Villegas MP Final - dukespace.lib.duke.edu

A Preliminary Evaluation of

The State of the World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT) Program

by

Patricia Elena Villegas

Dr. Xavier Basurto, Advisor

May 2012

Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment of

Duke University

2012

i

ABSTRACT

The State of the World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT) Program was created in 2003 with the goal of creating a dynamic, global-‐scale, geo-‐referenced nesting database of all marine turtle species, a network of people who generate and use the data, and a targeted communications and outreach strategy centered around an annual report. The Program is a collaboration of hundreds of individuals and institutions around the world including Oceanic Society, Duke University’s OBIS-‐SEAMAP, and the Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG) of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). SWOT has grown to include more than 550 data providers and has published and distributed seven SWOT Reports with award-‐winning maps on global marine turtle nesting distribution for the seven marine turtle species. This preliminary study highlights the importance of assessing the efficacy of the SWOT Program and its tools in order to determine whether it has been successful in advancing marine turtle research and conservation. Specifically, the study determines if SWOT products are used, how they are used by SWOT members, member expectations, and how the Program can be improved to better contribute to on-‐the-‐ground marine turtle research and conservation efforts. The preliminary evaluation presented within this text consists of a web-‐based survey to gauge knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes toward the SWOT Program. Thirty-‐three countries were represented from 172 completed surveys. Overall, survey results show that the SWOT Program has been successful in accomplishing its goals through a global network of researchers, a comprehensive database, and various communication strategies. The four most widely-‐used and well-‐known SWOT tools are the SWOT Report, maps, database, and website. These are the most well-‐established SWOT tools. Conversely, the lesser-‐known tools are those that are less established, such as the Small Grants Program, Outreach Toolkit, Minimum Data Standards, and TurtleVision. Respondent recommendations for improving, expanding, and guiding the SWOT Program include creating a communications strategy focused on specific global regions; developing an in-‐water network and database; updating existing maps; expansion of the SWOT Small Grants Program; increasing access, consistency, and reliability of data; and increasing awareness of the SWOT Program and its products. Recommendations presented herein, based on survey results, are to expand the SWOT database and network to include foraging/in-‐water data; establish regional networks in order to facilitate the production of regional tools; increase visibility within the global marine turtle community; expand and improve existing tools; and hire an individual to manage and foment the SWOT Network.

ii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Marine Turtle Status Globally ........................................................................................................................ 1 Marine Turtle Life History and Life Cycle ................................................................................................. 3 Anthropogenic Threats ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Pollution and Pathogens .............................................................................................................................. 6 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Coastal Development .................................................................................................................................... 7 Direct Take ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

Management Challenges ................................................................................................................................... 8 The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Program Background & History ........................................ 9 Purpose & Research Justification .............................................................................................................. 13 Positionality ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

METHODS ................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Research Approach .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Survey Process ................................................................................................................................................... 17 Focus Group ................................................................................................................................................... 17 Survey Instrument and Sample Size .................................................................................................... 19 Pretest .............................................................................................................................................................. 19

Error Structure .................................................................................................................................................. 20 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 21 Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Knowledge & Behavior .............................................................................................................................. 22 Attitudes .......................................................................................................................................................... 25

Open-‐ended Questions ................................................................................................................................... 29 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 30 In-‐water Database ............................................................................................................................................ 30 Establishing Regional Networks & Producing Regional Tools ..................................................... 31

iii

Regional Tools ............................................................................................................................................... 32 Increase Visibility within Global Community ....................................................................................... 32 Expansion and Improvement of Existing Tools .................................................................................. 33 SWOT Network Manager ............................................................................................................................... 33

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................... 34 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................................. 36 APPENDICIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 38 Duke University Institutional Review Board Clearance .................................................................. 38 Focus Group Statement of Informed Consent ...................................................................................... 39 Focus Group Script ........................................................................................................................................... 40 Focus Group Reconsent Email .................................................................................................................... 42 The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Survey Email ............................................................................ 43 The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Survey ......................................................................................... 44 Publications & Posters ................................................................................................................................... 51 CI Connect, Marine Corner ....................................................................................................................... 51 Poster Presentation .................................................................................................................................... 52 The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Report, Volume VII .............................................................. 53

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the support of a number of individuals. I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to Rod Mast, Brian Hutchinson, and Bryan Wallace for their steadfast support, guidance, and friendship. Rod and Bri, I offer my sincerest gratitude to you both for giving me an internship six years ago and for always believing in my abilities. I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Xavier Basurto. Thank you for your patience and for sharing your brilliant mind with me. Thank you to Dr. Mike Orbach and Dr. Randall Kramer for their review and feedback on this project and to Dr. Andy Read for always lending an ear and for your genuine friendship. Elena Finkbeiner, I am fortunate to have met you. Thank you for introducing me to the Nicholas School and for encouraging me every step of the way. Thank you to Blakely Blackford, Leigh Miller Villegas, and Pedro ‘Paba’ Villegas Jr., for countless tracked changes – every period, comma, colon, deletion and insertion is appreciated. I can only hope that you all now appreciate the ocean and turtles as much as I do. And finally mil gracias to my family, for their constant love, support, and encouragement throughout all my professional endeavors. To my brothers, Paba and Andres, and their better halves and quarters, thank you for shaping me into the person I am today. I am a better, more prepared individual because of you. Lastly and most importantly, a special thanks to my parents for their tireless and selfless dedication and commitment to afford educational, cultural, and, above all, life-‐changing experiences and limitless opportunities to their children.

