Articles by Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila
Visions for sustainability, 2021
This article examines the practical implications of ecological democracy or ecodemocracy, inquiri... more This article examines the practical implications of ecological democracy or ecodemocracy, inquiring how capable democratic societies are of addressing environmental challenges. It asks: What is needed to secure democratic legitimacy for policy measures to benefit nonhuman species? What would ecodemocracy look like in practice? Different types of existing and possible types of representation are discussed, including the expansion of the precautionary principle, the Council of All Beings or Parliament of Things, and representation through the Parties for Animals. A possible approach in the form of a mandate for proxy ecorepresentation similar to civil rights through continuous affirmative action is investigated. Limitations and possibilities of each approach for nature representation are weighed.
Conservation Biology, 2020
Compassionate conservation is based on the ethical position that actions taken to protect biodive... more Compassionate conservation is based on the ethical position that actions taken to protect biodiversity should be guided by compassion for all sentient beings. Critics argue that there are 3 core reasons harming animals is acceptable in conservation programs: the primary purpose of conservation is biodiversity protection; conservation is already compassionate to animals; and conservation should prioritize compassion to humans. We used argument analysis to clarify the values and logic underlying the debate around compassionate conservation. We found that objections to compassionate conservation are expressions of human exceptionalism, the view that humans are of a categorically separate and higher moral status than all other species. In contrast, compassionate
Papers by Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila
Biological Conservation , 2023
In this article we analyse Michael E. Soulé's normative postulates in 'What Is Conservation Biolo... more In this article we analyse Michael E. Soulé's normative postulates in 'What Is Conservation Biology?' In the first section, we provide an exegetical reading of the normative postulates and demonstrate that they subordinate all sources of value to biodiversity. We question this subordinating logic because it permits, we argue, the enactment of morally wrongful policies. In the second section, we demonstrate that biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems depend on an idealized conception of ecological communities that is morally arbitrary. Both, subordinating all sources of value to biodiversity, and this morally arbitrary conception of ecological communities leads us to conclude that protecting biodiversity ought not to be the most fundamental normative postulate of conservation biology. To end, we propose a pluralist ethic that foregrounds: selfdetermination, community, and social relationships; rejects human dominion over animals; and emphasizes protective, preventive and non-harmful interventions.
Biological Conservation, 2019
We are failing to protect the biosphere. Novel views of conservation, preservation, and sustainab... more We are failing to protect the biosphere. Novel views of conservation, preservation, and sustainability are surfacing in the wake of consensus about our failures to prevent extinction or slow climate change. We argue that the interests and well-being of non-humans, youth, and future generations of both human and non-human beings (futurity) have too long been ignored in consensus-based, anthropocentric conservation. Consensus-based stakeholder-driven processes disadvantage those absent or without a voice and allow current adult humans and narrow, exploitative interests to dominate decisions about the use of nature over its preservation for futurity of all life. We propose that authentically non-anthropocentric worldviews that incorporate multispecies justice are needed for a legitimate, deliberative, and truly democratic process of adjudication between competing interests in balancing the preservation and use of nature. Legitimate arenas for such adjudication would be courts that can defend intergenerational equity, which is envisioned by many nations' constitutions, and can consider current and future generations of non-human life. We urge practitioners and scholars to disavow implicit anthropocentric value judgments in their work-or make these transparent and explicit-and embrace a more comprehensive worldview that grants future life on earth fair representation in humanity's decisions and actions today.
Society & Animals
The relationship between people, outdoor cats, and wildlife is the subject of fraught debate. Som... more The relationship between people, outdoor cats, and wildlife is the subject of fraught debate. Some conservationists claim cats are harbingers of chaos – akin to a zombie apocalypse threatening biodiversity and public health. The empirical evidence and scientific reasoning do not bear this out. Cats may or may not be a problem for biodiversity depending on diverse ecological and social contexts. Indeed, while all animals can be vectors or victims of zoonotic disease, cats are not a significant threat to public health. While most of the debate is focused on dueling claims about the science, that is not the primary source of the dispute. Instead, moral disputes drive the debate, and managing the relationship between people, cats, and wildlife is a wicked problem rooted in differing ethical values and worldviews. While wicked problems have no permanent or technical fix, addressing their ethical aspects is key to unlocking productive policy options.
protocols.io, 2017
Here, we make available basic sample code for the statistical survival analyses employed in our m... more Here, we make available basic sample code for the statistical survival analyses employed in our manuscript. This code should allow for replication of analyses at all spatial scales for all datasets involved. This sample code does not include code lines for dropping or adding observations, which we did for the alternate datasets used. However, this should only involve basic coding, and descriptions of observations included or dropped for each dataset can be found in the study.
