Content uploaded by Sarah A. Bekessy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah A. Bekessy on Sep 04, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
The intersection between elected
representatives and threatened species
recovery
Authors
Gareth S. Kindler1,2, *, Stephen Kearney1, 2, Alexander M. Kusmanoff3, Michelle Ward1, 4, Richard
A. Fuller5, Thomas J. Lloyd1, 2, Sarah A. Bekessy3, Emily A. Gregg3, Romola Stewart4, James
E.M. Watson1, 2
Affiliations
1. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St
Lucia, 4072 Australia
2. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia
4072 Australia
3. ICON Science, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University,
Melbourne, 3000 Australia
4. WWF-Aus, Level 4B, 340 Adelaide Street, Brisbane, 4000 Australia
5. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072 Australia
*Corresponding author email: g.kindler@uq.edu.au
Keywords: conservation, biodiversity, democracy, political representation, science-policy
interface, species distribution
Abstract
A core objective of the conservation movement is to motivate government decision-makers into 1
delivering critical policy changes to abate the global species extinction crisis. Using Australia as 2
a case study, we showcase a way of highlighting the intersection between a nation’s elected 3
representatives and extant threatened species. We analyse the relationship between Australia’s 4
151 Commonwealth Electoral Divisions (CEDs) and the distributions of 1,651 nationally listed 5
threatened species. We show all CEDs contain at least 14 threatened species and nearly half of 6
the species analysed (n=801, 49%) are confined to just one CED (n=44), with 1345 (81%) 7
species intersecting with < five CEDs. These findings demonstrate the importance of 8
enumerating the crisis to better understand the responsibility elected representatives have to 9
their local region and constituents. Linking species distributions to political geography creates 10
data that can be used by the conservation movement to motivate environmental accountability 11
and leadership. 12
Introduction 13
The global species extinction crisis is being driven by insufficient responses to historical and 14
ongoing human-led impacts on biodiversity (IPBES, 2019). There are five well-established 15
interventions directed at policy-makers for addressing the deterioration of nature, namely 16
incentives and capacity building, cross-sectoral cooperation, pre-emptive action, decision-17
making in the context of resilience and uncertainty, and environmental law and implementation 18
(IPBES, 2019). The existence and global emphasis of these interventions highlight the 19
importance of policy design and implementation, and the role of governments that institute them 20
in delivering conservation outcomes (Rose et al., 2018). For successful management to occur at 21
the scale needed to recover threatened species, relevant levels of government need to 22
implement bold conservation plans founded on effective interventions (Sutherland et al., 2018; 23
IPBES, 2019; Díaz et al., 2020). Research to explore and improve the activities that happen at 24
the science-policy interface will be critical to motivate these interventions (Toomey et al., 2017; 25
Rose et al., 2018). 26
27
National governments often determine the trajectory of progress in nature conservation (Watson 28
et al., 2021) and thus are a common focus for advocates looking to address the extinction crisis. 29
Central to the activities of most national governments are elected representatives since they 30
design and oversee the implementation of policies that are currently constraining better 31
outcomes for species (IPBES, 2019). In many democracies, representatives are elected based 32
on principles of geographical representation which identifies a region from which the 33
constituency expresses approval for agents to stand for and act on their behalf (Urbinati & 34
Warren, 2008; Brenton, 2010). This provides an incentive for elected representatives to 35
represent the interests and opinions of their constituencies. This system supplies elected 36
representatives with an opportunity for some ownership of, and responsibility for, local social, 37
economic, and environmental issues within the region represented. Thus, there is substantial 38
scope for electoral constituents to demand action from representatives for recovery of their local 39
threatened species (Rose et al., 2018). However, this can only be achieved if the conservation 40
community, constituents, and their representatives understand the distribution of threatened 41
species in relation to regions of representation (Rose et al., 2018). 42
43
Here we showcase a new way of communicating the responsibility of a nation’s elected 44
representatives, highlighting the potential individual and collective role in threatened species 45