1

INTRODUCTION

This paper will provide a look at the State of the World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT)

Program and its role in addressing marine turtle conservation and research challenges

worldwide. The research conducted serves as a preliminary evaluation of the Program in

order to assess its efficacy in advancing marine turtle conservation and research and to

identify the next phase of the Program. Specifically, it determines if SWOT products are

used, how they are used by SWOT members, member expectations, and how the Program

can be improved to better contribute to on-‐the-‐ground marine turtle research and

conservation efforts. The SWOT Program is defined as a conservation tool to better manage

marine turtles and is a response to the lack of global management strategies that address

the complex nature of these species whose migration paths span geographic and political

boundaries. Recommendations for improvement and future direction of the SWOT

Program as a tool to better serve its constituents and to help guide conservation globally

are provided within this text.

Marine Turtle Status Globally

Marine turtles date back 110 million years to the early Cretaceous period (Meylan &

Meylan 1999). Today, there are seven extant species and six are listed as vulnerable,

endangered, or critically endangered according to the International Union for Conservation

of Nature (IUCN) (www.iucn.org). They are the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), leatherback

(Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), green (Chelonia mydas), olive

ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), and flatback (Natator

depressus) (Figure 1). The black turtle (Chelonia agassizii) is considered as an eighth

2

species by some scientists but is formally recognized as a sub-‐species of the green turtle.

Marine turtles fall into two marine families, Cheloniidae characterized by a hard shell

carapace and Dermchelyidae characterized by a leathery carapace (Bowen et al. 2007,

Pritchard 2002).

Figure 1 Illustrations of Seven Extant Marine Turtle Species © Dawn Witherington.

3

All seven marine turtle species are listed as threatened by the International Union

for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species™ (Table 1). The Red List

provides the most comprehensive evaluation of the conservation status of species globally.

Red List assessments are informed by Specialist Groups within the IUCN Species Survival

Commission (SSC). Specialist Groups consist of a global network of volunteer experts that

include researchers, educators, functionaries, biologists, wildlife managers, and species

experts (www.iucn.org).

Species Red List status

Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) Critically Endangered Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) Critically Endangered Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) Critically Endangered Green (Chelonia mydas) Endangered Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) Endangered Olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) Vulnerable Flatback (Natator depressus) Data Deficient Table 1 IUCN Red List Status

Marine Turtle Life History and Life Cycle

Marine turtles are highly migratory and inhabit all ocean basins (Figure 2). All

species with the exception of the flatback and the Kemp’s ridley have a global distribution

mostly throughout the tropics and subtropics. The flatback’s range is limited to the

Australian continental shelf while the Kemp’s ridley occurs primarily in the Gulf of Mexico

(Meylan & Meylan 1999, www.seaturtlestatus.org).

Marine turtles are long-‐lived, late maturing animals with complex life histories that

occupy terrestrial, neritic, and oceanic habitats throughout their life stages. They spend

most of their lives at sea using the coastal waters and the open ocean as foraging grounds

and migratory habitats. Marine turtles have five generalized life cycle stages: eggs, post-‐

4

hatchling, small juvenile, large juvenile, and adult (Bolten 2002). Until recently, little was

known about the behavior of marine turtles during their early years often referred as “the

lost years” (Musick & Limpus 1997). Upon birth, hatchlings swim out to the open ocean and

spend years in passive migration until they reach the large juvenile stage where they

migrate to near shore waters to mature. As adults they migrate to foraging areas where

they remain until they are ready to reproduce (Bolten 2002). Marine turtles come to land

only to nest and demonstrate natal homing, returning to the same beach where they were

born to lay their nests (Lohmann et al. 1997). Dependent on the species, marine turtles can

lay anywhere from two to seven nests in a season and their nesting remigration interval is

between one and four years (Miller 1997).

Figure 2 Global Distribution for all Seven Marine Turtle Species

There are several conservation implications to marine turtles based on the developmental

shifts in their habitats. The challenges lie in managing across countries and throughout

many ocean habitats, the threats at each life stage, and the quality and quantity of

resources in a given habitat (Wallace et al. 2008).

5

Anthropogenic Threats

Marine turtles experience a multitude of human-‐induced threats on land and in sea

throughout their life cycle. Following, are five main threats as outlined by the IUCN-‐MTSG

Burning Issues Assessment; an assessment directed by marine turtle experts. These

threats, considered to be the five most eminent to marine turtles, were identified as a step

towards global priority-‐setting for conservation (www.iucn-‐mtsg.org).

Fisheries

Fisheries pose a threat to marine turtles worldwide. Trawl, longline, and gill net

fisheries are the most detrimental of these practices to marine turtles, and such

fishing practices lead to habitat destruction, alteration of food webs, and bycatch, which

have profound population-‐level impacts (Wallace et al. 2010). Bycatch is defined as

incidental capture of non-‐target species and occurs in both large-‐ and small-‐scale fisheries

around the world (Wallace et al. 2008).

A recent study (Wallace et al. 2010) assessing incidental capture worldwide

reported global marine turtle bycatch of approximately 85,000 turtles from 1990-‐2008

and suggested the actual number to be two orders of magnitude higher. This vast

discrepancy between the total reported bycatch and estimated actual bycatch can be

attributed to a low percentage of observed fishing effort and a large absence of data on

incidental take in small-‐scale fisheries (Wallace et al. 2010).

