beef consumption. Using a novel expert elicitation method, we asked experts to identify leverage points in the beef supply chain and consumption environment (e.g. restaurants, supermarkets, homes) that could potentially have the greatest impact. Our experts selected a number of different interventions they felt will be effective. These included continuing to develop ‘fake meat’ alternatives to beef, and engaging food distribution companies, such as Tyson Foods, to offer more vegetarian and non-beef options. Now is not the time to import beef from Brazil where it is a major driver of environmental change but instead reduce overall beef consumption in the US, benefiting biodiversity and climate change mitigation efforts globally.

Read more about our findings and the selected interventions in the article We have a steak in it: Eliciting interventions to reduce beef consumption and its impact on biodiversity published in the journal Conservation Letters.

Reference:

Selinske, MJFidler, FGordon, AGarrard, GEKusmanoff, AMBekessy, SAWe have a steak in it: Eliciting interventions to reduce beef consumption and its impact on biodiversityConservation Letters2020;e12721. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12721

Turning suburbs into mini office hubs as an opportunity to cut commute times post-COVID

Cities around the world are planning for more people to be walking and cycling to work instead of catching public transport, once lockdown restrictions are lifted. Measures that are being implemented in cities like New York, Paris and Milan include closing streets to cars and putting more bike lanes in their streets.

Thami Croeser (ICON Science) suggests another alternative for widely spread cities like Melbourne, where people travel longer distances to get to their workplaces. His idea is to turn suburbs into mini office hubs, with vacant offices and shopfronts used as co-working spaces or satellite offices for large companies. This approach would allow more people to walk or cycle to work while cutting long commute times and continuing to practice social distancing if needed.

1024px-Brunswick_Street,_Fitzroy,_Victoria,_Australia
Image: Mat Connolley / CC BY-SA

In an analysis using census and Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning data, Thami mapped the areas where potential office hubs could be located and identified homes in a 5-minute walking distance from those places. He found that up to 97 per cent Melburnians live within walking or cycling distance of a shopping strip and potential office hub.

The analysis and potential benefits of Thami’s suggestion are discussed this week at Domain.

How to talk about COVID-19 for conservation professionals

We’re all currently living though a time of uncertainty and personal crisis, so – while I’m sure you’re growing very used to seeing these words at the top of every email – I hope you and your communities are going okay.

Every day our communication and use of language matters, but during a crisis like this, the impact of communication becomes particularly clear.

markus-spiske-wkvAd1cAqsE-unsplash

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

We can all have a positive influence on the language and social discourse around this crisis by being mindful about our own conversations and encouraging thoughtful and strategic communication approaches in our own workplace and community groups.

Below are my recommendations for conservation professionals on how to talk about COVID-19, drawing from my own strategic communications experience and some of the fantastic advice and resources published recently online (see below for links).

Be generous and understanding

People are – at the very least –  stressed and anxious right now. Many people have lost their jobs, and everyone is going through changes in their lifestyle and work life. Being considerate and aware of what everyone is going through, considering when others may be more seriously impacted than yourself, and making sure this is reflected in the tone and approach of your communications will encourage empathy and remind us that we’re all in this together.

Be accurate

Help to prevent the spread of misinformation by checking your sources before you pass on information. Don’t reshare infographics or lists of recommendations without checking where they come from. Listen to authorities like the World Health Organisation and government departments when it comes to sharing recommendations and guidelines. The stakes for miscommunication of health information are higher in a crisis situation. Individuals may be more susceptible to misinformation, and clear communication around the changing situation and up-to-date advice are vital for an effective coordinated response from the community as a whole.

Be clear on the purpose of your communication

Part of being generous and understanding is being clear on the purpose of your communications. This involves carefully considering who your intended audience is and what exactly you are asking of them (if anything!) and whether this ask is appropriate right now. Having a clear purpose is a key basis for any kind of strategic communication, but it is particularly important during a crisis such as COVID-19, when individuals are being bombarded with sometimes conflicting and highly emotional messages (and even advertisers are using coronavirus to sell).

Most communications around COVID-19 will be aiming to inform or educate the public or encourage compliance with local government recommendations, or (more often) both! There are many different communication approaches and strategies that can be applied for both these aims but for the purposes of this blog post I will discuss two broad kinds of communication: science communication and strategic communication.

Science communication (e.g. increasing public understanding of how COVID-19 spreads, explaining prediction models, debunking myths etc.)

Examples: ABC’s Coronacast, RMIT’s Fact Check

Science communication traditionally uses the knowledge-deficit model: the idea that people will change how they think and behave if they understand the science. In a public health crisis situation like the COVID-19 crisis, this approach can be more effective than usual as members of the public tend to be paying more attention to expert advice and be more likely to take it on board.