recovery. Australia has been a representative liberal democracy for over a century. Australia is 46
also at the forefront of the extinction crisis, having lost over 100 endemic species since 47
European invasion and the highest mammalian extinction rate of any continent over that period 48
(Creswell et al., 2021). We compare how threatened species vary across Australia’s 49
Commonwealth Electoral Divisions (CED), or colloquially known as ‘electorates’, and the extent 50
to which they are associated with the area of a CED, and its demographic profile. Given the 51
crisis facing threatened species across Australia, we discuss how this type of information could 52
be used by the conservation community to help inform wider societal dialogue and debate in 53
generating responsibility and solutions by government. We then explore how this information 54
could help inform the roles of elected representatives in overcoming the current constraints on 55
abating Australia’s species extinction crisis. 56
Methods 57
Australian threatened species 58
We used the Species of National Environmental Significance (SNES) database listed by the 59
Australian Department of the Environment and Energy’s Threatened Species Scientific 60
Committee and Minister under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 61
1999 (EPBC Act) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2021) (retrieved 1st July 2021). There were 62
1,961 threatened species listed at the time of analysis, with 1,633 (83%) distributions 63
generalised to 1km grid cells and 328 (17%) sensitive species generalised to 10km. Following 64
Lloyd et al. (2020), we used "species or species habitat is likely to occur within area" 65
distributions as this is the more definitive (than "may occur") and represents an approximation of 66
the area of occupancy of species as opposed to their extent of occurrence. We confined the 67
data to species relevant to the geographical electoral system. Species with no recorded 68
threatened status, or with the Extinct, or Conservation Dependent statuses were removed 69
(Ward et al., 2021) such that only Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN), and Critically Endangered 70
(CR) listings remained. Marine species and cetaceans were excluded to restrict the data to 71
species inhabiting terrestrial and freshwater regions that intersect CEDs. 72
Australia’s federal electoral system 73
Australia’s parliament operates on a bicameral system, which involves citizens voting for two 74
houses of parliament. The continent of Australia, Tasmania and numerous smaller islands are 75
divided into 151 single-representative CEDs for elections to the House of Representatives 76
(Parliament of Australia, 2018). The CEDs are drawn on human population distribution with 77
quotas for the states and territories of the Commonwealth prior to an election. We used the 78
House of Representatives 2021 federal electoral boundaries and their demographic 79
classification drawn for the 2022 election (Australian Electoral Commission, 2022). The spatial 80
CED data was cropped to include mainland Australia, Tasmania, and offshore territorial islands 81
(i.e., Torres Strait islands, Kangaroo island) and exclude remote external territories (i.e. 82
Christmas, Cocos, and Norfolk Islands) for simplicity. Due to the non-uniform human population 83
distribution across Australia, CEDs vary in size. The largest CED is Durack (1,387,445 km2, 84
Western Australia (WA)), which is over 50,000 times the size of the smallest, the inner 85
metropolitan CED of Sydney (28 km2, New South Wales (NSW)). The median size of CEDs is 86
363 km2. The Australian Electoral Commission categorises CEDs into four demographic 87
classifications: inner metropolitan, outer metropolitan, provincial, and rural. CEDs of provincial 88
(25) and rural (38) demography represent 42% of all CEDs (n=151, Table S1), yet account for 89
99% of the total area of CEDs in Australia. CEDs of inner (45) and outer metropolitan (43) 90
demography account for 0.37% of the total area of CEDs in Australia (Table S1). These 91
classifications are assigned on proximity to metropolises, suburban history, and voting 92
enrolment criteria (Australian Electoral Commission, 2022). 93
Spatial analysis and modelling of CEDs and threatened species 94
After filtering for EPBC listed species that intersect with CEDs, 1651 species remained to be 95
used in this study (Table S2). All spatial and statistical analysis was conducted in R (v4.2.1; R 96
Core Team, 2021), using tidyverse (Wickham et al., 2019) and sf (Pebesma, 2018) packages. 97
We identified the species with ranges that intersected with each CED (7,815 unique species-98
CED combinations) to create a list of each CED’s species. From this, we summarised the CED 99
coverage of each species based on the number of CEDs they intersected with. To quantify the 100
spatial overlap, we calculated the intersection of species’ distributions and CEDs, and used this 101
