|
|||||||||
| You are here: Home > Publications > Newsletter > Archives > 1999-5-May > | ||||||||||
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMBERSHIP SURVEY 
Jonnell Allen, Richard Margoluis, and Nick Salafsky
Ninety-two respondents replied to the Strategic Planning Membership Survey. However, there are not 92 responses to each of the following questions, partly because the institution (1.b), e-mail address (1.c), and number of years of membership (1.e) questions were not included in the web site questionnaire form. Therefore, the totals recorded for those questions do not equal 92. Also, not every participant responded to all of the questions. 1. Background Information Results from question 1a-c (name, institution, and e-mail address) have not been included. 1d. Conservation Work Category of Survey Respondents Researcher/Academic: 44 Field-Based Practitioner: 15 Office-Based Practitioner: 17 Advocate: 5 Business Person: 1 Student: 6 Media: 0 Donor: 1 Other: 1 Total: 90 90 out of 92 total respondents replied to this question. 1e. Average Length of Respondent's Membership in SCB The average membership length was 5.3 years. Not all participants provided their years of membership. Approximately one half of the surveys were done via e-mail, which contained no field to record responses. Of the 50 participants who did respond to this question, the greatest number of years of membership was 13, the least amount of years of membership was 1, and the standard deviation was 3.5 years. 1f. Geographic Focus Of the 56 responses to this question, 10 responded to having an international geographic focus, 33 have a US/Canada/Mexico geographic focus, 6 responded that they work both nationally and internationally, and the geographic focus for 7 respondents could not be determined from the information provided. Geographic Focus: Responses US/Canada/Mexico: 33 International: 10 Both: 6 Undetermined: 7 2. SCB's Historical Accomplishments 71 respondents provided comments to this section. The comments were extremely diverse. The categories below are general and are reflective of overall, general opinions. Complete comments are available in a more detailed report. 2a. What has SCB done well? Please describe [what] specific steps has the SCB taken in the past year that you feel have been important in making conservation happen. Why do you feel these are important? Produced/published a journal/newsletter/research papers - 37 Disseminated information/scientific research - 8 Successful annual meeting - 7 Explored important conservation issues - 5 Contributed to the growth/reputation of the discipline - 5 Brought the need for integrated approach to the attention of academics, government officials, and field practitioners - 3 Developed a society for ecologists - 3 Brought individuals of different backgrounds into one interdisciplinary organization - 2 Inspired activity in conservation/inspired researchers and students - 2 Promoted science based conservation/conservation biology and provided guidelines - 2 Effectively differentiated/struck balance between science and advocacy - 2 Promoted a comprehensive approach to studying and maintaining natural systems - 1 Expanded annual publication space in journal - 1 Focused on landscape level - 1 Conducted quantitative research - 1 Encouraged debate on role of advocacy and education - 1 Partook in activities relating to plant wildlife conservation - 1 Aided in creating a conservation biology discipline at many universities -1 Helped make conservation problems acceptable research topics - 1 Encouraged a demographically diverse membership - 1 2b. What has SCB not done well? Please describe specific opportunities that the SCB has missed. Why do you feel these are important? Influenced policy decisions/disseminated information to policy makers - 8 Established connections with management agencies/land managers - 6 Limited international scope - 6 Bridged gap between science and conservation action/practitioners/public interests - 6 Dominated by academics/NGOs - 4 Applied research to protected area management - 2 Applied journal to the real world - 2 Too much fluff in the journal - 2 Fostered understanding about applied sciences - 2 Outreach to non-academic community - 2 Journal articles are too single species oriented/only focus on animals, not plants - 2 Bridged gap between researchers and policymakers - 2 Created a web site - 1 Involved members - 1 Journal favors articles with a politically correct view of conservation - 1 Assisted in development of future agriculture activity in the US - 1 Emotion dictates direction of the Society - 1 Organized workshops on controversial conservation issues - 1 Journal articles are difficult to understand - 1 Encouraging media appearances of members - 1 Assumed a leadership role in conservation biology - 1 Funding: grants to students, travel to meetings for developing country members - 1 Promoted active protection of threatened ecosystems and species - 1 Annual meetings have not developed a high quality and consistency - 1 Meetings should have activities related to the conservation issues of the meeting site - 1 Disseminated conservation information - 1 Provided leadership role/focus/direction - 1 Failed to address curriculum needs for today's job market - 1 Been a voice for real world conservation - 1 Recognized inherent disagreement of members regarding advocacy - 1 Sometimes obsess with trendy science