The level of impact on marine turtles from fishery interaction depends on gear type,

life stage, and the spatial and temporal overlap between fisheries and habitats (Wallace et

al. 2008). Bycatch mitigation efforts include time-‐area closures, implementation of Turtle

6

Excluder Devices (TED) in trawl fisheries, implementation of circle hooks in longline

fisheries, and in some cases the development of marine protected areas. Recent studies

(Moore et al 2009) recommend a shift towards a multi-‐species, multi-‐gear approach to

mitigating the negative effects of the fishing industry to marine species. This approach can

address the issue of shifting bycatch problems between species (Moore et al. 2009).

Pollution and Pathogens

Marine debris is an ever-‐present problem for turtles both on land and at sea.

Plastics, discarded fishing gear such as monofilament line and fishing hooks,

directly harm marine turtles through ingestion and entanglement (Bjorndal et al. 1994).

Oil pollution can also be detrimental to marine turtles as they ingest tar, which can

immobilize them and eventually lead to death from exhaustion (Bugoni et al. 2001). Light

pollution on beaches disrupts female nesting behavior and hatchling orientation, which

increases hatchling mortality rates. Foraging areas and other marine habitats are largely

affected by nonpoint source pollution such as agricultural and storm water runoff.

Nutrients, sediments, and other contaminants lead to hypoxic areas in the ocean

eliminating critical foraging habitats (www.iucn-‐mtsg.org). This is important because the

nesting remigration interval is largely dependent on the availability of resources in

foraging habitats; where resources are limited, the remigration interval is usually longer.

Climate Change

Climate change is of particular importance to marine turtles because it can affect

adult distribution and sex ratios of hatchlings through a change in land and sea

temperature (Hawkes et al. 2009). Marine turtles do not have sex chromosomes and

7

exhibit temperature-‐dependent sex determination (TSD). In other words, sex is

determined by temperature during incubation (Wibbels 2003). Thus, whether they are

male or female is driven by environmental factors.

Oceans are the largest carbon sinks on Earth and increased absorption of CO2 has

led to an increase in ocean temperatures (Earth Institute 2011). Increased absorption of

CO2 results in thermal expansion, which leads to sea level rise (Hawkes et al. 2009). Sea

level rise, which leads to the loss of nesting beaches, is an imminent threat to marine turtle

habitats and survival. Other extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods, drastic

seasonal changes and ocean acidification also affect terrestrial and marine habitats for

these species (Hawkes et al. 2009).

Coastal Development

Marine turtle nesting habitats are often destroyed by coastal development. Marine

turtles demonstrate natal homing, which means they return to nest on the beach

where they hatched (Lohmann et al. 1997). The nest site has to be accessible, high enough

to avoid erosion, conducive to gas exchange, and with temperatures sufficient for egg

development (Ackerman 1997).

Coastal development includes both shoreline and sea floor alterations such as sea

floor dredging, interactions with boats, beachfront construction, vegetation modification,

and beach nourishment (www.iucn-‐mtsg.org). Although the objective of beach

nourishment is to restore habitats, beach nourishment can harm marine turtle habitats if

the imported sand differs starkly from existing beach sediments. If the sand is too

compacted, it can affect nest site selection, sex ratios, and hatchling success (Crain el at.

1995).

8

Direct Take

In many coastal communities, marine turtle eggs and meat have been and continue

to be used for sustenance or as a major component in community relations,

traditions, and beliefs. Direct harvest of marine turtles provides economic benefits with the

sale of turtle meat, eggs, oil, leather, and their shell. In addition, turtle parts are used for

medicinal purposes and as an aphrodisiac (Campbell 2003).

For many human communities around the world, marine turtles are a source of

income and sustenance that are vital to survival. The challenge in mitigating the direct

harvest of turtles and their eggs is to draw communities into programs that encourage

marine turtle conservation by generating direct and indirect benefits of conservation.

Such efforts can break down the paradigm of conservation as a barrier to socioeconomic

development (Marcovaldi & Thome 1999).

Management Challenges

Marine turtles are a shared resource among countries. The challenge of

conservation, therefore, lies in international cooperation. Harmful practices in one country

can jeopardize conservation and mitigation efforts to protect turtles and their habitats in

another country.

As previously mentioned, marine turtles are a geographically widespread species

with populations subject to a multitude of threats. Thus, agreements that transcend

national boundaries are necessary to effectively manage these species. Regulations exist in

individual countries, but they fail to address the trans-‐boundary nature of marine turtle

migration. The established systems to protect marine turtles historically have operated

9

independently, without integration of programs to address the marine turtles’ migratory

nature (Wold 2002).

International agreements to facilitate species management were reliant on outdated

marine turtle distribution and population data. In response, institutions and organizations

within the marine turtle conservation community came together to create The State of the

World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT) Program.

The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Program Background & History

In 2003, the Chelonian Research Foundation, IUCN’s Marine Turtle Specialist Group,

the International Sea Turtle Society, Conservation International’s Sea Turtle Flagship

Program, and Duke University together established the State of the World’s Sea Turtles

(SWOT) Program. The SWOT Program was designed to address a critical, longstanding

barrier to effective marine turtle conservation and management: the lack of a fully

comprehensive, regularly updated, global perspective of marine turtle distribution and

status (B. Hutchinson, personal communication, October 18, 2011).