to filter for ‘CED endemism’. We define ‘CED endemism’ in this study as species with 100% of 102
their geographic distribution within a single CED or whose (terrestrial and freshwater-based) 103
range only intersects with a single CED. 104
105
We used the Dorling equation (Dorling, 1996) to redefine the spatial shape of each CED to the 106
weighted variable of number of threatened species within them. This enables static mapping of 107
Australia’s CEDs as due to the large size differences they are not conducive to a choropleth 108
map (Tennekes, 2018; Jeworutzki, 2020). We used the empirical cumulative distribution function 109
to calculate the proportion of threatened species at each number of CEDs within a species’ 110
range as proportion is a more informative metric than raw counts. To test the relationship 111
between number of species within each CED and their area, we used the logarithmic (log2) form 112
of the power model, commonly used to describe the species-area relationship (Matthews et al., 113
2019). We used a log2 transformation to address the order of magnitude differences between 114
the areas of CEDs and enable visual comparisons between the four demographic classifications 115
on a scatterplot. 116
Results 117
Threatened species within CEDs 118
Threatened species occurred in all 151 CEDs, with a range of 14-271 and median of 39 (Fig. 1, 119
Table S1). The CED of O’Connor (WA), the third largest, contained the most (n= 271) 120
threatened species while Hindmarsh (South Australia (SA)) contained the fewest (n=14) (Fig. 1). 121
122
123 Figure 1. Non-overlapping circles (Dorling) cartogram of threatened species occurrence within 124
the 151 Commonwealth Electoral Divisions (CEDs) and a map showing the geographical 125
boundaries in the background. Bubbles correspond in colour and size to the number of 126
threatened species found within the CED. Bubbles represent the geographic region of the CEDs 127
and are arranged as close as possible to the original location of the CED. Heavy clustering of 128
bubbles occurs in metropolitan areas (Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne) where CEDs are too small 129
to be represented alongside their rural counterparts on an untransformed scale. Labels are 130
unique abbreviations of the CED name (Table S1 provides the exact number of threatened 131
species and the full names of CEDs). 132
133
The number of threatened species present in a CED increased with its area (Fig. 2A), with size 134
alone explaining 70% of the variation in numbers (Fig. 2A). The CEDs of O’Connor and Durack, 135
both in Western Australia, have similar sizes to some other large remote CEDs (e.g., Lingiari 136
and Grey), yet they have an unusually high number of threatened species, with 271 and 255 137
species, respectively (Table S1). Although demographic class (i.e., inner metropolitan, outer 138
metropolitan, provincial, and rural) of CEDs provides an indication of population and land 139
characteristics they are overlapping in areas and have an uneven distribution (Fig. 2B). There 140
are fewer provincial CEDs (25) than the other three classes: inner metropolitan (45), outer 141
metropolitan (43), and rural (38). The impact of CED area on number of threatened species 142
differs between demographic classifications (Fig. 2B) with a significant positive relationship 143
observed for outer metropolitan (r2=0.35) and rural (r2=0.43) classified CEDs but not for the 144
other two classes. We found that there are 1,564 (95%) species that intersect with rural CEDs, 145
431 (26%) with provincial, 302 (18%) with outer metropolitan, 233 (14%) with inner metropolitan. 146
The ten CEDs which intersect with the most threatened species are all classed as rural 147
(cumulative total of 1134 out of 1651 threatened species, 69%). 148
149
150
151
152
153
Figure 2A. Relationship between CED area (x axis, km2, n=151, log2 scale) and number of 154
threatened species (y axis, n=1651, log2 scale (𝐹 = 349, 𝑃 < .001, 95% 𝐶𝐼 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝛽 (3.55,3.93)). 155
The plot shows CEDs (dots), demographic class of CED (colour), estimated mean (solid line), 156
and 95% confidence interval (grey area). Figure 2B shows the same relationship and features 157
except separated between the four demographic classifications: Inner metropolitan (𝐹 = .647,158
𝑃 > .05, 95% 𝐶𝐼 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝛽 𝑜𝑓 (3.79,5.3)); outer metropolitan (𝐹 = 21.9, 𝑃 <159
.001, 95% 𝐶𝐼 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝛽 𝑜𝑓 (2.93, 4.2)); provincial (𝐹 = 2.64, 𝑃 > .05, 95% 𝐶𝐼 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝛽 𝑜𝑓 (4.24, 5.88)); 160
rural (𝐹 = 27.9, 𝑃 < .001, 95% 𝐶𝐼 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝛽 𝑜𝑓 (3.32,5.07)). Only outer metropolitan and rural were 161
statistically significant. 162
Single CED species 163
A total of 801 (49%) threatened species listed on the EPBC Act are confined to or intersect with 164