Science communication has a crucial role to play in COVID-19 communications, particularly around how the virus spreads, and how individuals can protect themselves and their communities. But effectively and accurately communicating science and health research to the public can be a challenge. Clearly communicating uncertainty and risk can be particularly challenging but it is crucial for helping the public understand the uncertainties around predictive models of the spread of the virus and around the predicted effectiveness of different interventions.

However, since humans do not always behave rationally, we cannot rely entirely on traditional science communication approaches to trigger behavioural changes like compliance with recommendations.

Strategic communication (e.g. increasing public compliance with physical distancing recommendations, fostering a culture of community and optimism)

Examples: Dan Andrews’ social media profiles, ACF’s covid update

Strategic communications specifically aim to encourage people to act in a certain way (e.g. physical distancing) or foster a particular message frame or narrative in the media or social discourse. Strategic communication is an umbrella term that encompasses many kinds of purposeful communications approaches, including crisis and risk communication, and public engagement.

In all kinds of strategic communication, you should consider what you want your listeners or readers to do as a result of your message. Will the tone, structure and focus of your message change your audience’s behaviour in a desirable way? For example, it may be tempting to use social media to express your own feelings and opinions about an issue you are passionate about, but if you are ultimately aiming to encourage people to act in a certain way, that may not be the most suitable approach (depending on your audience). Consider carefully your communication goals, your audience and your approach before you post.

It is also worth noting that science communication and strategic communication approaches are not mutually exclusive. Science communication can be strategically designed, and strategic communication can incorporate scientific ideas and concepts into messages. 

Be careful with your language

marjanblan-kVxhRBQUY2Q-unsplash

Photo by Марьян Блан | @marjanblan on Unsplash

Small changes in the language we use can have substantial impacts on understanding and perceptions around an issue. Below are some common recommendations for language use around COVID-19. Check out the further reading links or check out Dr Suzanne Wertheim’s Twitter thread below for more detail and research around these tips.

  • Describe numbers of detected cases as “known cases” instead of “cases”
  • Make human agency explicit by describing how “we spread the virus by going outside” rather than “the virus is spreading itself”
  • Use social norming (i.e. make it about me, us, we, our community) to make the issue personally and socially relevant, and communicate how “most Australians are doing the right thing by staying home” rather than saying “people aren’t staying home!” (us humans like doing what other people are doing!)
  • Describe staying at home as “physical distancing” rather than “social distancing” to convey how we still want people to stay connected and social but taking care of each other by staying away
  • Emphasise kindness, community and cooperation rather than fear, othering or panic

Can we still talk about biodiversity and climate change?

It’s becoming increasingly clear that coronavirus is already having a dramatic impact on our everyday life, and many jurisdictions have declared states of emergency. So in the short term, we need to carefully consider the relevance and appropriateness of our conservation messaging and be especially sensitive to the personal and social context of the individuals we are trying to engage.

However, it is worth being aware of situations in which conservation work and messaging continues to be needed. For example, with climate talks being postponed and the public focused on COVID-19, we run the risk of important actions being delayed or ignored. Our experience with the current crisis may even be a taste of what is to come in future climate crises.

Where do we want this story to go?

Looking long term, it now seems undeniable that coronavirus is changing the world, and the social context in which we continue to research and work will be different even if we eventually return ‘back to normal’.

As conservation scientists we don’t want to see COVID-19 create a new social and narrative context where taking action on issues like biodiversity conservation or climate change are even more difficult. As communicators, we need to think about where we want the story to go. Perhaps economic reform as a result of COVID-19 could also make progress towards a more sustainable future? Perhaps rather than bouncing back, we can bounce forward after coronavirus?

We can start to lay the foundation for these conversations now by avoiding comparing crises (e.g. by lamenting that biodiversity conservation hasn’t had the same response as COVID-19) and focus instead on needing kindness and cooperation, and scientific expertise. Some current responses to COVID-19 convey border control and security message frames, which don’t set a healthy narrative context for action for biodiversity conservation or climate change.

By focusing instead on humanity’s ability to band together in the face of an existential crisis, and asking people to continue to have courage, we allow the space for future calls for action to tackle climate change. By highlighting that we have been able to make changes to our way of life when called for, we increase public perceptions of our collective impact and strengthen our own self-belief that we can make meaningful change.

In doing this we foster a narrative of cooperation amidst a crisis, where we listen to the advice of experts, and are able to find solutions to complex and global problems, setting the stage for progress towards a more sustainable future.

Further reading recommendations

Key sources of information:

How to talk about COVID-19:

COVID-19, nature and the climate

Maintaining your mental health and adjusting to a new work and home life:

Where the wild things are: how nature might respond as coronavirus keeps humans indoors

AP News

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Intriguing things sometimes happen in places deserted by people. Plants creep back, animals return and, slowly, birdsong fills the air.

The coronavirus pandemic means public spaces the world over have been temporarily abandoned. Major roads are all but empty and public squares are eerily quiet.