bandwagons - 1 Integrated policy and social issues into conservation efforts - 1 Promoted increased dialog between practitioners and academics - 1 Participation in applied sciences - 1 Too costly for international members - 1 3. SCB's Future Role 74 respondents provided comments to this section. Many provided numerous comments to each sub-question. Their responses are broadly categorized below and give the number of respondents who made some variation of the comment. The responses to each of the sub-questions show overlap, i.e. educating the general public was classified as a problem, something that SCB could do something about, and something that SCB should focus financial and other resources on. 3a. What do you think are the most pressing problems facing the conservation community? Human population growth - 23 Lack of education/ignorant/apathetic society - 20 Habitat loss/biodiversity loss/increased development/ecosystem destruction - 20 Affecting/educating policy makers/applied community - 11 Information transfer/communication with people - 8 Loss/invasive species - 6 Lack of funding for research - 5 Consumption - 5 Pollution - 3 Globalization of economies/overemphasis on economic growth - 3 Other - 10 (frequency of responses were less than 3) 3b. Which of these problems can SCB do something about? Educate the public - 19 Lobby Congress - 8 Fund applied research - 5 Disseminate research/provide tools for research/create database for research analyses - 3 Send SCB representatives to Washington DC/develop a lobbying office - 3 Provide research material upon request to policy makers, educators, and field workers - 3 Link researchers and practitioners - 2 Develop more resource management plans in overpopulated/third world countries - 2 Use media - 2 Develop applied conservation science - 2 Produce more big picture' journal articles - 2 Other - 10 (frequency of responses were less than 2) 3c. What specific steps should SCB devote its financial resources to in the future? Fund research projects abroad/students'/or collaborate research with other organizations - 17 Public awareness/outreach/education - 15 Influence policy makers/lobby Congress/hire a lobbyist/create policy office in Washington - 7 Host workshops (training in the field)/encourage strategic planning sessions - 5 Buy land/develop land trusts/reward people who donate land to reserves - 4 Use moneys generated from journal distribution to disseminate free in developing countries - 4 Publish reports/success stories/disseminate research findings upon request/publicize threats - 4 Continue to produce journal and newsletter - 3 Make journal easier to understand - 2 Other - 7 (frequency of responses were 2 or less) 3d. What specific steps should SCB devote its other resources to in the future? Create networks - 4 Promote/undertake conservation education abroad (i.e. workshops) - 4 Create a web site - 3 Advertise expertise of members/make them available to public and policy makers - 3 Disseminate information/research findings to policy makers, managers, and practitioners, etc. - 3 Public education/outreach - 2 Maintain the journal, newsletter, and an active society - 2 Other - 8 (frequency of responses were less than 2) 4. Evaluating Specific Strategies for SCB 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree 4a. SCB should have a strong international focus. 1: 2 2: 3 3: 11 4: 28 5: 48 responses: 92 mean response: 4.27 Comment Analysis: 31 respondents provided comments to this question. 19 favored expanding the Society's international focus; 6 respondents favored a national focus or opposed an emphasis on international issues, and 6 respondents were unsure or provided unclear comments. Those who favored broadening the scope of SCB to include more international issues made the following comments: 6 stated that conservation is a worldwide issue and that there is no limiting geographic scope. 1 stated that the essential goal is to provide a scientific basis for conservation. A conceptual basis is best developed if a full range of biodiversity is available for study. Otherwise, SCB will just be another regional organization. 1 suggested the society should broaden its scope in terms of information exchange, but if the society moves toward doing more grassroots work, it should remain in the US. Other suggestions were (1) Help set up international like-minded societies. (2) There should be a greater attempt to apply research and policy experiences in one geographic region to other regions. (3) 2 respondents said that the journal should recruit more interest and submissions from overseas; membership and the journal are too focused on North America. Problems cannot be isolated to one place and resources can best be used opportunistically when expertise and resources are converged. (4) Two-thirds of the journal should focus on North American issues, while one-third should focus on international issues. (5) The journal should be published in more languages to attract a wider international audience. (6) The journal is under-representative of Africa (7) 2 said the journal needs to focus on the tropics. (8) Third world libraries and members should be charged lower rates, not higher. (9) The Society needs to continue its work domestically, but it needs to devote increased resources to figuring out conservation problems overseas. Of those 6 respondents who were pessimistic about expanding the international focus, 3 agreed that the journal should focus on national problems. Other comments were (1) Jet-setting' conservationists have not been very successful. (2) Limit journals from outside the Western Hemisphere to 20%. (3) Use existing organizations for this like MAB, IUCN, or UNDP. The 3 respondents that were undecided said (1) Journal articles should reflect the membership, whatever the makeup may be. (2) Create a sister organization abroad if expansion would mean less national focus. (3) An international focus may dilute the journals content. (4) The journal articles already reflect the importance of developing a conservation ethic worldwide. 