a single CED (Fig. 3; Fig. 4). Of these ‘CED endemic’ species, 763 are within rural CEDs (Fig. 165
4), 26 in provincial CEDs, and 11 in outer metropolitan CEDs, and one in inner metropolitan 166
CEDs. A total of 48 CEDs harbour ‘CED endemic’ species within their boundaries (Fig. 4). Of 167
these 48 CEDs, 33 are rural, eight are provincial, six are outer metropolitan, and one is inner 168
metropolitan. 169
170
Most CED endemic species have relatively small geographic distributions (Fig. 5). There are 171
exceptions, including the Pilbara subspecies of the Olive Python (Liasis olivaceus barroni) and 172
Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat (Rhinonicteris aurantia), with considerable ranges (116,000 km2, 77,600 173
km2, respectively) but found in the large rural CED of Durack (WA). 174
175
The rural CED of O’Connor (WA), with 271 species, harbours the most ‘CED endemics’, 176
including the Kyloring or Western Ground Parrot (Pezoporus flaviventris), the Arid Bronze Azure 177
(Ogyris subterrestris petrina), and the Underground Orchid (Rhizanthella gardneri). The CEDs 178
of Lyons (rural, Tasmania (TAS)) and Leichardt (rural, Queensland) are far smaller CEDs, yet 179
they contain among the most endemics (Fig. 4, Table S1). Leichardt contains 14 EN endemics 180
such as the Cape York Rock-Wallaby (Petrogale coenensis) and Whiskered Rein Orchid 181
(Habenaria maccraithii). Franklin (6290 km2), an outer metropolitan CED, has four endemics all 182
of which are CR such as the Francistown Cave Cricket (Micropathus kiernani). 183
Species that cross multiple CEDs 184
A total of 544 (33%) threatened species intersect with two to four CEDs (Fig. 3, Table S2). 185
These species tend to have small geographic distributions (Fig. 5) and are often found on 186
coastal urban fringes (Fig. 1). For example, the Baw Baw Frog (Philoria frosti) occurs across 187
two CEDs, Casey and Monash (Victoria (VIC)). The Western Swamp Tortoise (Pseudemydura 188
umbrina) shares this electoral coverage, residing across Durack and Hasluck (WA). The range 189
of the Mountain Pygmy-possum (Burramys parvus) covers Eden-Monaro (NSW), Gippsland 190
(VIC), and Indi (VIC). 191
192
A total of 306 (18%) species cover > four CEDs such as the Golden Sun Moth (Synemon 193
plana), which covers 34 CEDs (Fig. 3, Table S2). Some threatened species such as 194
Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) and Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) 195
are distributed across 145 CEDs, the highest number of CEDs any Australian threatened 196
species’ covers. The mammal with the largest number of CEDs within its range (128 CEDs) is 197
the Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus). The Scrub Turpentine (Rhodamnia 198
rubescens) is the flora with the most CED coverage at 65. 199
200
201
202
Figure 3. The cumulative proportion of threatened species (n=1651) coverage across CEDs 203
(n=151). The inset is the zoomed proportion of species with fewer than or equal to 10 coverage 204
(n=1517). Each species’ CED coverage is the sum of distinct CED their range intersects with. 205
Species that have greater than 10 coverage (n=134) are excluded from the inset graph but 206
included in the overall proportion. The number of species found at each increment of possible 207
electorate coverage (n = 151) were converted to proportions using the empirical cumulative 208
distribution function to represent which proportion of species are at or below the given number 209
of electorate coverage. 210
211 212
Figure 4. Locations of Commonwealth Electoral Divisions (CEDs) (n=48) that contain 213
threatened species that are only found within their boundaries (CED endemics). Examples of 214
some of these CED endemics and which CED they are located shown. VU, Vulnerable; EN, 215
Endangered; CR, Critically Endangered. Image credit: Potorous gilbertii by Dick Walker 216
(Gilbert’s Potoroo Action Group), Lucasium occultum by Chris Jolly, Cophixalus concinnus by 217
Anders Zimny, Rhizanthella gardneri by Jean and Fred Hort, Pseudophryne corroboree by John 218
Spencer (NSW Department of Planning Environment), Asterolasia beckersii by Geoff Derrin. 219
Discussion 220
We found that every Australian CED contains at least 14 threatened species which provides an 221
important opportunity for all Australian elected representatives and constituencies. 222
Representatives could adopt a local leadership agenda for the species found within their CED, 223
and constituents could encourage them to do so (Fig. 1). As there is variance in the numbers of 224
threatened species found within each CED, representatives have differing levels of 225
responsibility (Fig. 2). But many species are ‘CED-endemics’ (49%; Fig. 3) which makes local 226
agendas of representative leadership an integral part of broader national effort for government-227
