Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T00:14:39.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Shifted baselines and the policy placebo effect in conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2018

Samantha Lovell
Affiliation:
Environmental Studies Program, Colby College, 5351 Mayflower Hill Drive, Waterville, Maine, USA.
Ayana Elizabeth Johnson
Affiliation:
Ocean Collective, Brooklyn, New York, USA
Robin Ramdeen
Affiliation:
Waitt Institute, Montserrat, West Indies
Loren McClenachan*
Affiliation:
Environmental Studies Program, Colby College, 5351 Mayflower Hill Drive, Waterville, Maine, USA.
*
(Corresponding author) E-mail lemcclen@colby.edu

Abstract

Coastal ecosystems have been degraded by human activity over centuries, with loss of memory about past states resulting in shifted baselines. More recently conservation efforts have resulted in localized recoveries of species and ecosystems. Given the dynamism of ecosystem degradation and recovery, understanding how communities perceive long-term and recent changes is important for developing and implementing conservation measures. We interviewed stakeholders on three Caribbean islands and identified a shifted baseline with respect to the extent and degree of long-term declines in marine animal populations; stakeholders with more experience identified more species as depleted and key species as less abundant than those with less experience. Notably, the average respondent with < 15 years of experience listed no species as depleted despite clear evidence of declines. We also identified a phenomenon we call the policy placebo effect, in which interviewees perceived some animal populations as recently recovering following passage of new conservation legislation but in the absence of evidence for actual recovery. Although shifted baselines have a negative effect on conservation as they can lower recovery goals, the outcomes of a policy placebo effect are unclear. If the public prematurely perceives recovery, motivation for continued conservation could decline. Alternatively, perception of rapid success could lead communities to set more ambitious conservation goals.

Information

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Fauna & Flora International
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Mean perceived abundance (1, absent; 2, rare; 3, common; 4, abundant; 5, superabundant; with SD bars) for the 10 species of interest. Significant changes in perceived abundance are indicated with an asterisk.

Figure 1

Table 1 Reasons cited for species decline or increase (number of people citing reason), including recent increases, with illustrative example responses.

Figure 2

Table 2 Examples of interviewee perceptions (number of people with perception) of changes in the marine environment.

Figure 3

Fig. 2 (a) Number of taxa perceived to be declining, and (b) perceived current abundance of the five taxa most cited as declining: coral (Scleractinia), lobster Panulirus argus, conch Strombus gigas, parrotfish (Scarus spp.), and grouper (Epinephelinae). Rankings are as follows: 1, absent; 2, rare; 3, common; 4, abundant; 5, superabundant. Respondents are grouped by years of fishing or diving experience (< 15, 15–30 and > 30 years). The horizontal line represents the median, the box the first and third quartiles, and the caps the range of responses.

Figure 4

Table 3 Marine faunal groups perceived to be recently increasing, by island, with generation time, years since first protection, type and year of protection, per cent of interviewees describing them as increasing, illustrative quotes and information on current status.

Figure 5

Fig. 3 (a) The Caribbean, with rectangle indicating the location of the islands of Montserrat, Antigua and Barbuda, and (b) places named after marine species, identified from historical maps, with year of map (from: Baker, 1748; De La Rochette, 1784; Luffman, 1788; Fielding, 1824; Nicholson & Sons, 1977).

Supplementary material: PDF

Lovell et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S3 and Figures S1-S2

Download Lovell et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 621.5 KB