Although marine turtles have been the focus of substantial scientific investigation

over the past 50 years, most available data were highly localized. There was a wealth of

data about specific beaches and countries, but a lack of global-‐scale representations of

marine turtle distribution. These representations are most important for the development

of broad conservation management strategies and for building alliances across national

borders and among communities that represent both the turtles and the threats to their

survival.

10

The SWOT Program was formed with the goal of creating an up-‐to-‐date, dynamic,

global-‐scale, geo-‐referenced database of all marine turtle species; a network of people who

generate and use the data for conservation efforts; and a targeted communications and

outreach strategy, centered around an annual report, to diffuse information on marine

turtle conservation and science to people who can make a difference.

The Program’s first feat involved the compilation of global leatherback (Dermochelys

coriacea) nesting data and the publication of the inaugural SWOT Report in 2005. In the

process, partnerships were strategically formed: the IUCN-‐Marine Turtle Specialist Group

members would provide access to potential data contributors; the International Sea Turtle

Symposium would serve as an annual forum to review and update maps; Duke University’s

Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab would provide the OBIS-‐SEAMAP system to create a useful

online database of marine turtle nesting sites; and Conservation International would serve

as the non-‐governmental organization to staff and raise funds for SWOT Program

initiatives (Rod Mast, personal communication, March 14, 2012). Potential data

contributors were identified and contacted with a description of the Program, a data sheet,

and an agreement from. The process of developing a leatherback nesting database and

producing SWOT Report, Volume I spanned two years. A SWOT Advisory Board was

Figure 3 The State of the World's Sea Turtles (SWOT) Report, Volumes I-‐VII

11

established prior to publication of the first SWOT Report, and the SWOT Scientific Advisory

Board was created during the data collection process. This process resulted in the creation

of both an Editorial Advisory Board and a Scientific Advisory Board.

The Program is unique in that it is entirely voluntary – researchers, educators, and

academics share their data freely in order to facilitate the priority-‐setting of marine turtle

conservation and research (www.seaturtlestatus.org). Over the past eight years, the SWOT

Program has grown to include more than 550 data providers and has published and

distributed seven SWOT Reports with award-‐winning maps on global marine turtle nesting

distribution for the seven marine turtle species. The SWOT Program has been able to create

a cohesive mechanism, SWOT Report, to use as a communications tool in individual

outreach efforts. The content for each volume of SWOT Report is generated from a

conservation network of hundreds of field-‐based partners in many of countries that make

up the “SWOT Team”. At the core of SWOT are the most comprehensive and up-‐to-‐date

maps of marine turtle nesting ever produced. These maps are the first accurate gauge of

global abundance trends and have become a tool to identify priority populations and areas

(Wallace et al. 2011). Figure 4 illustrates a SWOT nesting map.

12

The SWOT Program is currently a collaboration of hundreds of individuals and

institutions around the world including Oceanic Society’s Marine Flagship Species Program,

Duke University’s OBIS-‐SEAMAP, and the Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG) of the

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). SWOT is now seeking to move

rapidly toward evaluating accomplishments since the Program’s inception and create new

goals focused on improving the quantity, quality and comparability of incoming SWOT

data; using SWOT data to support more concise global priority-‐setting for marine turtle and

habitat conservation; and supporting more on-‐the-‐ground conservation action in high

priority areas (R. Mast, personal communication, April 6, 2011).

Figure 4 Worldwide Green Turtle Nesting Map. Featured in SWOT Report, Volume VI

13

Purpose & Research Justification

The justification for my research is to highlight the importance of evaluating

environmental programs such as the SWOT Program. Broadly defined, program or impact

evaluation determines the worth or impact of a program and can be used to identify areas

for improvement, expansion, or contraction of a program (Worthen et al. 1997).

Furthermore, applied uses of program evaluation extend the value of these impact

assessments (Shadish 1994). Impact and program evaluation are used interchangeably

within this text and both seek to answer if a program has made a difference and to what

extent (NONIE 2009). Employing multiple methods, embodied in the concept of

triangulation, strengthens the quality of program evaluations by incorporating a broad

sampling frame and assessing beyond outcomes and impacts to include integrity and

experiences resulting from program application (NONIE 2009). The preliminary evaluation

presented within this text, serves as the first step in an ideal multistep process in which

interviews, participation, and observation would serve as a way to triangulate survey

findings and strengthen the evaluation.

The purpose of my research is to evaluate the effectiveness of the SWOT Program in

order to determine whether it has been successful in advancing marine turtle research and

conservation over the past eight years. Specifically, this study determines how constituents

use SWOT Products and how products can be improved to better contribute to marine

turtle research and conservation. Recommendations within this text serve to better inform

the SWOT Program in order to meet constituent needs and refine and improve the overall

quality of the SWOT Program.