In response, nature is in some cases “taking over towns”. Some reports – such as dolphins spotted in Venice – are fake news. But others are legitimate.

A puma has been spotted roaming the streets of Santiago and wild turkeys are gallivanting in Oakland, California. Monkeys have reclaimed city streets in Thailand and deer are wandering through train stations and down roads in Japan.

Of course, COVID-19 has taken a devastating toll on humanity, and this is nothing to be celebrated. But as Australians stay at home and our streets fall quiet, let’s consider how wildlife might respond.

Animals the world over are creeping back into cities deserted due to COVID-19.
SOHAIL SHAHZAD/EPA

The resilience of nature

Throughout history, nature has shown a propensity for reclaiming land once humans have departed.

At Chernobyl, for instance, radiation has not been enough to suppress populations of gray wolves, raccoon dogs, Eurasian boar and red fox.

Likewise the Korean demilitarised zone has become a refugia for numerous threatened species, including red-crowned cranes.

Ecological succession can occur when humans abandon cities. This is where short-lived “pioneer” species initially occupy sites and are replaced over time by shrubs and trees, ultimately supporting more diverse wildlife.

It’s hard to predict exactly how healthy and biodiverse these systems can become, but they will almost certainly be examples of “novel ecosystems”, having crossed irreversible thresholds due to human impact, such as vegetation reclaiming an abandoned building.

A butterfly on a floor in front of visitors in protective shoes at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 2018. SERGEY DOLZHENKO/EPA

Quieter, darker, greener cities

Cities can be hostile places for urban wildlife due to fragmented habitat, pollution, road collisions and disturbance from and conflict with people. But under a coronavirus lockdown, these threats are greatly reduced.

For example, decreases in economic activity in Europe and China have led to improvements in air pollution, which is known to badly affect urban birds. However, this effect might not last long enough to allow for recovery of sensitive bird species; emissions in China are already rising again.

Light pollution may also fall in cities as a result of coronavirus – such as if office buildings turn off overnight lighting and sportsgrounds are empty.

This would benefit nocturnal species such as moths and bats. Artificial light can interfere with reproduction, predator and prey interactions, and migration.

At the end of March, traffic congestion in Sydney and Melbourne was reportedly down more than 30% on last year. Fewer cars and trams would benefit species that communicate acoustically (such as frogs and birds).

Empty roads near Circular Quay in Sydney on March 27 this year. JAMES GOURLEY/AAP

Fewer people actively using city spaces may mean less disturbance of urban bird nesting sites, especially those that are routinely removed from commercial properties.

Depending on whether authorities see weed control as an “essential service”, streets may soon look a bit greener.

Weeds often get a bad rap for taking over gardens and roadsides. However, some, such as dandelions, provide excellent flowering resources for native bees, butterflies and birds.

Deserted roads could potentially add to existing wildlife “corridors” or strips of vegetation along rivers and streams. This would allow species to move from one place to another – potentially recolonising areas.

What next?

Once traffic returns to levels observed before the pandemic, we should preserve observed animal movements using safe passage strategies such as vegetated overpasses that connect bisected habitat or adequately sized underpasses to allow wildlife to safely cross under large, busy roads.

Nature can reclaim places that have been totally abandoned for years, creating novel ecosystems.
Pixabay, CC BY

In the longer term, this crisis may bring innovation in business communication and human behavioural change – including reduced work travel. This could influence land-use changes in cities, potentially giving space back to nature.

The current need for people to stay at home might be triggering a human disconnection from nature. In some cases, this can lead people to become emotionally distanced from what happens to their natural environment. This could be ameliorated by exercising in local parks or other natural environments.

You can also use your time at home to positively contribute to wildlife in your urban area. If you’re looking to keep kids entertained, try developing a “renaturing” plan that aims to care for, or bring back, a species or ecosystems.

There are also many ways to retrofit your home, garden or balcony to help plants and animals.

Or discover the incredible species living alongside us by simply paying attention to nature near your home.


Sarah Bekessy, Professor in Sustainability and Urban Planning, Leader, Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group (ICON Science), RMIT University; Alex Kusmanoff, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Inter-disciplinary Conservation (ICON) Science Research Group, RMIT University; Brendan Wintle, Professor in Conservation Ecology, School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne; Casey Visintin, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne; Freya Thomas, Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University; Georgia Garrard, Senior Research Fellow, Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group, RMIT University; Katherine Berthon, PhD Candidate, RMIT University; Lee Harrison, Honorary Associate, University of Melbourne; Matthew Selinske, Postdoctoral research associate conservation science, RMIT University, and Thami Croeser, Research Officer, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

Nurturing Nature, designing a home with biodiversity in mind: Sanctuary Magazine

Here at ICON Science we are passionate about conservation of biodiversity, both outside of cities and within. Georgia Garrard et al (2018) published their thoughtful paper Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design which aims to question how we plan, design and build cities so that they make a positive, on-site contribution to biodiversity and encourage everyday access to nature for residents. 