involved conservation action. These geographically unique species are likely to become extinct 228
in the wild without the critically needed local action and leadership. 229
230
Whilst citizens, communities, and environmental non-governmental organisations have 231
mustered substantial on-the-ground effort for many species across the world (Grace et al., 232
2021), transformative recovery is not surmountable without government action (Australian 233
National Audit Office, 2022; Garnett et al., 2018; Samuel, 2020). Climate change and habitat-234
loss are examples of key threatening processes that with current levels of government action 235
and support has meant species recovery has been incremental and oscillatory (Threats to 236
Nature project, 2022). Thus, the opportunity for leadership from elected representatives to 237
support threatened species conservation needs to focus on the policies that enable and 238
encourage species recovery. In the contemporary Australian context, this could mean delivering 239
EPBC Act reform that has been mapped out twice (Hawke, 2009; Samuel, 2020) and actively 240
engaging on relevant legislation such as rejecting activities that threaten species’ critical habitat 241
(Reside et al., 2019). 242
243
Elected representatives influence the public debate around issues through discussion of their 244
priorities in parliament or the media, often with a local agenda. Whilst representatives often 245
advocate for broader social issues such as health care and educational infrastructure, local 246
ownership of the biodiversity crisis is often neglected. The conservation community could aim to 247
facilitate constituency members to communicate with their local representatives about a specific 248
threatened species issue, thereby shaping sympathetic decision-makers to proactively engaging 249
with the crisis and consequently delivering reform (Pitkin, 1972; Rose et al., 2018; Woinarski et 250
al., 2017). Accountability institutions such as digital-native (e.g., social) and legacy media (e.g., 251
print media) offer a means to reach constituency members and promote change to elected 252
representatives (Hackett et al., 2017). By embracing efforts deployed in other disciplines such 253
as public health and climate change in building public support and awareness (Appelgren & 254
Jönsson, 2021; Ting et al., 2020), the conservation community could use data like that provided 255
here to raise awareness of the plight of threatened species. Furthermore, the actions of a 256
motivated representative to adopt the biodiversity crisis as a priority could encourage other less 257
motivated and ideologically alike colleagues to adopt a similar approach by means of social 258
contagion (Ognyanova, 2022). 259
260
Measurement of government activities provide an essential mechanism to further encourage 261
political accountability in addressing the species extinction crisis (Doherty et al., 2018). Although 262
this mostly occurs on international scales (Collen et al., 2009), there are new tools that enable 263
within-country measurement that utilise the principles we employ here. These include indicators 264
reflective of the policy and promises of elected representatives and their political affiliations such 265
as the annual League of Conservation Voters Scorecard (League of Conservation Voters, 266
2022), aperiodic WWF Scorecard (World Wildlife Fund, 2016), and continual They Vote For You 267
platform (They Vote For You, 2022) that aim to facilitate the constituency being more aware of 268
government stances on environmental issues. These performance metrics and scorecards 269
contribute the ability of constituents to hold representatives accountable (Pitkin, 1972), thereby 270
working towards incentivising government action. As these feedback mechanisms mature, they 271
may encourage the implementation of electoral systems that enshrine non-human 272
representation in the process of governance (Burke & Fishel, 2020). 273
274
As a step towards encouraging stronger political action in overcoming the species extinction 275
crisis, we showcase an approach for assessing geographical electoral systems against 276
distributions of threatened species. We show that in Australia all federal elected representatives 277
have threatened species within their CEDs, meaning there is an opportunity for representatives 278
to adopt an active role in advocating for their locality. This analysis highlights a methodology 279
that allows for the enumerating the species crisis to better understand the responsibility elected 280
representatives have to their local region and constituents. Linking species distributions to 281
political geography allows for an assessment of the complementary role that constituents, 282
representatives, and advocacy organisations can play in elevating threatened species as a 283
priority of government among representative democracies. 284
Supporting information 285