14

Positionality

My research builds upon my professional and personal experiences. I recognize that

an advantage and disadvantage to this research is my role within this study as a former co-‐

editor and collaborator of the SWOT Program. My previous involvement with SWOT could

attribute research subjects’ difficulty in distinguishing my role in this study as an external

evaluator from that of an internal evaluator. As an external evaluator, working closely with

the SWOT Program, an advantage is my knowledge and understanding of the Program’s

inner-‐workings. Conversely, critical perspectives and variables may be overlooked as a

result of familiarity with the program (Worthen et al. 1997). Additionally, objectivity may

be a concern in analyzing open-‐ended responses. To account for this potential bias,

qualitative analysis software was used to show word frequency and themes prior to coding

the responses. These factors are omnipresent in this research and could have introduced

bias during the focus group, survey formation, and pretest processes. Focus group and

pretest participants were aware of my previous position with the SWOT Program, and

participants were ensured complete privacy and confidentiality to address bias within

focus group and pretest responses. Nevertheless, my aforementioned position within this

research could have introduced bias. Similarly, survey questions were open to expert

review by SWOT Program administrators during the survey formation process. This could

have led to less objective review of the survey instrument, possibly overlooking critical

gaps or themes to be addressed within the survey. Bias during the survey distribution

process is presumed to be relatively low, given the web-‐based nature of the survey

instrument.

15

The results presented accurately reflect respondents’ knowledge, behaviors, and

attitudes with regard to the SWOT Program based on survey results. Similarly, the

recommendations are based on respondents’ answers as well as an insightful

understanding of the program with the intention of improving the Program so that it may

better serve the SWOT network, marine turtle species, and marine ecosystems.

METHODS

Research Approach

The designed research approach is a mixture of a summative and formative

evaluation. Both formative and summative evaluations are used to determine a program’s

effectiveness in order to make decisions about its value or quality and seek to measure if a

program has reached its goals and objectives (Patton 2002, Worthen et al. 1997). Whereas

a summative evaluation decides whether a program should be continued, a formative

evaluation seeks to improve the program (Worthen et al. 1997). This preliminary

evaluation of the SWOT Program embodies characteristics of a summative evaluation in

that the evaluation is external but supported by internal evaluators; data collection is

infrequent; and the audience expands beyond SWOT program administrators to the general

public. In contrast, the preliminary evaluation represents a formative evaluation in that it

seeks to improve the SWOT Program and provide feedback to SWOT administrators for

improvement; and the evaluation seeks to quantify success, identify improvement, and

steps to improvement (Worthen et al. 1997).

16

This mixed-‐methods study used both qualitative and quantitative techniques to

evaluate the SWOT Program. The survey research techniques conducted are described

below in further detail.

Data Analysis

A focus group was convened to inform the research project and eventually was used

to inform the web-‐based survey. Focus group data was broadly coded manually. The final

survey consisted of thirty-‐one questions and a pretest was conducted to refine the survey

instrument prior to distribution. A pretest is a small-‐scale implementation of a survey in

order to test the survey instrument and to identify issues of survey clarity, breadth, and

acceptability (Rea & Parker 2005). Pretesting is important in providing a feedback

mechanism that can address the aforementioned issues of clarity, breadth, and

acceptability. The final survey instrument underwent expert review by SWOT Program

administrators to confirm accuracy of SWOT Program information represented in the

survey.

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the quantitative responses. These

responses were analyzed according to frequency counts and measures of central tendency

such as mean, median, and mode. Three open-‐ended survey questions were analyzed with

NVivo 9 software. This software records, sorts, and links information in order to analyze

qualitative data. Content analysis of open-‐ended questions was conducted to identify any

strong tendencies within the data (Bazeley 2007). Content analysis is a qualitative research

method in which text, images, and other content data are classified and coded, identifying

17

themes and trends throughout the data (Hsieh 2005). Essentially, this method is used to

systematically analyze and describe the open-‐ended responses (Merriam 2001).

Survey Process

Focus Group

A focus group designed to help inform the survey instrument was convened at the

31st Annual International Sea Turtle Symposium in San Diego, California, USA, on April 14,

2011. The focus group was conducted in order to take advantage of access to a pool of

global marine turtle conservationists and researchers. The focus group was conducted

prior to distribution of the survey in order to generate ideas for the study and to inform the

format and content of the survey. SWOT Program administrators identified participants

based on their interest in the Program and willingness to participate. Ten individuals were

invited to join the focus group. Of ten invited participants, five were present. Participants

represented five countries and five distinct nesting regions on three continents. These

participants represented academia, private and public sectors, and members of coastal

communities. A note taker was present, and the focus group was recorded with the consent

of all participants. Lunch was provided. Data was obtained and stored in such a manner

that participants could not be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the

subjects. It was emphasized that participation was completely voluntary, and individuals

were able to choose to not answer any question at any time. Participants were asked for a

second consent to use anonymous quotes from the focus group transcription

approximately two months after the symposium, and all participants collaborated. Refer to

the Appendices for the informed consent forms, moderator script, and a list of questions

that were asked during the focus group.

18

Focus group participants identified program strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for

improvement and growth. Three main themes central to the focus group discussion were

global connectivity via imagery, visual representation through SWOT maps, and

standardization of data collection techniques. All participants emphasized the power of the

SWOT Program to connect communities and researchers globally through SWOT maps and

SWOT Reports. Several participants discussed how the SWOT database connects

researchers in different regions of the world while others highlighted how the SWOT

Reports have the power and ability to make local communities feel part of a larger group.

