Igniting public engagement with biodiversity conservation: exploring the communication of Predator Free 2050 in Aotearoa New Zealand

References

• Baram-Tsabari, A., & Osborne, J. (2015). Bridging science education and science communication research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 135–144. doi:10.1002/tea.21202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, M. W., & Jensen, P. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11. doi:10.1177/0963662510394457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2009). A historical perspective on science and its “others”. Isis, 100(2), 359–368. doi:10.1086/599547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bioethics panel. (2019). Predator free New Zealand: Social, cultural, and ethical challenges. BioHeritage Challenge.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell-Arvai, V. (2019). Engaging urban nature: Improving our understanding of public perceptions of the role of biodiversity in cities. Urban Ecosystems, 22(2), 409–423. doi:10.1007/s11252-018-0821-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castro, P., & Mouro, C. (2016). ‘Imagining ourselves’ as participating publics: An example from biodiversity conservation. Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 858–872. doi:10.1177/0963662515581303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J., & Kearnes, M. (2016). Remaking participation: Science, environment and emergent publics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chon, M. G., Lee, H., & Kim, J. N. (2020). Values of government public relations for a rocky road to participatory democracy: Testing public engagement, empowerment, and serenity hypotheses in public sector communication. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 13(2), 1110–1131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dale, A., King, L., Behan-Pelletier, V., Bazely, D., Beckel, M., Carr, D., … Vettese, S. M. (2018). Biodiversity conservation: A call for action for Canadian decision-makers. Retrieved from https://www.changingtheconversation.ca/sites/all/images/BioActionAgenda/BiodiversityActionAgendaENWeb.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R. (2013). Constituting public engagement: Meanings and genealogies of PEST in two UK studies. Science communication, 35(6), 687–707. doi:10.1177/1075547013478203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Conservation. (2019). Predator free 2050: An ambitious goal for Aoteroa New Zealand. https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/conservation/threats-and-impacts/pf2050/pf2050-summary-booklet.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dickie, L. (2018). To what extent are young people engaged with the Predator Free 2050 goal? [ Master’s thesis, University of Otago]. University of Otago. https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/8203
   Google Scholar
• D’Urso, S. C. (2018). Towards the final frontier: Using strategic communication activities to engage the latent public as a key stakeholder in a corporate mission. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(3), 288–307. doi:10.1080/1553118X.2018.1464008
   Google Scholar
• Escobar, O. (2011). Public dialogue and deliberation: A communication perspective for public engagement practitioners. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Beltane.
   Google Scholar
• Gavish-Regev, E. (2019). The role of natural history collections in public engagement for enhancing biodiversity research. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards, 025005. doi:10.3897/biss.3.37782
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, J., & Lock, S. J. (2008). The evolution of ‘public understanding of science’: Public engagement as a tool of science policy in the UK. Sociology Compass, 2(4), 1252–1265. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00137.x
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3–46). London: International Thomson Business Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, J. E., & Kim, J. N. (2017). Publics approaches to health and risk message design and processing. Retrieved from https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-322;jsessionid=9C9E664C32283445E941AD79402CBAB7 doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.322.
   Google Scholar
• Hetland, P. (2014). Models in science communication: Formatting public engagement and expertise. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 2(2), 5–17. doi:10.5324/njsts.v2i2.2144
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jünger, J., & Fähnrich, B. (2020). Does really no one care? Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter. New Media & Society, 22(3), 387–408. doi:10.1177/1461444819863413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, M. (2010). Measuring social media credibility: A study on a measure of blog credibility. Institute for Public Relations, 4(4), 59–68.
   Google Scholar
• Linklater, W., & Steer, J. (2018). Predator Free 2050: A flawed conservation policy displaces higher priorities and better, evidence-based alternatives. Conservation Letters, 11(6), e12593. doi:10.1111/conl.12593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKim, C. A. (2017). The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202–222. doi:10.1177/1558689815607096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, O. R., King Hunt, A., & Lester, P. (2019). Novel biotechnologies for eradicating wasps: Seeking Māori studies students’ perspectives with Q method. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 14(1), 136–156. doi:10.1080/1177083X.2019.1578245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, M. C. (2020). Predator free New Zealand and the ‘War’ on pests: Is it a just war? Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 33(1), 93–110. doi:10.1007/s10806-019-09815-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, L. T., Engelman, S., Neff, J. L., & Jha, S. (2021). The native bees of Texas: Evaluating the benefits of a public engagement course. Insects, 12(8), 702. doi:10.3390/insects12080702
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, E. C., Russell, J. C., Broome, K. G., Ryan, G. J., & Dowding, J. E. (2019). Conserving New Zealand’s native fauna: A review of tools being developed for the Predator Free 2050 programme. Journal of Ornithology, 160(3), 883–892. doi:10.1007/s10336-019-01643-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peltzer, D. A., Bellingham, P. J., Dickie, I. A., Houliston, G., Hulme, P. E., Lyver, P., … Wood, J. (2019). Scale and complexity implications of making New Zealand predator-free by 2050. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 49(3), 412–439. doi:10.1080/03036758.2019.1653940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raina, R. S., & Dey, D. (2020). How we know biodiversity: Institutions and knowledge policy relationships. Sustainability Science, 15(3), 975–984. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00774-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramstad, K. M., Nelson, N. J., Paine, G., Beech, D., Paul, A., Paul, P., … Daugherty, C. H. (2007). Species and cultural conservation in New Zealand: Maori traditional ecological knowledge of tuatara. Conservation Biology, 21(2), 455–464. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00620.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redford, K. H., Groves, C., Medellin, R. A., & Robinson, J. G. (2012). Conservation stories, conservation science, and the role of the intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Conservation Biology, 26(5), 757–759. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01925.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, M. S., Duncan, S., Manners, P., Pound, D., Armitage, L., Frewer, L., Frost, B. … Frost, B. (2018). A common standard for the evaluation of public engagement with research. Research for All, 2(1), 143–162. doi:10.18546/RFA.02.1.13
   Google Scholar
• Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., De Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-ries, D. & van Delden, H. (2018). A theory of participation: What makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26, S7–17. doi:10.1111/rec.12541
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. doi:10.1177/0162243904271724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & Pidgeon, N. (2005). Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the U.K. GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science, 14(4), 331–352. doi:10.1177/0963662505056611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, J. C., Innes, J. G., Brown, P. H., & Byrom, A. E. (2015). Predator-free New Zealand: Conservation country. BioScience, 65(5), 520–525. doi:10.1093/biosci/biv012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seethaler, S., Evans, J. H., Gere, C., & Rajagopalan, R. M. (2019). Science, values, and science communication: Competencies for pushing beyond the deficit model. Science communication, 41(3), 378–388. doi:10.1177/1075547019847484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. doi:10.1177/0963662516629749
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistics New Zealand. (2022, 14th Dec). Māori population estimates: At 30 June 2022. Statistics New Zealand. https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/maori-population-estimates-at-30-june-2022/#:~:text=At%2030%20June%202022%3A,447%2C800%20females%20identifying%20as%20M%C4%81ori
   Google Scholar
• Tompkins, D. M. (2018). The research strategy for a ‘predator free’ New Zealand. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 28, 11–18. doi:10.5070/V42811002
   Google Scholar
• Towns, D. R., Daugherty, C. H., Broome, K., Timmins, S., & Clout, M. (2019). The thirty-year conservation revolution in New Zealand: An introduction. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 49(3), 243–258. doi:10.1080/03036758.2019.1652192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy, S. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Hoboken, USA: Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp.119–138). Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Vega, K. A., Schläpfer-miller, J., & Kueffer, C. (2021). Discovering the wild side of urban plants through public engagement. Plants, People, Planet, 3(4), 389–401. doi:10.1002/ppp3.10191
   Google Scholar
• Wibeck, V. (2014). Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change–some lessons from recent literature. Environmental Education Research, 20(3), 387–411. doi:10.1080/13504622.2013.812720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9(3), 211–220. doi:10.1159/000092659
   PubMedGoogle Scholar