Novel management interventions intended to mitigate the impacts of climate change on biodiversity are increasingly being considered by scientists and practitioners. However, resistance to more transformative interventions remains common across both specialist and lay communities and is generally assumed to be strongly entrenched. We used a decision-pathways survey of the public in Canada and the United States (n = 1490) to test two propositions relating to climate-motivated interventions for conservation: most public groups are uncomfortable with interventionist options for conserving biodiversity and given the strong values basis for preferences regarding biodiversity and natural systems more broadly, people are unlikely to change their minds. Our pathways design tested and retested levels of comfort with interventions for forest ecosystems at three different points in the survey. Comfort was reexamined given different nudges (including new information from trusted experts) and in reference to a particular species (bristlecone pine [Pinus longaeva]). In contrast with expectations of public unease, baseline levels of public comfort with climate interventions in forests was moderately high (46% comfortable) and increased further when respondents were given new information and the opportunity to change their choice after consideration of a particular species. People who were initially comfortable with interventions tended to remain so (79%), whereas 42% of those who were initially uncomfortable and 40% of those who were uncertain shifted to comfortable by the end of the survey. In short and across questions, comfort levels with interventions were high, and where discomfort or uncertainty existed, such positions did not appear to be strongly held. We argue that a new decision logic, one based on anthropogenic responsibility, is beginning to replace a default reluctance to intervene with nature.

中文翻译：

---

在不断变化的气候中做出变革性保护决策的社会舒适区

旨在减轻气候变化对生物多样性影响的新型管理干预措施越来越多地被科学家和从业者考虑。然而，在专家和非专业社区中，对更具变革性的干预措施的抵制仍然很普遍，并且通常被认为是根深蒂固的。我们使用了对加拿大和美国公众的决策路径调查（n= 1490) 来检验与气候驱动的保护干预措施有关的两个命题：大多数公共团体对保护生物多样性的干预措施感到不舒服，并且鉴于更广泛地对生物多样性和自然系统的偏好具有强大的价值观基础，人们不太可能改变主意. 我们的路径设计在调查的三个不同点对森林生态系统干预措施的舒适度进行了测试和重新测试。考虑到不同的推动（包括来自值得信赖的专家的新信息）和参考特定物种（刺果松 [ Pinus longaeva]）。与公众不安的预期相比，公众对森林气候干预的舒适度基线水平适中（46% 舒适），并且当受访者获得新信息并在考虑特定物种后有机会改变他们的选择时，该水平会进一步提高。最初对干预感到满意的人往往会保持这种状态（79%），而在调查结束时，最初感到不舒服的人和不确定的人中有 40% 转而感到舒适。简而言之，在所有问题中，干预的舒适度都很高，并且在存在不适或不确定性的情况下，这些立场似乎并没有得到强烈支持。我们认为，一种基于人为责任的新决策逻辑正在开始取代默认的不愿干预自然的态度。