Participants attributed this to powerful images and maps that transcend language barriers

present in many communities. Conversely, several participants reported the need for more

printed SWOT Reports in Spanish, noting that online versions are not very useful in rural

areas with limited resources. Several participants used printed reports in Spanish as a gift

to policy-‐makers and as a tool to highlight the work conducted in their region. The quotes

presented on page 19 depict the previously mentioned themes of global connectivity via

imagery and visual representation through the use of maps. With regard to data,

participants felt that SWOT has been able to give them access to data that otherwise would

be difficult to obtain and historically not commonly shared. Similarly, one participant also

reported that SWOT data provides a way to standardize data among projects and foments

partnerships and growth. All participants described SWOT as a great communication

medium and noted the SWOT Reports strength as an easily digestible product that speaks

to a wide audience. While some respondents gave the communication aspect of SWOT high

remarks, several participants noted the SWOT Program’s challenge of combining sound

standardized science and also producing layman-‐friendly reports and tools. There was

19

“I used to think that leatherbacks who

nest here were ours, and now I see that they belong to the whole world.”

“Our people can’t read anything that is in there; they don’t speak English. They don’t read any of it, they look at the pictures and they look at the map a little, but mostly they see it as evidence that it is a whole thing

about sea turtles.”

general agreement among the group that the SWOT Program was lacking in the

development of science and research, while the communications and outreach has been

well developed. It is important to note that most participants referred to SWOT Reports

and the database when speaking about the SWOT Program, which reveals a general lack of

awareness of the Program’s full scope of activities.

Survey Instrument and Sample Size

To maximize sample size, reduce costs, and target the marine turtle community

specifically, a web-‐based survey was created (Rea & Parker 2005). The survey was

produced using Qualtrics survey software. The survey consisted of thirty-‐one quantitative

and qualitative questions that gauged participants’ knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes

towards the SWOT Program and the products produced henceforth referred to as SWOT

tools. Additionally, the survey concluded with three open-‐ended questions that allowed

“In my community, people don’t read it because they don’t know how to read or they don’t care about the reading, but the visuals is a great tool. And because of the

sensitivity of turtles in the community they come to us. Without this we couldn’t strike up a conversation about turtles so it has been the best and only tool for us.”

20

participants to provide recommendations for new tools, improvements for existing tools,

and overall suggestions for the future of the program.

The nine tools referenced in the survey include the following:

§ SWOT Report: Annual publication highlighting innovations in research and science; education and outreach; policy; and SWOT Team projects and members.

§ SWOT Maps: Comprehensive abundance and distribution maps for all marine turtle species. Featured within the SWOT Reports.

§ SWOT Network: International group of researchers, conservationists,

photographers and communities that make up the SWOT Team. § SWOT Database: The most comprehensive global marine turtle nesting database,

hosted by OBIS-‐SEAMAP, includes abundance and distribution data for all seven marine turtle species.

§ Outreach Toolkit: Education and outreach activities specific to marine turtle

conservation. § TurtleVision: SWOT YouTube channel. § SWOT Small Grants Program: Annual grants given to a handful of programs to

support networking and capacity building; science; and education and outreach. § SWOT Website: www.seaturtlestatus.org. § Minimum Data Standards: Guidelines for nesting beach monitoring in order to

improve existing monitoring methods and to standardize SWOT data.

The targeted participant pool consisted of the SWOT Team, CTurtle, and IUCN-‐MTSG

members, as well as members of the greater marine turtle community who have not

directly contributed but may have benefitted from the SWOT Program. The final survey

was distributed on August 23, 2011. A brief email introducing the author, the purpose of

the research, and the survey link was sent. In addition, a Flip Video camera was offered as

an incentive for completing the survey. The survey was available for three weeks due to the

quick turnaround nature of a web-‐based survey. Surveys were distributed through the

19

SWOT Team, CTurtle, and IUCN-‐MTSG listservs and were open to forwarding but could not

be taken more than once by the same person. These listservs were used to distribute the

survey due to their wide-‐ranging and global nature. A short paragraph introduced the

survey, explaining the purpose of the study, identifying the client, and recognizing the

respondents’ confidentiality rights. The survey concluded with three open-‐ended questions

and a custom image to thank participants. Participants who completed the survey were

then able to link to another survey to enter the raffle for a Flip Video camera. In order to

generate more responses, a follow-‐up email was sent after one week and the survey closed

on September 12, 2011.

Pretest

A pretest is a crucial step in the survey process that allows for the refinement of the

survey instrument (Rea & Parker 2005). A pretest was distributed via Qualtrics to eleven

participants to identify any technical or comprehension problems with the survey

instrument. In nine of eleven pretests, I was able to accompany the participant to record

their comments and suggestions. The majority of participants were from the same

academic institution and familiar with the SWOT Program and in some way involved with

the marine turtle community. Limiting the majority of the pretest participants to academia

could have the potential to create bias in how the survey is answered or viewed. Overall

suggestions and comments were to include a progress bar and to limit the length of the

survey. The average time for native English speakers was about 20 minutes and 25-‐27

minutes for non-‐native English speakers.

20

Modifications to the survey instrument included clarification of concepts; addition

of a progress bar; addition of intervals in Likert-‐scale questions; addition of ‘all of the

above’, ‘other’, ‘unsure’ and ‘n/a’ as response options; condensing related questions into

matrices; and improvements in overall style and function of the survey based on

participant responses.

Error Structure

Potential sources of error such as coverage error, sampling error, and non-‐response

error exist with regard to the implemented survey. As a result the possibility of bias is

present and accuracy and effectiveness of the survey results obtained may also be affected

(Rea & Parker 2005).