4b. SCB should actively provide information to policy makers. 1: 5 2: 1 3: 4 4: 16 5: 65 responses: 91 mean response: 4.48 Comment Analysis: 29 responded to the comment section of this question. 20 were in favor of providing information to policy makers; 3 were opposed, and 2 were undecided. 4 answers were not recorded because they were unrelated or read, "see comments above." Those that thought information should be provided to policy makers gave the following reasons (1) 6 said they need to have unbiased information, and only if it is based on defensible science. (2) 2 said documents like white papers are important because they summarize key issues and they have the force of numbers behind them. (3) 3 said politicians on average have a poor knowledge of conservation. (4) Politicians are the greatest allies but only if they understand ecology. They are the communication lines to the public and vice versa. (5) Science does not function in a vacuum. (6) Show success stories and examples instead of simply providing the information. (7) SCB should take this role if the NGO community is not doing it or if direct input from scientists would make a difference. (8) This is how conservation is applied, which is more important than just conducting research. (9) Create a separate publication for policy makers. (10) Create a web page. (11). It is the responsibility of the individual scientist with direct experience in an area to attend hearings and make comments; individual scientists will be more effective on the local project level than a Society will. SCB's main role should be to testify and comment on broader issues such as national legislation. The 3 respondents that disagreed with providing information to policy makers said (1) SCB has a scientific foundation for educational efforts. (2) Creating an alliance with an organization such as TNC would be better. (3) Too aggressive of a presence may portray SCB as a zealot Society. The 2 responses that were ambivalent said that (1) SCB would have to identify the needs of policy makers. (2) It would be difficult to achieve consensus on many issues. 4c. SCB should play a strong advocacy role on potentially controversial issues. 1: 8 2: 16 3: 15 4: 24 5: 29 responses: 92 mean response: 3.54 Comment Analysis: 38 respondents provided comments. 10 appear to favor an advocacy role, 13 are opposed, and 15 commented that as long as scientific information is not jeopardized while pursuing an advocacy role, they would support it. Respondents that were in favor of playing a strong advocacy role made the following comments (1) Members should be able to speak freely about their ideas and oppose existing opinions. (2) 4 said that if an issue can be scientifically defended it should be advocated. As long as care is taken to maintain objectivity and SCB's reputation, conservation values should be aggressively promoted. (3) Science has always played a controversial role in helping society move forward. (4) SCB can partake in responsible advocacy. (5) Advocate but don't ignore the smaller issues. (6) SCB should determine which issues to advocate by laying out the options and showing what has worked in the past. 4 respondents that opposed SCB playing an advocacy role said that maintaining credibility or a scientific framework is more important. 4 said advocacy is not in SCB's mission statement. The respondents would rather see SCB facilitate discussion, consensus, and action or educate, rather than advocacy. One said SCB should continue providing the facts and let the reader decide what to advocate. 4 others stated that advocacy has become too strong without substantive justification and that only when and if the science behind this advocacy matures should SCB participate. One respondent commented that advocacy should only occur at the membership level when passing resolutions. Of those who did not wholly disagree or agree with playing an advocacy role, 9 stated that if the advocacy is based on well-supported scientific findings then it was acceptable. Other respondents said (1) It depends on the issue. (2) Only if members vote on the issue. (3) SCB should lay out a technical argument that says what will happen if one does this or that, not which is better or worse. (4) It should be the individual expert's decision as to whether or not s/he decides to provide comments on the issue. (5) Only if a large amount of expert members have consensus on an issue should it be advocated. (6) SCB has to be cautious in choosing its causes so that its reputation will be preserved. 4d. SCB should, above all else, preserve its "impartial" scientific reputation. 1: 9 2: 13 3: 14 4: 11 5: 42 responses: 89 mean response: 3.72 Comment Analysis: 41 responded to this statement. 