Conservationists increasingly aim to understand human behaviour to inform intervention design. However, obtaining information from people about their behaviour can be challenging, particularly if the research topic is considered sensitive. Topic sensitivity may raise methodological, ethical, political and legal concerns which, if poorly addressed, can have significant impacts on research participants, the research process, data quality and the success of conservation outcomes that are informed by research findings. While considerable effort has been invested in developing techniques for reducing bias when collecting data on sensitive topics, less attention has been focused on identifying if, and why, a topic is sensitive.We use a mixed methods approach to explore how willing people are to discuss topics that could be considered sensitive (e.g. illegal wildlife hunting). Collecting data from people living near protected areas in Indonesia ( = 362) and Tanzania ( = 345), we developed and tested a psychometric scale to measure topic sensitivity at the respondent level and conducted group exercises (free-lists and pile sorts) to gain a deeper understanding of peoples' willingness to discuss different topics.The perceived sensitivity of topics varied both within and between the two focal contexts, with more topics being perceived as sensitive in Tanzania than Indonesia. Participants' knowledge of rules, and their experiences of living alongside protected areas affected how sensitive they considered topics to be.Mixed methods approaches can provide holistic and nuanced understanding of topic sensitivity. However, recognising that in-depth studies are not always feasible to implement, we demonstrate that methods, such as our Sensitivity Index, can easily be adapted for different contexts and deployed to rapidly obtain valuable insights on topic sensitivity, to help inform conservation research and practice.

COVID-19 has heightened the dependence of urban dwellers on cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces (UGS), specifically in regard to the provision of recreational opportunities, and psychological and physical health benefits arising from their use.As different types and levels of cultural ecosystem services are provided by different types of UGS, people may seek out different UGS to satisfy personal needs over various phases of COVID-19 mobility restrictions imposed by cities. We report on a study that took advantage of the different phases of COVID-19 mobility restrictions to assess the demand for and perception of different types of UGS in Singapore.The study utilised four datasets to compare demand for and visitorship patterns of UGS before the pandemic (Pre-Circuit Breaker), the duration of the strictest mobility restrictions (Circuit Breaker), and after the measures were relaxed (Post-Circuit Breaker). We used Google Search trends as a proxy for UGS demand, Google mobility data for an overview of population visitorship trends, visitor counts for granular insights on actual visitorship trends, and qualitative data on perception of parks by park visitors after restrictions eased. Parks were categorised as manicured and less manicured UGS for analysis.Search interest for UGS overall fell by more than 50% from during Circuit Breaker but the post-Circuit Breaker levels exceeded pre-Circuit Breaker, with a 70.9% increase for less manicured UGS compared to 20.8% for manicured UGS. This corroborated with Google mobility and visitor counts, which showed a steep decrease in park use followed by a rapid increase in the same periods, and with increased visitorship in the less manicured UGS. The perception study also showed that more than 50% of respondents reported visiting parks that they have never visited before, and there was a greater appreciation and use of UGS after the pandemic and preference for less manicured and more naturalistic landscapes.The pandemic has heightened the demand for cultural ecosystem services provided by UGS. Our study showed that this demand is not uniform across different types of UGS, with an increase visitorship and preference for less manicured green spaces. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

While psychological connection to nature is known to be associated with both pro-environmental behaviours and well-being, there is an urgent need to extend this research to consider impacts from the COVID-19 lockdown period. Examining whether children's connection to nature changed during this period, identifying the drivers of these changes and determining the links between connection to nature and child well-being can each serve to guide post-lockdown initiatives to promote children's connection to nature.Three findings emerged from this UK sample of 376 families with young children. First, nearly two thirds of parents reported a change (most typically, an increase) in their child's connection to nature. Explanations for this increase included having more time, increased enjoyment of nature and increased awareness or interest in nature. Second, a third of children whose connection to nature decreased during the pandemic displayed increased problems of well-being-manifest as either 'acting out' (externalising problems) or sadness/anxiety (internalising problems). Third, an increase in connection to nature during the pandemic was more evident for children from affluent families than for their less affluent peers.While connecting to nature may be an effective means of addressing child problems of well-being, the divergent findings for children from different family backgrounds indicate that efforts to enhance connection to nature should focus on the barriers experienced by children from less affluent families. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