Coverage error within this survey can be applied to under-‐coverage. Due to the

nature of field-‐based projects, the possibility exists that constituents did not have Internet

access to take the survey within the three-‐week timeframe. While the survey was open

access, the survey was set up to prevent “ballot box stuffing” – taking the survey more than

once – therefore over-‐coverage is unlikely.

The sampling error or the likelihood that the sampling frame is non-‐representative

is acknowledged, but to what degree is unknown due to the nature of the survey

distribution via listservs (Rea & Parker 2005). While the CTurtle listserv accounts for 1569

subscribers, the membership to the IUCN-‐MTSG and the SWOT Team listserv is unknown.

Non-‐response error refers to those individuals who were targeted via listervs but

did not initiate the survey. The degree of non-‐response error is acknowledged as unknown

based on the nature of the sampling frame. Non-‐response error can also refer to survey

21

respondents who began the survey but did not complete the survey (Rea & Parker 2005).

Of 226 surveys that were initiated, 172 were completed and account for a 76% response

rate contributing to relatively low non-‐response error.

Additional errors include survey execution errors. The initial survey link did not

work and an updated link was sent out several hours after the initial email. This could have

caused a decrease in responses.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Descriptive Statistics A total of 226

surveys were initiated,

with 172 completed. It

should be noted that

results presented below

are based on the number

of respondents to each

particular question.

Thirty-‐three countries

were represented within

the completed surveys, and 56% of respondents were from the United States (Figure 5).

The high percentage of US-‐based respondents should be noted as a potentially non-‐

representative sample of the global SWOT membership. The SWOT Program seeks to help

more on-‐the-‐ground research and conservation; thus, a web-‐based survey may not have

Figure 5 Map Depicting Countries Represented within the Survey

22

reached SWOT partners and collaborators who work in remote locations with limited

Internet access. Conversely, the high percentage of US-‐based respondents may be

attributed to perceived higher ease of Internet access. Eighty percent of responses (n=169)

indicated that English was the primary language in the region where survey participants

work, followed by Spanish (37%).

More than half of respondents (n=169) identified themselves as researchers, and

49% of respondents (n=162) were affiliated with non-‐governmental organizations. All of

the aforementioned demographics should be taken into consideration when examining

survey results, principally due to the high percentage of English-‐speaking and US-‐based

respondents.

Forty-‐eight percent of participants (n=168) have previously participated in or

contributed to the SWOT Program, and 45% of respondents had not participated in any

SWOT initiatives. Thirty-‐five percent of respondents have worked on marine turtle related

issues for 5-‐9 years, and respondents (n=167) worked mostly with green turtles, followed

by loggerhead and hawksbill turtles. All of the aforementioned factors should be

considered when examining the results presented below.

Knowledge & Behavior

Survey results show that 91% of respondents (n=170) were aware of the SWOT

Program. Respondent awareness is primarily due to conferences, the SWOT Report, the

SWOT website, and the database (Figure 6).

23

Figure 6 Survey Respondents Knowledge of SWOT Program

Sixty-‐four percent of respondents (n=155) had used one or more of the SWOT tools. Of the

nine tools, respondents were most aware of maps, the SWOT Report, the website, and the

database (Figure 7). These four tools are at the forefront of the SWOT Program initiatives,

and the data shows a positive correlation between product investment and use by SWOT

Program constituents.

Figure 7 Awareness of SWOT Tools

24

Similarly, maps, SWOT Reports, the website and the database were the most used

tools with a combined 78% use among all tools. Of these four tools, 81% of respondents

used them either annually or 2-‐3 times per year.

Figure 8 SWOT Tool Use Frequency

Of all tools, SWOT Report and maps ranked highest on a six-‐point scale assessing the

frequency of use of each tool, with SWOT Reports having 100% usage rate. Less than one

percent of respondents indicated tool use on a daily basis. Respondents reported that the

least-‐used tool is TurtleVision, and, to lesser degrees, Outreach Toolkit, the Small Grants

Program, and Minimum Data Standards (Figure 8).

Respondents indicated that they used SWOT tools mainly to learn about global

distribution and abundance of marine turtles and, to a lesser degree, to assess the progress

of conservation effort and to conduct outreach and education programs mostly through the

25

use of SWOT Reports and maps (Figure 9). SWOT Reports were listed as the most widely

used tool in seven of ten predetermined categories. Predetermined categories are those

listed in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Purpose of SWOT Tool Use

Seventy percent of respondents (n=77) use the SWOT website, and the majority of

those respondents used the website rarely (several times per year) or sometimes

(monthly). The SWOT website is mostly used to view maps and to access SWOT Reports,

and, to a lesser degree, to learn about marine turtle research or conservation and to view

or use data.

Attitudes

Of those respondents who have used SWOT tools, 83% (n=104) feel that SWOT has

helped their organization, research, or project. Of the remaining 17%, four percent did not

feel that SWOT was helpful and the remaining 13% of respondents were unsure. Of eight

predetermined categories, respondents reported that increased awareness of marine turtle

26

research and conservation projects, and information gained from data and maps are among

the most beneficial ways in which SWOT has helped their organizations and projects.