23 supported preserving SCB's impartial reputation. Those responses were all similar, stating that the society should avoid advocacy roles, that impartiality developed credibility. Comments varied from (1) neutral information is needed for informed, civil discourse. (2) The reputation should only be breached to clear misconceptions. (3) SCB should protect its reputation but there are also results that need to be heard. 10 respondents stated that science is not impartial, therefore the society cannot be. They also stated that the editorial and opinion section of the journal signified that the society was not impartial and that people who are concerned with conservation biology have already admitted that they are not impartial. 3 felt that SCB had no reputation or that there were greater risks than losing the reputation, or that a balance had to be struck. 5 comments were not clear. 4e. SCB should focus on educational and outreach activities for students and the general public. 1: 3 2: 10 3: 17 4: 29 5: 32 responses: 91 mean response: 3.85 Comment Analysis: There were 28 responses to this statement, however every comment is not summarized here because some simply said yes' or no' in the comment portion of the question. 15 respondents favored expanding SCB's role to include outreach activities for students and the general public. They suggested (1) Work with other organizations that already have a targeted audience for these purposes. (2) Encourage minority participation. (3) Outreach should be directed at policy makers first. (4) One said that education is imperative, but a big task. A sister organization could pursue this. A list of recent studies and abstracts could be sent to secondary science educators so that teachers could incorporate new ideas and research into their lessons. (5) If SCB takes on this role, the society should be sure to clarify its mission statement and make the public aware that it is not another TNC or the Sierra Club. (5) Focus on the college level (6) Others felt that educating the public is always beneficial to conservation. The 11 comments that opposed providing outreach were in consensus that this is the role of the university, the society members' organization, and that other institutions were developed solely for this role and that trying to provided outreach would take away from the professionalism of SCB. 2 respondents expressed their concern for what would have to be sacrificed in order to assume this education role. 4f. SCB should focus on educational, outreach, and training activities for conservation practitioners. 1: 2 2: 3 3: 13 4: 33 5: 39 responses: 90 mean response: 4.18 Comment Analysis: There were 28 comments to this statement. 22 were in favor of focusing on activities for practitioners, 3 were against this idea and 3 respondent was undecided. The 22 that agreed with this statement suggested (1) it should only be done through timely symposia. (2) It is necessary to bridge the gap between managers and practitioners, scientists and academia. (3) Training will equip individuals with biological sciences understanding for making management decisions. (4) Training will aid practitioners in writing policy papers and it will yield more comprehensive policy making organs. (5) The more trained practitioners are, the more credibility they will yield. (6) Practitioners need to participate in information collection and decision making; this is a good way to prepare them to do so. (7) 2 felt that this was the job of journals but since they were not successful in this role, the society should do what it can. (8) Some practitioners are not too enthusiastic about such forum and that these activities should not dissuade practitioners. (9) One respondent thought the Society was already doing well in this area. (10) SCB could have a great comparative advantage in this area. SCB needs real applied research that will lead to guiding principles that conservation practitioners can use in their day to day work. (11) Partners should be educated as well as practitioners. One respondent that was against this statement felt that practitioners are already outreached' and have access to information. The undecided respondents were concerned with the cost of such activities, whether they would only take place in the US, if this was beyond the scope of the Society, and if the activities would differ from others, such as the Wildlife Society. 4g. SCB should develop a new publication focused on conservation practitioners. 1: 13 2: 15 3: 29 4: 12 5: 22 responses: 91 mean response: 3.16 Comment Analysis: 40 respondents provided responses to this statement. 8 felt another publication was a good idea; 24 think it is not and 8 are undecided. Those who favored the creation of a new publication that is focused on conservation practitioners said that it is a good way to disseminate information to a broader base of people. One response stated that the current journal is lacking in practical applications and another sees a new journal as another way to share research. Another suggested providing abstracts or titles to bring conservation practitioners up to date about recent ideas and discoveries, or synopses of studies that are published in other journals. If such a publication for managers was done correctly, and disseminated widely, it may make more individuals pursue topics of an applied nature. There is a huge need for this type of publication; there are no similar publications elsewhere. Practitioners