Emma Richardson

about 1 year ago

• I think these articles are interesting - the first article highlights to me the huge challenges we face in conservation - we need to be all things - winners and losers and even assess why we failed in the first place. Those who work in conservation (in my experience) don't have time (or money) to ponder and wonder why we failed - we just need to continue the battle - addressing public perceptions, training people to undertake solution based approaches and understanding the critical issues that occur in specific habitats at particular times - and how to manage this. The 2nd article feels like a square peg for a round hole. Each habitat or area has its own needs and only by spending time in these areas to you learn and understand about their protection requirements. Having a "tool" that intends to assess all habitats in all areas when the optimal time to act for protection seems to me very arrogant - as 1 tool can't possibly take into account every single part of a habitat in any area and understand its importance. For example some habitats change slowly (forests) others (like marine areas) can respond very quickly to protection so having a tool like mentioned in the article seems a wee bit over the top. Anyway just my opinion. 
• I agree with some points in the first article - conservation is complex and there is not a simple solution when you are dealing with groups of stakeholders from different perspectives and walks of life. Failure is real but when you are competing for funding - nobody acknowledges failures or wants to advertise this. We can always learn from our mistakes - but not advertise them - as who would fund us? In the 2nd article - I am struggling to agree with the points made - I understand that this tool can help to save money in the long run but the "do something" principle sits better with me. I feel this is another way scientists can "control" what happens on the ground without truely understanding what is happening at a particular habitat. 
• I have encountered many of these problems in my work but I think that to truely understand and support conservation, you (an individual or organisation) needs to spend time in the place, learn from the indigenous people and observe. This can only be done over time and by being in that place - not sitting in an office or using a tool. If we had unlimited money and unlimited time our world would be a different place, but we don't have either so I think it needs to be a balanced approach and guided by people who know the land (or sea) area that is protected.

Alejandro Javier Diaz Petit

about 1 year ago

A very good article. Truly, the best lessons learned come from failure, and this article is a perfect fit because I'm trying to address the topic and didn't know how to begin. There's very little information to be gained from failures, and a lot of generalities.

Abbie

about 1 year ago

I agree with the first article that the failures in projects aren't talked about enough and yet these are the biggest learning opportunities. If this information was regulalry published in articles it could create a much stronger scientific network. It may also enable future projects to undergo less problems and be more successful sooner.

The second article raises a good point about striking the tricky balance of how much research before executuing a project. However, it didn't seem very clear as to what the calculation was to achieve the ideal outcome. I clicked through to the article and read the abstract which gave a bit more info and scanned some of the diagrams throughout the article.

Fiona

about 1 year ago

New conservation tool calculates the optimal time to spend researching a habitat before protecting it

https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/new-conservation-tool-calculates-the-optimal-time-to-spend-researching-a-habitat-before-protecting-it/

I think it’s a great concept and a potentially useful tool, especially for helping decision-makers find a balance between acting quickly and waiting for more data. I agree there needs to be a cut-off point—indefinite research can delay urgent action—but I’d be cautious about treating this as a definitive answer. It’s a starting point, not a substitute for real-world judgement. I’d want to understand how adaptable the tool is: can it respond to changes in environmental conditions, policy shifts, or cultural contexts? Who’s inputting the data, and how is its quality assured? For example, species or community data may be relatively stable, but environmental factors are more volatile and would need regular updating. It’s also important to pair a tool like this with a clear approach to collecting high-quality data—speed alone isn’t enough. Poor or outdated information, even in large quantities, can cause real harm to ecosystems and communities, with knock-on effects that are hard to reverse. Overall, I support the idea, but I think it needs to be used with care—as part of a wider toolkit, not in isolation.

Fiona

about 1 year ago

Response to “Failure in Conservation Projects Are Rarely Recorded, New Study Finds” – Eco-Business

The article touches on something that’s long been an issue across the sector: we tend to celebrate success but rarely document or reflect on failure. That’s understandable—there’s pressure to maintain optimism and keep funding flowing—but it risks creating a skewed picture of what’s really happening on the ground.

Conservation is often driven by passion, which is a strength, but without clear project scopes, defined objectives, and systems that allow for flexibility, that passion can lead to overambitious plans that are difficult to deliver. Building in processes from the start—like setting MVPs, identifying what success and failure look like, and allowing space for soft releases—would help teams stay focused and adjust when needed.

Could there possibly also be a gap between those doing fieldwork and those analysing outcomes? Better collaboration between the two could help make sure lessons are captured and fed back into future planning.

It’s not about blaming individuals or highlighting failure for its own sake. It’s about creating space to reflect, adapt, and improve. If we want projects to have real, lasting impact, we need to be honest about what didn’t work as well as what did. That means building reliable systems that can forecast, adapt, and support learning throughout—not just at the end.

Charley Bird

about 1 year ago

After reading the first article, I think that even the failure of a project can be considered a success, as you have now learned (hopefully, if you have reflected on what caused the failure!) from the experience and can apply what you have learned to future projects. 

It is interesting that conservationists report on successes much more than failures of projects. In my mind there is more to learn from project failures than successes. I can completely understand the concern for loss of a good reputation - I think it is a shame that our society praises success so much more than failure, to the point that failure is considered 'less that' and whispered about. Failure is a tool, that we can all use to improve!

Someone who has failed a lot and learned from their mistakes is more likely to be analytical and cautious about their approaches to things. Someone who has had nothing but success, or has failed but refused to acknowledge this or look at why, will likely approach things with carelessness and arrogance, that will most likely lead to failures in the future.