Society & Animals
A moral panic over cats has gripped portions of the conservation community, with claims that outd... more A moral panic over cats has gripped portions of the conservation community, with claims that outdoor house cats (felis catus) are wrecking havoc on biodiversity and public health akin to a zombie apocalypse. This is a mistake, a result of poor scientific reasoning and selective attention to data, or worse, pure demagoguery. The situation is more nuanced. Outdoor cats can cause significant harm to wildlife in specific ecological contexts, even when there is no evidence they do so across the board. And like all mammals, cats can be vectors of disease, even when they pose no threat to public health overall. Careful attention to the complex questions of ethics, science, and politics is required to understand how people, outdoor cats, and nature interact, and how we ought to thrive together. This special issue brings together a diverse set of articles from different points of view to address these issues.
Science, 2019
In their Letter “Trophy hunting bans imperil biodiversity” (30 August, p. [874][1]), A. Dickman e... more In their Letter “Trophy hunting bans imperil biodiversity” (30 August, p. [874][1]), A. Dickman et al. argue that banning trophy hunting would be detrimental to conservation. We agree that evidence for effectiveness is important before actions are taken. However, Dickman et al. do not provide evidence that bans to trophy hunting harm biodiversity ([ 1 ][2]). Dickman et al. claim that trophy hunting indirectly benefits biodiversity because populations (and their habitats) are better protected in places or times where trophy hunting has occurred. However, no comprehensive research has tested that hypothesis. Even previous work by Letter authors Dickman and Johnson (led by Macdonald) concludes that we know too little to infer whether trophy hunting (selective hunting for recreation) contributes to the conservation of wild lions ([ 2 ][3])—one of the best-studied trophy-hunted species. Dickman et al. overstate their case. For example, the claim that “more land has been conserved under trophy hunting than under national parks” seems based on the statement from Lindsey et al. ([ 3 ][4]) that “[o]ver 1,394,000 km2 is used for hunting in sub-Saharan Africa, exceeding the area encompassed by national parks by 22% in the countries where hunting is permitted” ([ 3 ][4]). However, this interpretation is misleading because those lands include private lands, protected areas that allowed subsistence hunting, and various other classes of protected areas, not exclusively trophy hunting concessions. In addition, the authors' prediction that a ban on trophy imports or hunts would indirectly harm biodiversity could be just the converse: Perhaps hunting concessions would be upgraded in protection by catalyzing a governmental rethinking of carnivore management systems. An evidentiary basis for informing controversial policy interventions, such as trophy hunting, demands strong inference with full disclosure of uncertainties and disentangled value judgments from observations or inferences. Stronger evidence might be gleaned through adequate tests of the effectiveness of trophy hunting for protecting the hunted population, including broad-scale experiments using multiple replicated land parcels subject either to hunting or another putative form of biodiversity protection under similar socioeconomic systems, or tracking of populations before and after trophy hunting (accounting for other threats). Rigorous examinations would likely reveal outcomes that vary by population, geography, other threats to biodiversity, and socioeconomic and governance contexts. Finally, the addition of a long list of signatories implies a call to authority that should play little or no role in what should ultimately be an evidence-based scientific debate. By contrast, clear evidence, transparently conveyed and clearly demarcated from the ingrained values of those involved (whether they support or reject trophy hunting), could help elucidate environmental, ethical, social, and economic dimensions of this controversial activity whose ultimate conservation effects remain poorly understood. Dickman et al. respond: “…[A]ction should not be taken without evidence for its effectiveness…[but] we believe the burden of proof clearly lies with those who support [the removal of trophy hunting]…” See the [full response][5]. 1. [↵][6]1. A. Treves et al ., Conserv. Biol. 33, 472 (2018). [OpenUrl][7] 2. [↵][8]1. D. W. Macdonald et al ., Mamm. Rev. 47, 247 (2017). [OpenUrl][9] 3. [↵][10]1. P. A. Lindsey et al ., Biol. Conserv. 134, 455 (2007). [OpenUrl][11] A.T. is President of the Board of Directors of Future Wildlife, a tax-exempt organization with the mission to preserve nature, especially wild animals, and an unpaid science adviser for Project Coyote. [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/874 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6464/435.1/tab-e-letters [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DConserv.%2BBiol.%26rft.volume%253D33%26rft.spage%253D472%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DMamm.%2BRev.%26rft.volume%253D47%26rft.spage%253D247%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [11]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBiol.%2BConserv.%26rft.volume%253D134%26rft.spage%253D455%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx
Royal Society Open Science
Poaching is the major cause of death for large carnivores in several regions, contributing to the... more Poaching is the major cause of death for large carnivores in several regions, contributing to their global endangerment. The traditional hypothesis used in wildlife management (killing for tolerance) suggests reducing protections for a species will decrease poaching. However, recent studies suggest reducing protections will instead increase poaching (facilitated illegal killing) and its concealment (facilitated cryptic poaching). Here, we build survival and competing risk models for mortality and disappearances of adult collared red wolves ( Canis rufus ) released in North Carolina, USA from 1987 to 2020 ( n = 526). We evaluated how changes in federal and state policies protecting red wolves influenced the hazard and incidence of mortality and disappearance. We observed substantial increases in the hazard and incidence of red wolf reported poaching, and smaller increases in disappearances, during periods of reduced federal and state protections (including liberalizing hunting of coy...
