Head of Impact at ProVeg International, where I lead monitoring, evaluation and learning across six impact areas and 14 country offices. Behavioural scientist by training (PhD) and previously Deputy Director of Experimental Research at Yale, directing experimental behavioural research across the US, UK and India, and Senior Advisor to DEFRA's Strategic Behavioural Insights Team.
My research sits at the intersection of behaviour change and systems change: demand reduction in the illegal wildlife trade, climate communication and activism, and the social diffusion of plant-based diets. ~1,400 citations, h-index 20. Mostly I care about whether interventions actually work, and whether anyone bothered to check.
"75% of organizations say improving MEL is important or urgent, but only 18% would definitely pay for it."
That's a rather upsetting finding. To turn MEL into an ongoing function rather than just a one-off deep dive you need structures in place, people with expertise, tools to collect data etc. It's worth the investment, but funders/orgs definitely have to be willing to put money behind it.
Looking forward to seeing what you produce!
Thanks Ryan! Restitution definitely speaks to me as a personal value (we made this mess, so we have a duty to try to clean it up), but I'm not sure it fully captures why a species in itself is valuable? If the wronged parties are the individual animals whose habitat we cleared, then the duty tracks individuals. Rarity is almost just a proxy for how much harm we have already done.
Diversity clearly has instrumental value (e.g., from an ecosystem services perspective, as an option value), and I think that justifies a great deal of conservation spending. But in the abstract, where does it take us? Ought we be actively breeding new species, and be roughly indifferent between saving one and creating one? That feels wrong to me (again, the intuitionism!)