1. Many infectious pathogens spend a significant portion of their life cycles in the environment or in animal hosts, where ecological interactions with natural enemies may influence pathogen transmission to people. Yet, our understanding of natural enemy opportunities for human disease control is lacking, despite widespread uptake and success of natural enemy solutions for pest and parasite management in agriculture. 2. Here we explore three reasons why conserving, restoring, or augmenting specific natural enemies in the environment could offer a promising complement to conventional clinical strategies to fight environmentally mediated pathogens and parasites. (1) Natural enemies of human infections abound in nature, largely understudied and undiscovered. (2) Natural enemy solutions could provide ecological options for infectious disease control where conventional interventions are lacking. And, (3) Many natural enemy solutions could provide important co-benefits for conservation and human well-being. 3. We illustrate these three arguments with a broad set of examples whereby natural enemies of human infections have been used or proposed to curb human disease burden, with some clear successes. However, the evidence base for most proposed solutions is sparse, and many opportunities likely remain undiscovered, highlighting opportunities for future research.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect societies across the world, the ongoing economic and social disruptions are likely to present fundamental challenges for current and future biodiversity conservation.We review the literature for outcomes of past major societal, political, economic and zoonotic perturbations on biodiversity conservation, and demonstrate the complex implications of perturbation events upon conservation efforts. Building on the review findings, we use six in-depth case studies and the emerging literature to identify positive and negative outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic, known and anticipated, for biodiversity conservation efforts around the world.A number of similarities exist between the current pandemic and past perturbations, with experiences highlighting that the pandemic-induced declines in conservation revenue and capacity, livelihood and trade disruptions are likely to have long-lasting and negative implications for biodiversity and conservation efforts.Yet, the COVID-19 pandemic also brought about a global pause in human movement that is unique in recent history, and may yet foster long-lasting behavioural and societal changes, presenting opportunities to strengthen and advance conservation efforts in the wake of the pandemic. Enhanced collaborations and partnerships at the local level, cross-sectoral engagement, local investment and leadership will all enhance the resilience of conservation efforts in the face of future perturbations. Other actions aimed at enhancing resilience will require fundamental institutional change and extensive government and public engagement and support if they are to be realised.The pandemic has highlighted the inherent vulnerabilities in the social and economic models upon which many conservation efforts are based. In so doing, it presents an opportunity to reconsider the status quo for conservation, and promotes behaviours and actions that are resilient to future perturbation. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Spending time in nature is one potential way to cope with the negative physical and psychological health impacts from major stressful life events. In 2020, a large fraction of the global population was impacted by restrictions to contain the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak, a period characterised by marked health risks and behavioural changes. Here we explore whether people responded to this stressor by spending more time in nature and investigate the reasons for any changes.We surveyed 1,002 people in Brisbane, Australia in 2020, to measure the change in use of green space during the restrictions period and benefits people associated with visiting them.About 36% of participants increased their urban green space use, but 26% reduced it, indicating a great deal of flux. Furthermore, 45% of the previous non-users of urban green space began using it for the first time during the restrictions period. Older people were less likely to increase their green space use and those with a backyard were more likely to increase their use of green spaces.Participants' change in use occurred regardless of the amount of green space available in close proximity to their households. In addition, we did not find a relationship between nature-relatedness and change in use.People's reasons for green space use shifted during the pandemic-related restrictions period, with many emphasising improvement of personal well-being rather than consolidating community capital. Most participants indicated an increase in the importance of the psychological and physical benefits obtained from urban green spaces.We conclude that increased urban green space use during moments of stress such as the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to ameliorate some of the negative effects of the stressor, but that the capacity and desire to spend more time in green space varies markedly across society. Sufficient urban green space provision for all sections of society will maximise the opportunity to employ a nature-based coping mechanism during times of personal or community stress.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the global response have dramatically changed people's lifestyles in much of the world. These major changes, as well as the associated changes in impacts on the environment, can alter the dynamics of the direct interactions between humans and nature (hereafter human-nature interactions) far beyond those concerned with animals as sources of novel human coronavirus infections. There may be a variety of consequences for both people and nature.Here, we suggest a conceptual framework for understanding how the COVID-19 pandemic might affect the dynamics of human-nature interactions. This highlights three different, but not mutually exclusive, pathways: changes in (a) , (b) and (c) .Through this framework, we also suggest that there are several feedback loops by which changes in human-nature interactions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic can lead to further changes in these interactions such that the impacts of the pandemic could persist over the long term, including after it has ended.The COVID-19 pandemic, which has had the most tragic consequences, can also be viewed as a 'global natural experiment' in human-nature interactions that can provide unprecedented mechanistic insights into the complex processes and dynamics of these interactions and into possible strategies to manage them to best effect. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Conservationists often view hybrid animals as problematic, at least if anthropogenic influence caused the intermixing to occur. However, critics propose that humans should respect non-human autonomy, reject and accept the creatures they have helped to create.Based on two case studies of our own ethological, genetic and ethnographic research about chimpanzee and orangutan subspecies hybrids, we assess what, if anything, should be done about such animals. We consider problems posed by cross-bred apes relating to: (a) -Do hybrids really experience reduced reproductive success? How are population-level concerns and welfare of individual animals balanced in conservation breeding? (b) -Are anti-hybrid arguments based on essentialist or purist thinking? Does essentialism vary by conservation context? (c) -How do socio-economic circumstances influence whether hybrids are embraced or ignored? Does the erosion of 'untouched nature' render hybrids more important?We show that answers to these questions are complex and context-specific, and that therefore decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. For example, we find that anti-hybrid arguments are essentialist in some cases (e.g. ape management in zoos) but not in others (e.g. ape reintroduction). Thus, rather than present recommendations, we conclude by posing nine questions that conservationists should ask themselves when making decisions about taxonomic hybrids. ​ A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Wildlife research by citizen scientists, involving the capture and handling of animals, provides clear scientific benefits, but also potential risks to animal welfare. We explore debates about how best to regulate such work to ensure that it is undertaken in an ethical manner.We focus on the UK as a case study, drawing on qualitative research and stakeholder engagement events. We show that because trapping and marking of certain species requires minimal licensing, training and justification, some argue for increased formal regulation to minimise risks to animal welfare. However, others have reflected on the already complex regulatory landscape affecting wildlife research, and have expressed concern that introducing additional formal regulations could potentially make citizen science working with wildlife more difficult. Informal regulation could therefore offer a preferable alternative.We set out three steps that could be taken to open up conversations about ethics and regulation of wildlife-focussed citizen science, in the UK and elsewhere: (a) take stock of wildlife-focussed citizen science in terms of numbers and harms to animal welfare; (b) assess the state of formal regulations and consider reforms; and (c) consider informal regulations as alternatives or additions to formal regulations.