Biological Conservation, 2019
Incentives for REDD − i.e., reductions in emissions from deforestation and degradation − motivate... more Incentives for REDD − i.e., reductions in emissions from deforestation and degradation − motivate application of static economic modeling of land use to assess heterogeneity over space in the business-as-usual baselines for land use required for forest policy evaluations. That some forested locations face higher threats is now recognized as an important factor in the evaluation and targeting of policy. Given this point − now often included in impact evaluation via matching − further theory is required to explain variations in policy impact. We show this need by analyzing impacts of Mexican protected areas (PAs) on land cover. Applying static land-use economics improves the baselines for our impact estimation and we find, on average, a 2.5% lower rate of 2000-05 natural land cover loss within the PAs. Stricter PAs appear closer to cities and have greater impact (4.4%) than less strict (2.3%), yet static baselines do not explain why. Nor do they explain why impact gradients by type di...
Conservation Biology, 2020
Hypatia, 2022
Conservation scholarship and policies are concerned with the viability of idealized ecological co... more Conservation scholarship and policies are concerned with the viability of idealized ecological communities constructed using human metrics. We argue that the discipline of conservation assumes an epistemology and ethics of human sovereignty/dominion over animals that leads to violent actions against animals. We substantiate our argument by deconstructing a case study. In the context of recent bushfires in Australia, we examine recent legislation passed by the parliament of New South Wales (NSW), policy documents, and academic articles by conservationists that support breaking communities of horses and/or killing 4,000 horses in Kosciuszko National Park (KNP), NSW. Theoretically framing our deconstruction against human sovereignty over animals and anthropocentrism, we affirm an intersectional, ecofeminist approach that values animals as relational and vulnerable agents. We uncover first the epistemic violence of categorizing horses as “pests,” and the anthropocentric nature of recent...
Despite illegal killing (poaching) being the major cause of death among large carnivores globally... more Despite illegal killing (poaching) being the major cause of death among large carnivores globally, little is known about the effect of implementing lethal management policies on poaching. Two opposing hypotheses have been proposed in the literature: implementing lethal management may decrease poaching incidence (killing for tolerance) or increase it (facilitated illegal killing). Here, we report a test of the two opposed hypotheses that poaching (reported and unreported) of Mexican grey wolves (<i>Canis lupus baileyi</i>) in Arizona and New Mexico, USA, responded to changes in policy that reduced protections to allow more wolf-killing. We employ advanced biostatistical survival and competing risk methods to data on individual resightings, mortality and disappearances of collared Mexican wolves, supplemented with Bayes factors to assess the strength of evidence. We find inconclusive evidence for any decreases in reported poaching. We also find strong evidence that Mexican...
This article examines the practical implications of ecological democracy or ecodemocracy, inquiri... more This article examines the practical implications of ecological democracy or ecodemocracy, inquiring how capable democratic societies are of addressing environmental challenges. It asks: What is needed to secure democratic legitimacy for policy measures to benefit nonhuman species? What would ecodemocracy look like in practice? Different types of existing and possible types of representation are discussed, including the expansion of the precautionary principle, the Council of All Beings or Parliament of Things, and representation through the Parties for Animals. A possible approach in the form of a mandate for proxy eco-representation similar to civil rights through continuous affirmative action is investigated. Limitations and possibilities of each approach for nature representation are weighed. Key words. anthropocentrism, democracy, ecocentrism, ecological democracy, ecodemocracy, ecological justice, environmental justice, multispecies justice, rights of nature
Uploads
Articles by Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila
Papers by Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila