Though controversial in its utility to the scientific study of nonhuman animals, anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human characteristics to a nonhuman being, is omnipresent in our interactions with other animals. Anthropomorphism is undeniably a fixture of modern zoos, but how anthropomorphism relates to zoos’ contributions to conservation is unclear. In this dissertation, I investigate these potentially dueling, potentially overlapping, messages within great ape exhibits in accredited zoos. Given the complexity of both anthropomorphism and conservation, this dissertation reveals some nuances of how both play out in zoological spaces. Human psychology literature on anthropomorphism indicates that there are a variety of uses for this lens that benefit humans; from feeling we can understand a confusing animal action, to feeling social connection. Whereas the comparative psychology literature highlights a contested utility of anthropomorphism in studies of nonhuman animals. The main findings from this study are four-fold. Firstly, surveys conducted with zoo visitors show that many bring anthropomorphic beliefs with them on their trek through the zoo. Visitors are prone to viewing great apes as strikingly like humans in terms of emotions, emotional expression, and understanding of the world. Secondly, surveyed zoo visitors who agreed more with anthropomorphic statements also agreed more with statements about feeling interconnected with nature. Thirdly, there is no uniform understanding within the zoo community about how zoo exhibits do or should contribute to conservation efforts given that exhibits have multiple goals, one being the safety and wellness of their animal residents. Fourthly, interviews of zoo staff show that they mediate a variety of messages for zoo visitors and walk a sometimes-divisive line between when it’s acceptable to use anthropomorphic framing to discuss zoo animals and when it’s inaccurate. By leveraging a better understanding of these attitudes and relationships, zoos can further empower their staff to navigate these complex issues and improve their mission-based goal of promoting conservation outcomes by acknowledging the human practices embedded in our perceptions of and interactions with zoo animals. This work speaks to the importance of carefully considering the ways we understand animals in zoos, in the wild, and all the places in-between.

In the United States, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), signed into law in 1973, is a standout piece of our efforts to address the decline of biodiversity. The ESA depends on “recovering” endangered species to a sustainable population size for indefinite survival. However, if species recovery denotes “success”, the ESA has a long way to go. While cited as one of the most comprehensive wildlife protection laws in the world, the ESA has only led to the recovery of about 3% of species listed. My research engages with dimensions of science, policy, and communication to better understand how species can be more effectively recovered. While recovery planning can be examined through the lens of different policies across scales, the ESA is a valuable case study due to its expansiveness and its status as one of the most consequential environmental laws to date. My dissertation centers around four projects to improve the recovery planning process under the ESA, each of which equate to a scientific paper that will be submitted for publication. Within each of these four chapters, I examine aspects of recovery planning implementation, including Species Status Assessments, Five-Year Reviews, and on-the-ground practitioner implementation, and the roles they play in endangered species protection. I will evaluate elements of the recovery planning process to systematically determine how we currently define and measure recovery in these interdisciplinary spaces, with the aim of offering recommendations to improve the conservation of endangered and threatened species. By disseminating my findings to my partners at USFWS and various NGOs, I can better ensure my research is actionable and wide-reaching, and the results of this dissertation will be invaluable for wildlife management and on the ground decision making. This dissertation explicitly extends beyond academia to engage all relevant rightsholders and consider multiple interests and priorities for conserving species. This approach will increase the usefulness of this science for management, help rightsholder groups balance their differing goals, and allow for prompt application of my findings to ultimately improve recovery of endangered species through improved communication and collaboration.

ABSTRACT Over the past several decades, the dilemma of free-roaming horses in the U.S. has proven to be one of the most divisive issues in management of public lands. According to federal land management agencies, without population regulation, horses can increase at the rate of 15-20% a year on arid rangelands with inadequate numbers of natural, large predators. Horses compete for valuable forage and water resources alongside cattle and native wildlife in delicate riparian areas highly susceptible to the negative ecological effects of soil compaction and overgrazing. Most U.S. management policies, therefore, call for increased removal of free-roaming horses as they are categorized as “un-authorized livestock” or "non-native" species. Wild horse advocates, however, continue to petition for improvement in animal welfare and expansion of the horses’ territory. With heightened social conflict spurred by animal rights and ecological concerns, not to mention the often-stark differences over what really “belongs” on the landscape, the success of appropriate management strategies hinges on managing agencies’ preparedness and ability to respond in a timely and inclusive manner. A critical element of the management context is the public’s views toward the wild horse and the science used to manage them. Synthesizing the vast literature in the history and philosophy of wildlife management in the American West, and utilizing an ethnographic and case study approach, my research examines the range of stakeholder concerns and analyzes the factors that have led to the disconnect between public values of wild horses and public policy for the management of the federally protected free-roaming horses in Arizona’s Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Institutions (rules, norms, and shared strategies) are social feedback systems that structure actors’ decision-making context. It is important to investigate institutional design to understand how rules interact and generate feedbacks that affect robustness, i.e., the ability to respond to change. This is particularly important when assessing sustainable use/conservation trade-offs that affect species’ long-term survival. My research utilized the institutional grammar (IG) and robust institutional design to investigate these linkages in the context of four international conservation treaties.

First, the IG was used to code the regulatory formal treaty rules. The coded statements were then assessed to determine the rule linkages and dynamic interactions with a focus on monitoring and related reporting and enforcement mechanisms. Treaties with a regulatory structure included a greater number and more tightly linked rules related to these mechanisms than less regulatory instruments. A higher number of actors involved in these activities at multiple levels also seemed critical to a well-functioning monitoring system.

Then, drawing on existing research, I built a set of constitutive rule typologies to supplement the IG and code the treaties’ constitutive rules. I determined the level of fit between the constitutive and regulatory rules by examining the monitoring mechanisms, as well as treaty opt-out processes. Treaties that relied on constitutive rules to guide actor decision-making generally exhibited gaps and poorer rule fit. Regimes which used constitutive rules to provide actors with information related to the aims, values, and context under which regulatory rules were being advanced tended to exhibit better fit, rule consistency, and completeness.

The information generated in the prior studies, as well as expert interviews, and the analytical frameworks of Ostrom’s design principles, fit, and polycentricity, then aided the analysis of treaty robustness. While all four treaties were polycentric, regulatory regimes exhibited strong information processing feedbacks as evidenced by the presence of all design principles (in form and as perceived by experts) making them theoretically more robust to change than non-regulatory ones. Interestingly, treaties with contested decision-making seemed more robust to change indicating contestation facilitates robust decision-making or its effects are ameliorated by rule design.