Table S1 (summary counts): Summary table of CED information and counts of species. 286
Table S2 (expanded summary): Summary table of individual species with CED information. 287
Acknowledgements and data 288
G.S.K and J.E.M.W conceived of and designed the research. G.S.K drafted the work. G.S.K, 289
S.K, M.S.W and J.E.M.W. worked on acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data. All authors 290
contributed to the article with substantial revisions and approved the submitted version. 291
292
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. 293
294
Reference list 295
Appelgren, E., & Jönsson, A. M. (2021). Engaging Citizens for Climate Change—Challenges for 296
Journalism. Digital Journalism, 9(6), 755–772. 297
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1827965 298
Australian Electoral Commission. (2022). Federal electoral boundaries. Commonwealth of 299
Australia. https://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/gis/gis_datadownload.htm 300
Australian National Audit Office. (2022). Management of threatened species and ecological 301
communities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: 302
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. 303
Brenton, S. (2010). What lies beneath: The work of senators and members in the Australian 304
Parliament. Dept. of Parliamentary Services. 305
Burke, A., & Fishel, S. (2020). Across Species and Borders: Political Representation, Ecological 306
Democracy and the Non-Human. In J. C. Pereira & A. Saramago (Eds.), Non-Human 307
Nature in World Politics: Theory and Practice (pp. 33–52). Springer International 308
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49496-4_3 309
Collen, B., Loh, J., Whitmee, S., McRAE, L., Amin, R., & Baillie, J. E. M. (2009). Monitoring 310
Change in Vertebrate Abundance: The Living Planet Index. Conservation Biology, 23(2), 311
317–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01117.x 312
Commonwealth of Australia. (2021). Threatened species under the EPBC Act. Department of 313
Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra, Australia. 314
https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species 315
Creswell, I., Janke, T., & Johnston, E. (2021). Australia State of the Environment 2021. 316
https://doi.org/10.26194/F1RH-7R05 317
Díaz, S., Zafra-Calvo, N., Purvis, A., Verburg, P. H., Obura, D., Leadley, P., Chaplin-Kramer, R., 318
De Meester, L., Dulloo, E., Martín-López, B., Shaw, M. R., Visconti, P., Broadgate, W., 319
Bruford, M. W., Burgess, N. D., Cavender- Bares, J., DeClerck, F., Fernández-Palacios, 320
J. M., Garibaldi, L. A., … Zanne, A. E. (2020). Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and 321
sustainability. Science, 370(6515), 411–413. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1530 322
Doherty, T. S., Bland, L. M., Bryan, B. A., Neale, T., Nicholson, E., Ritchie, E. G., & Driscoll, D. 323
A. (2018). Expanding the Role of Targets in Conservation Policy. Trends in Ecology & 324
Evolution, 33(11), 809–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.08.014 325
Dorling, D. (1996). Area cartograms: Their use and creation, concepts and techniques in 326
modern geography (Vol. 59). Institute of British Geographers. 327
Garnett, S. T., Woinarski, J., Lindenmayer, D., & Latch, P. (2018). Recovering Australian 328
Threatened Species: A Book of Hope. In Recovering Australian Threatened Species. 329
CSIRO Publishing. 330
Grace, M. K., Akçakaya, H. R., Bennett, E. L., Brooks, T. M., Heath, A., Hedges, S., Hilton-331
Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Hochkirch, A., Jenkins, R., Keith, D. A., Long, B., Mallon, D. 332
P., Meijaard, E., Milner-Gulland, E. j., Rodriguez, J. P., Stephenson, P. j., Stuart, S. N., 333
Young, R. P., … Young, S. (2021). Testing a global standard for quantifying species 334
recovery and assessing conservation impact. Conservation Biology, 35(6), 1833–1849. 335
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13756 336
Hackett, R. A., Forde, S., Gunster, S., & Foxwell-Norton, K. (2017). Journalism and Climate 337
Crisis: Public Engagement, Media Alternatives. Routledge. https://research-338
repository.griffith.edu.au/handle/10072/338900 339
Hawke, A. (2009). Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and 340
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 341
IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and 342
ecosystem services. 60. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579 343
Jeworutzki, S. (2020). cartogram: Create Cartograms with R. https://CRAN.R-344
project.org/package=cartogram 345
League of Conservation Voters. (2022). National Environmental Scorecard. 346
https://lcv.org/national-environmental-scorecard/ 347
Lloyd, T. J., Fuller, R. A., Oliver, J. L., Tulloch, A. I., Barnes, M., & Steven, R. (2020). Estimating 348
the spatial coverage of citizen science for monitoring threatened species. Global Ecology 349