don't always read Conservation Biology. SCB needs to replace the current "grey literature" with a peer-reviewed document focused on practitioners. Those that oppose creating a new journal expressed that the existing journal and newsletter should just be expanded instead of creating a new one. They also felt that there were other publications and organizations for this. There were also concerns as to where the funding for this would come from. Others mentioned that researchers and practitioners were interested in the same results and that the society should not be fragmented; publish articles in the same journal that would interest both groups. A split might distract or compromise common goals. Those that were indecisive questioned what would be lost if another journal were created, whether or not there was a significant audience that would subscribe to the new journal, and how much something like this would cost. There were suggestions to canvass or survey the practitioner community more extensively to see if there is a need or a desire for such a publication before creating the journal. That way, the audience and the content could be identified. If the survey concluded that it was necessary, there was an audience who would subscribe, it was not too costly to produce, and that there were no alternate outlets, a second journal was feasible. 4h. SCB should develop a new publication focused on educating the general public. 1: 21 2: 24 3: 21 4: 12 5: 12 responses: 90 mean response: 2.67 Comment Analysis: 31 respondents voiced opinion on producing a publication that would focus on educating the general public. 6 respondents support developing such a publication, 17 give reasons why a publication of this sort is not a good idea and 8 had mixed feelings. Of those in favor of creating another publication, comments ranged from (1) Undertake a full-blown media campaign to educate the public instead of one publication. (2) Use the Aldo Leopold Leadership program as a model. (3) One thought it was a good idea but expressed concern about the fierce competition in the soft science' arena. (4) Educating the public would ultimately help bring conservation problems to the lawmakers. Those that oppose creating a new publication felt that the general public communicates on a different level than professionals and would need a different publication geared toward them if it was to get excited about the work conservationists do. 8 respondents felt that too many other organizations with such publications already exist. 6 felt that SCB could not do an adequate job because scientists are not the people equipped to educate (i.e. lacked the skills, access, ability). 2 stated that the core constituency may be overshadowed or that the integration of education would create wavering among all readers. One respondent was concerned that it would be a financial burden, one felt existing mechanisms should be used instead of creating another, and one thought that this should be done at the regional or local level. The respondents that were undecided stated that another publication is a possibility but wondered if it would differ significantly from existing publications. One suggested there might be better ways to access the public other than printed media. Another recommended trying to interest the public on the goings on of SCB members; hopefully they will become interested enough in some of the issues to make stories about them. 3 said that it might be possible in collaboration with organizations that have experience in producing education publications. There was a suggestion to develop a liaison with other organizations (i.e. National Geographic) and possibly securing a column for guest writers from SCB. 4i. SCB should focus on promoting research on biological aspects of conservation issues. 1: 1 2: 3 3: 16 4: 21 5: 49 responses: 90 mean response: 4.27 Comment Analysis: 27 respondents commented on this question, however, only about 23 offered relevant comments to the statement that was provided. Of those that agreed with promoting research on biological aspects of conservation issues, 1 argued that this was the core of the Society and should remain so. Another argued that without biological information, policy makers couldn't be swayed to consider preserving an ecosystem. The remainder said that research is the foundation of conservation action and that data should be provided. Promoting research by working with the CNIE and NSF to ensure adequate funding for key issues is critical. One respondent answered that research lends technical credentials to the Society; one felt that communication should be promoted but financial support should not be promoted, and yet another felt that promoting research would provide focus for limited funding and unimaginative graduate student. 3 respondents provide supportive comments stating that biology/science need exposure, research is good if it improves land use, and this research is good but it should be expanded to the socio-pol-eco realm. The 2 comments that did not support this effort stated that the sociological issues of humans are probably more important to overall conservation and that in the beginning SCB lobbied NSF heavily, but that it is no longer necessary. 4j. SCB should focus on promoting research on social, economic, political, and institutional aspects of conservation issues. 