Traditional conservation has often used harmful and lethal methods of control in their efforts to protect ecosystems, biodiversity, and wildlife. Compassionate conservation challenges this default, seeking to mitigate animal harm wherever possible. However, critics say this is a “do-nothing” approach whose inaction puts the environment at risk.

This paper investigates this criticism and reveals which actions compassionate conservationists support, which they reject, and the rationale behind their decisions.

100 Ways To Protect Nature

The authors began by identifying 100 possible actions conservationists could take to protect nature, and grouped them under 16 conservation domains. They then asked a group of 27 compassionate conservationists to rate each action in terms of how likely they would be to use it in their work.

The researchers used the Delphi method to collect the data: the conservationists were asked to respond to an online survey and open-ended questionnaire regarding the domains and actions. Their responses were then anonymized and presented to each group member for further commentary. Lastly, the authors coded the responses for approval or disapproval, and group consensus or dissent.

Below are six examples from the 16 domains:

• Lethal control (e.g., poisoning, aerial shooting)
• Observation and monitoring (e.g., animal-mounted cameras, non-invasive observation)
• Zoo conservation (e.g., collecting and maintaining genetic samples, providing refuge)
• Restraint (e.g., limiting land development or recreational activities)
• Resource provisioning (e.g., providing food or water)
• Social change (e.g., humane education, legislation)

Actions Compassionate Conservationists Support

A total of 35 out of 100 actions were highly supported by participants. The domains that garnered the most support included restraint, resource provisioning, and social change. The most supported action overall was humane education. Broadly speaking, humane education involves promoting compassion and respect for all living things in learning institutions. Respondents also showed strong support for non-invasive observation. This involves observing animals without interfering with their behavior or bodies.

The results challenge the notion of compassionate conservation as a hands-off approach. But there were several actions that respondents tended to reject.

Actions Compassionate Conservationists Oppose

Nineteen actions received negative ratings by 80% or more of participants. Four actions were rejected by all participants: removal experiments, killing traps, targeted poisoning, and broad-scale poisoning. This aligns with the compassionate conservation concept of disfavoring harmful and invasive interventions.

While respondents came to consensus on a number of actions, they also disagreed substantially on many others.

Divergent Opinions

Notable disagreements were found among the compassionate conservationists. Out of 100 actions, 45 received mixed ratings. These spanned 14 of the 16 domains, and included use of contraceptives, behavioral manipulation, maintenance of genetic diversity via zoos, and reintroduction of animals into the wild.

Due to the large number of mixed responses, the authors sought to understand the thought processes behind the participants’ various ratings.

Demand For Ethical And Scientific Rigor

Respondents were most interested in which actions were appropriate under which circumstances, as opposed to assessing them at face value. This was especially true when it came to rating harmful and invasive actions.

After reviewing responses to the open-ended questionnaire, the authors identified five general themes that influenced how respondents rated a given action:

• Robust ethical and scientific justification: Respondents generally demanded a scrupulous rationale for the use of a given action. The greater its potential for harm, the more investigation and explanation was needed.
• Social and ecological context: Respondents emphasized the importance of social and cultural factors, as well as the specific local ecological and animal context. They sought to understand motivations and methods.
• Effectiveness of actions: Respondents looked for sound evidence of whether an action would achieve its stated purpose.
• Well-being and harm: Key to the ratings was understanding the degree to which animals could lead rich, autonomous lives with as little physical, mental, social, and habitat disturbance as possible.
• Consequences and outcomes: Respondents highlighted the need for careful prediction of outcomes, including unintended consequences, for targeted as well as non-targeted animals.

According to the authors, this careful consideration of influencing factors, along with widespread endorsement of 35 actions, makes compassionate conservation less of a “do-nothing” approach and more of a “do-right-and-do-better” practice.

Although the study offers valuable insight into the compassionate conservation framework and its underlying logic, as with any research, it has some limitations. Most noteworthy is that participants rated the actions under hypothetical conditions. It’s possible the conservationists would have made different assessments when faced with real-life circumstances. The authors also note that their list of actions isn’t definitive, and that these, along with the 16 domains and the five influencing factors, are subjective interpretations. Because of this, it’s possible that results may be obscured or skewed.

A Useful Framework

The study’s findings offer compelling evidence of compassionate conservationists as independent thinkers who endorse a variety of conservation actions. It reveals that compassionate conservationists value rigorous assessment of conservation actions, particularly when it comes to the potential for animal harm.

This kind of scrutiny and dedication to harm reduction could be applied to conservation as a whole — and to other fields besides.

Whether you work in activism, research, or policy, asking “What harm might this cause?” and “Is this harm necessary?” may lead to more fruitful discussions, more vigilant action, and more humane outcomes.