ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1569-4274
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 17-06-2019
DOI: 10.1111/REC.12977
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 22-09-2021
DOI: 10.1111/CSP2.540
Abstract: The role of a conservation scientist has never been more challenging. Amidst the rapid degradation occurring across Earth's natural ecosystems and the loss of bio ersity and ecosystem services, conservation scientists must learn new and effective ways to build trust and engage with the wider community. Here, we discuss the potential utility of a particular communication technique, Nonviolent Communication (also known as Compassionate Communication or Collaborative Communication), in conservation science. Nonviolent Communication is a structured form of communication, developed in the 1960s by Dr. Marshall Rosenberg, that seeks to foster interpersonal understanding and connection through communication of judgment‐free observations, recognition of people's feelings, needs and values, and requests for specific actions to meet those needs. It has delivered positive outcomes in erse fields such as prisoner reform, health science, and social work, and holds great promise for conservation applications. While there is no single communication strategy that resonates with all people, we argue that Nonviolent Communication could be used by conservation scientists and practitioners when communicating with colleagues, politicians, and the general public about important and sometimes contentious environmental issues.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 30-01-2020
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 15-06-2021
DOI: 10.1111/COBI.13742
Abstract: Marine coastal ecosystems, commonly referred to as blue ecosystems, provide valuable services to society but are under increasing threat worldwide due to a variety of drivers, including eutrophication, development, land‐use change, land reclamation, and climate change. Ecological restoration is sometimes necessary to facilitate recovery in coastal ecosystems. Blue restoration (i.e., in marine coastal systems) is a developing field, and projects to date have been small scale and expensive, leading to the perception that restoration may not be economically viable. We conducted a global cost–benefit analysis to determine the net benefits of restoring coral reef, mangrove, saltmarsh, and seagrass ecosystems, where the benefit is defined as the monetary value of ecosystem services. We estimated costs from published restoration case studies and used an adjusted‐value‐transfer method to assign benefit values to these case studies. Benefit values were estimated as the monetary value provided by ecosystem services of the restored habitats. Benefits outweighed costs (i.e., there were positive net benefits) for restoration of all blue ecosystems. Mean benefit:cost ratios for ecosystem restoration were eight to 10 times higher than prior studies of coral reef and seagrass restoration, most likely due to the more recent lower cost estimates we used. Among ecosystems, saltmarsh had the greatest net benefits followed by mangrove coral reef and seagrass ecosystems had lower net benefits. In general, restoration in nations with middle incomes had higher (eight times higher in coral reefs and 40 times higher in mangroves) net benefits than those with high incomes. Within an ecosystem type, net benefit varied with restoration technique (coral reef and saltmarsh), ecosystem service produced (mangrove and saltmarsh), and project duration (seagrass). These results challenge the perceptions of the low economic viability of blue restoration and should encourage further targeted investment in this field.
Location: New Zealand
No related grants have been discovered for Phoebe Stewart-Sinclair.