and Conservation, 23, e01048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01048 350
Matthews, T. J., Triantis, K. A., Whittaker, R. J., & Guilhaumon, F. (2019). sars: An R package 351
for fitting, evaluating and comparing species–area relationship models. Ecography, 352
42(8), 1446–1455. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04271 353
Ognyanova, K. (2022). Contagious Politics: Tie Strength and the Spread of Political Knowledge. 354
Communication Research, 49(1), 116–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220924179 355
Parliament of Australia. (2018). Electoral divisions. In House of Representatives Practice 356
(Australia; 7th ed.). Department of the House of Representatives. 357
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_358
and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter3/Electoral_divisions 359
Pebesma, E. (2018). Simple Features for R: Standardized Support for Spatial Vector Data. The 360
R Journal, 10(1), 439–446. 361
Pitkin, H. F. (1972). The Concept of Representation. 362
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for 363
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ 364
Reside, A. E., Cosgrove, A. J., Pointon, R., Trezise, J., Watson, J. E. M., & Maron, M. (2019). 365
How to send a finch extinct. Environmental Science & Policy, 94, 163–173. 366
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.01.005 367
Rose, D. C., Sutherland, W. J., Amano, T., González-Varo, J. P., Robertson, R. J., Simmons, B. 368
I., Wauchope, H. S., Kovacs, E., Durán, A. P., Vadrot, A. B. M., Wu, W., Dias, M. P., Di 369
Fonzo, M. M. I., Ivory, S., Norris, L., Nunes, M. H., Nyumba, T. O., Steiner, N., Vickery, 370
J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy 371
and possible solutions. Conservation Letters, 11(5), e12564. 372
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12564 373
Samuel, G. J. (2020). Independent review of the EPBC Act: Final report. 374
Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Ockendon, N., Petrovan, S. O., & Smith, R. K. (2018). What 375
Works in Conservation: 2018. Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0131 376
Tennekes, M. (2018). tmap: Thematic Maps in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 84, 1–39. 377
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v084.i06 378
They Vote For You. (2022). How does your MP vote on the issues that matter to you? 379
https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/ 380
Threats to Nature project. (2022). Averting Extinctions: The case for strengthening Australia’s 381
threat abatement system. Invasive Species Council, Bush Heritage Australia, BirdLife 382
Australia, the Australian Land Conservation Alliance and Humane Society Internationa. 383
Ting, D. S. W., Carin, L., Dzau, V., & Wong, T. Y. (2020). Digital technology and COVID-19. 384
Nature Medicine, 26(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0824-5 385
Toomey, A. H., Knight, A. T., & Barlow, J. (2017). Navigating the Space between Research and 386
Implementation in Conservation. Conservation Letters, 10(5), 619–625. 387
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12315 388
Urbinati, N., & Warren, M. E. (2008). The Concept of Representation in Contemporary 389
Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 387–412. 390
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.190533 391
Ward, M., Carwardine, J., Yong, C. J., Watson, J. E. M., Silcock, J., Taylor, G. S., Lintermans, 392
M., Gillespie, G. R., Garnett, S. T., Woinarski, J., Tingley, R., Fensham, R. J., Hoskin, C. 393
J., Hines, H. B., Roberts, J. D., Kennard, M. J., Harvey, M. S., Chapple, D. G., & Reside, 394
A. E. (2021). A national-scale dataset for threats impacting Australia’s imperiled flora 395
and fauna. Ecology and Evolution, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7920 396
Watson, J. E. M., Simmonds, J. S., Narain, D., Ward, M., Maron, M., & Maxwell, S. L. (2021). 397
Talk is cheap: Nations must act now to achieve long-term ambitions for biodiversity. One 398
Earth, 4(7), 897–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.06.012 399
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D., François, R., Grolemund, G., 400
Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T. L., Miller, E., Bache, S. M., 401
Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019). 402
Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. 403
https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 404
Woinarski, J. C. Z., Garnett, S. T., Legge, S. M., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2017). The contribution 405
of policy, law, management, research, and advocacy failings to the recent extinctions of 406
three Australian vertebrate species. Conservation Biology, 31(1), 13–23. 407
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12852 408
World Wildlife Fund. (2016). Environment Scorecard 2016. http://scorecard.wwf.org.au/ 409
410