1. As public land managers seek to adopt and implement conservation measures aimed at reversing or slowing the negative effects of climate change, they are looking to understand public opinion regarding different management strategies. 2. This study explores drivers of attitudes toward different management strategies (i.e., no management, protection, and restoration) for a low-profile but keystone tree species, the whitebark pine (), in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Since the whitebark pine species has a range that traverses different federal land designations, we examine whether attitudes toward management strategies differ by jurisdiction (i.e., wilderness or federal lands more generally). 3. We conducted a web and mail survey of residents from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, with 1,617 valid responses and a response rate of 16%. 4. We find that active management strategies have substantially higher levels of support than does no management, with relatively little differentiation across protection and restoration activities or across different land designations. We also find that support for management strategies is not influenced by values (political ideology) but is influenced by beliefs (about material vs. post-material environmental orientation, global climate change, and federal spending for public lands) and some measures of experience (e.g., knowledge of threats). 5. This study helps land managers understand that support for active management of the whitebark pine species is considerable and nonpartisan and that beliefs and experience with whitebark pine trees are important for support.

Making agriculture sustainable is a global challenge. In the European Union (EU), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is failing with respect to biodiversity, climate, soil, land degradation as well as socio-economic challenges.The European Commission's proposal for a CAP post-2020 provides a scope for enhanced sustainability. However, it also allows Member States to choose low-ambition implementation pathways. It therefore remains essential to address citizens' demands for sustainable agriculture and rectify systemic weaknesses in the CAP, using the full breadth of available scientific evidence and knowledge.Concerned about current attempts to dilute the environmental ambition of the future CAP, and the lack of concrete proposals for improving the CAP in the draft of the European Green Deal, we call on the European Parliament, Council and Commission to adopt 10 urgent action points for delivering sustainable food production, biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation.Knowledge is available to help moving towards evidence-based, sustainable European agriculture that can benefit people, nature and their joint futures.The statements made in this article have the broad support of the scientific community, as expressed by above 3,600 signatories to the preprint version of this manuscript. The list can be found here (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685632).

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include economic, social and environmental dimensions of human development and make explicit commitments to all of life on Earth. Evidence of continuing global biodiversity loss has, at the same time, led to a succession of internationally agreed conservation targets.With multiple targets (even within one policy realm, e.g. the CBD Aichi Targets for biodiversity), it is possible for different indicators to respond in the same direction, in opposite directions or to show no particular relationship. When considering the different sectors of the SDGs, there are many possible relationships among indicators that have been widely discussed, but rarely analysed in detail.Here, we present a comparative cross-national analysis exploring temporally integrated linkages between human development indicators and wildlife conservation trends.The results suggest that in lower income countries there are negative relationships between measures of human population growth and bird and mammal population abundance trends outside protected areas.The results also suggest a positive relationship between economic growth and wildlife population trends in lower income countries. We stress, however, the need for future research to further explore the relationships between economic growth and natural resource-based imports.Our results highlight a clear potential for compatibility of the conservation and development agendas and support the need for further integration among sustainable development strategies. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.