Screen Shot 2020-03-11 at 7.01.17 pm

Exert from Sanctuary piece

Recently, Sarah, Georgia and others published an article in Sanctuary Magazine entitled ‘Nurturing Nature, designing a home with biodiversity in mind’ in which we explain how to systematically think about incorporating biodiversity sensitive design into houses.

Please have a read and get inspired to welcome biodiversity into your life to enjoy the benefits of connection to everyday nature!

 

Help save wildlife in your own backyards

‘Eco-anxiety’ is a term that describes the sense of despair for the state of the planet that has settled on many of us since the Australian summer of bushfires. Aside from broader concerns about climate change, many of us have a feeling of helplessness knowing that over 1 billion animals perished in the fires and now that 113 species are closer to extinction and need urgent assistance.

People living in cities might understandably feel even more helpless, given the physical distance to the fire zones. Many people have donated money to organisations to support wildlife in the fire zones. But there is more we can do in our own backyards to support fire affected species. 

A group of ecologists from RMIT University and the University of Melbourne, including researchers from the CAUL and TSR Hubs, have outlined things city folk can do in their own backyards to help 10 species threatened by the recent bushfires that also occur in urban areas. Read about it in our Conversation piece. 

The article has now been read by over over 11,000 people and shared via radio interviews including with ABC South-East NSW and on the nationally broadcast “Weekends” program with Andrea Gibbs (ABC Perth, from 1:19:48).

Trees are hot news this year

Danish Street Trees

Danish Street Trees. Image: Thami Croeser

First it was the hopeful-but-questionable ‘One Trillion Trees’ initiative, announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos, with supporters as diverse as Jane Goodall and Donald Trump. At the same time, large areas of Australia were on fire – in total, estimates are that we lost 20% of our forest cover in the climate-change-driven ‘Black Summer’ fires that only recently subsided.

Recent collaborative research from our lab brings the focus back onto our urban trees. While a few billion hectares of new forest may slightly slow climate change at a macro level, we also need immediate solutions in our cities. In the places that most of us live and work, trees have an important role to play in helping us adapt to the warming (and flooding) that’s already locked in.

The thing is, we’re losing quite a lot of trees to construction, and even well-resourced teams are working hard to keep ahead of losses. In a new paper, Thami Croeser (ICON Science) led a team which found that The City of Melbourne has lost over 10,000 street trees in the decade of 2008-2017; 2000 of these were within 10m of a major development.

Thami_image001

The good news is most of these were small trees, possibly reflecting the city’s tough controls on tree removal.  The original research was published in Sustainable Cities and Society; we also had media pickup from The Conversation and Domain, where we talk a bit about how improvements in tree planting, tree protection and building greening can all play a role in keeping our cities green as they grow.

Thami Croeser

 

ICON at VicBioCon & ASC Conferences 2020

Over the past month a few of us ICON scientists have had the pleasure of attending, and presenting at multiple conferences, both located at Monash University in Clayton, Melbourne.

First up, the Victorian Biodiversity Conference 2020 on the 6th-7th of February was yet again a fantastic opportunity to network and learn more about the exciting local research and conservation work going on in Victoria. Congratulations to the organising committee (including ICON members, Katherine, Marco, Roshan, Emily, Freya and Matthew) for a great few days. Highlights included Dr Jen Martin‘s plenary on her journey to science communication, Amos Atkinson and Mick Bourke’s plenary on First Nation peoples’ perspectives on land and fire management, and seeing our fellow ICON members presenting their research!

In the Climate Change & Species Resilience session, Matthew presented on Landholder perceptions of climate change and its implications for biodiversity management on private lands.

In the Environmental Policy & Decision Making session, Mat presented on Identifying the role and capacity of local government to support private land conservation. Marco presented on Biodiversity and ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment: A review of six Australian cases, and Roshan presented on Evaluating the impact of private protected areas (as well as a poster in the poster session!).

In the Science Communication & Community Engagement session, Emily presented on whether common names influence willingness to conserve threatened species, and Alex presented Five lessons for more effective biodiversity conservation message framing (as well as a poster!).

Last but not least, in the Urban Ecology & Conservation session, Katherine presented on Plant-insect dating in urban squares: exploring the influence of design on interactions.

Emily was also lucky enough to spend the following week at the Australian Science Communicators Conference 2020. Highlights included networking with a wide range of science communicators, Stephen Oliver’s plenary on broadcasting for impact, and Anthony Boxshall’s presentation on making impact with science in the Board and Executive rooms!

Emily also again presented her research on whether common names influence willingness to conserve threatened species.

 

Well done to all presenters and thank you to everyone who made these two conferences such a joy to attend!