1: 8 2: 9 3: 16 4: 32 5: 24 responses: 89 mean response: 3.62 Comment Analysis: There were 34 responses to the comment's section of this question. 19 supported an interdisciplinary approach, 8 responded negatively, 5 were uncertain, and 2 were inconclusive. Those that responded favorably stated (1) We study conservation biology because of human actions, which by default involves social, political, and economic issues. (2) The practitioner side of SCB is a good group to take the lead in this area (as long as it continues to be based in sound science). (3) Whatever is the best way to attain the desired goals. (4) These are good issues for adaptive solutions to problems of total systems management and empowerment/enrichment of society. (5) Doing this research gives members practical credentials. (6) Researchers and practitioners should do this when they have the public's ear but it is up to the individual. (7) These issues are a necessary compliment to biological data. (8) This might work best in third world countries and with sustainable yield approaches. (9) Growing population and habitat loss are both social and biological issues. (10) Looking at the whole picture will be the best way to solve problems. (11) 3 commented that these issues are interrelated; conservation is primarily a social issue at this point and we need to bring science to these problems. They don't exist in a vacuum. (12) These topics are essential to conservation success. (13) Must ensure that the link between these issues and biology is not lost. (14) The name of the Society should be changed to something like "Society for Conservation Implementation." (15) There is a link but any papers the Society publishes should have a clear link to biodiversity. SCB could do a better job of addressing the "human dimension" aspects of its research. There are many experiments and models with little relevance. Respondents who opposed promoting research in these areas proposed (1) Working with others who are doing this who might have greater expertise, or leave this area entirely to those groups or organizations. (2) Because SCB is a volunteer organization this should be a lower priority. (3) Emphasizing hard science; soft science has the potential to dispel credibility. (4) Shouldn't mix ethical or moral issues with biology. (5) A separate publication to cover these issues. (6) Biology should continue to be the society's greatest focus. (7) SCB should not be biased toward choosing which aspect becomes the more pressing problem'. Those that were uncertain had the following questions/comments (1) Will the membership broaden to a society for conservation professionals because more than biology is involved? (2) These issues are important but not as important as the issues the society currently addresses. (3) Don't include politics because conservation biologists should not be presenting their views on politics. 5. Other Comments The 21 comments for this section varied; there were not many overlapping responses. 5.1 Journal comments: Applause for the journal is reiterated in 9 of the responses. The journal should present more feedback/evaluation/"reality checks" from the field. Among strategies, expanding the journal to include monographs and reports for different audiences is suggested. Combine all past journal articles into one binder or republish in one issue so that members could have all articles, giving them the chance to compare, etc. Or, make all past and present journal issues available on the web. Create an issues brief series or a journal that is general enough to get issues out to lay people. If cost and time are the obstacles to increasing international members in the Board of Editors, change the submission and review process of manuscripts. One option is to allow submission and review of papers electronically. 5.2 Other comments: Create a technical review program where scientists will critique and comment on policies to legislators, etc; give them a scientific analysis of how a policy will affect society. Don't spread too thin by tackling too many issues. Cooperative efforts to combine scientists with other fields but that have the same interest. Develop a task force within the board to ensure these goals and objectives are met. SCB needs to become more proactive and should encourage its members to become more involved with local communities, managers, etc. SCB should take the lead in the movement to reform the destructive activities that are destroying the world. Invest money and time on SCB's mission: education and research. SCB should not become entangled with other institutions. Remaining individual promotes greater diversity of thought and leads to more successful conservation because everyone has not agreed on the "best" way to proceed. Promote collaboration and partnerships among individuals, public agencies, educational institutions, private corporations, and non-profit groups. Relate the relevancy of the native habitat to people's livelihood in order to connect human sustenance to the natural world. Try to excite and involve future researchers and the public about conservation concerns. Reevaluate membership fees for those members who are not US citizens. Developing country citizens should not be paying more than North Americans, either charge North Americans more to make up for the difference, or at least charge the same rate in all geographic areas. Promote cooperation between researchers from developing countries and developed countries.
|