Predetermined categories are those listed in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Ways in Which SWOT Program has Helped Constituents

From a five-‐point Likert scale, constituents ranked SWOT Reports and maps, as well

as the SWOT website and data, as the most useful tools to their research, organization, or

project (Figure 11). A Likert scale is usually a five, seven, or nine point scaled response

mechanism “measured from extreme positive to extreme negative” (Rea & Parker 2005).

Figure 11 Usefulness of SWOT Tools

27

Similarly, these four tools, along with the SWOT Network, were given the highest

efficacy rankings in advancing marine turtle conservation and research on a six-‐point scale

assessing effectiveness (Figure 12).

Figure 12 Overall Effectiveness of SWOT Tools in Contributing to Marine Turtle Conservation & Research

When asked to rank the four components of SWOT Reports – maps, photographs,

articles, data providers and citations – maps were listed as most important and images

were ranked least important. These results differ from sentiments expressed by focus

group participants who considered images powerful in connecting and educating

individuals regardless of language and/or background. This may be attributed to focus

group participants’ role living in and working with coastal communities around the globe,

whereas over half of survey participants were US-‐based and 80% of respondents (n=169)

listed English as their main language.

When asked to select from a predetermined list of potential new SWOT tools that

they would be most likely to use, respondents most often listed information on foraging

areas, reports on specific threats and nesting regions, and updated SWOT maps. In contrast,

28

printed SWOT Reports in both Spanish and French were ranked high as potential SWOT

tools that respondents were not likely to use. Again, these responses differ from the

opinion of focus group participants and may be attributed to the demographic make-‐up of

the survey respondents.

Respondents were also asked to identify barriers that would most likely affect their

use of SWOT tools. The majority of respondents listed ‘no barriers’ to using all nine tools. Of

the predetermined list of potential barriers, lack of knowledge, and lack of time were the

most prominent. Lack of knowledge of the SWOT tools was selected often for the Outreach

Toolkit, TurtleVision, Small Grants Program, and Minimum Data Standards. Lack of time

was listed most frequently for the tools that participants are more aware of such as the

SWOT Report, maps, data, and the SWOT website and network (Figure 13).

Figure 13 Barriers to SWOT Tool Use

29

Survey participants were asked if the SWOT Program has been successful in its mission to

diffuse information on marine turtle conservation and science through a global network of

researchers and conservationists and its dynamic, geo-‐referenced database; and if the

Program has contributed to marine turtle research and conservation. Generally, 84% of

responses indicated that participants either agreed or strongly agreed with the four

aforementioned criterions (Figure 14).

Figure 14 Program Effectiveness in Achieving Goals

Open-‐ended Questions

Three open-‐ended questions asked respondents to provide recommendations for

new SWOT tools (n=44); recommendations to improve existing SWOT tools (n=28); and

suggestions to help guide the SWOT Program (n=32). Albeit a low response rate for all

three open-‐ended questions, responses are consistent and mirror the results presented

above. With regard to improvement of existing SWOT tools, respondents often cited

increasing awareness of the SWOT Program and existing tools beyond the data collection

and SWOT Reports; regularly updating and providing nesting maps; designing a more user-‐

friendly database to access data; improving access, consistency, and reliability of data; and

30

expansion of the Small Grants Program. Respondents’ recommendations for new SWOT

tools include developing maps on foraging areas and in-‐water sites; focusing more on

specific geographic regions; publishing SWOT Reports in Portuguese, Spanish, and French;

expanding the SWOT Small Grants program; and conducting data provider meetings. The

survey concluded with the last of three open-‐ended questions asking respondents to

provide any additional suggestions to help guide the future of the SWOT Program. The

suggestions include better access to data; increasing stakeholder and partner engagement;

and increasing regional presence and global presence at annual symposia. Many

respondents either had no suggestions or felt that the SWOT Program was doing well.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for improving, expanding, and guiding the future of the SWOT

Program are based on the aforementioned results. Recommendations include expanding

the SWOT database to include in-‐water data; establishing regional SWOT Team networks

and developing tools specific to those networks; increasing visibility within the global

marine turtle research community; expansion of the SWOT Small Grants Program;

designation of a SWOT Network Manager; and increasing awareness of SWOT resources

and improvements in access, consistency, and reliability of SWOT data.

In-‐water Database

The first recommendation is to expand the SWOT database and network to include

in-‐water data. The first step in doing this is to identify projects and individuals conducting

31

in-‐water/foraging area work globally and document geographic location, species, life stage,

and in-‐water capture methods and measurements for each project.

Once these characteristics are identified, they can be mapped to gain a better

understanding of in-‐water work. This information can all be featured in a SWOT Report

focused on in-‐water/foraging areas highlighting methods, particular projects, results from

in-‐water studies, links to ecotourism, and policy implications.

Establishing Regional Networks & Producing Regional Tools

Respondents often cited regional SWOT Reports as a potential new SWOT tool they

would want to use. Based on these responses, establishing regional SWOT Networks that

feed into the global network is recommended. This would allow for synergy among groups

and would help standardize data throughout regions. Regions are defined geographically.

In areas where regional marine turtle networks already exist, such as the Caribbean (e.g.,

WIDECAST), SWOT should identify and work collaboratively with those networks, focusing

on what SWOT can offer to them. This would avoid overlap of resources in the same region.

It is important to include representatives from all interested organizations in the region or

those who have a vested interest – from policy-‐makers, to non-‐governmental organizations

and fishermen.

With the establishment of these networks, working groups could be conducted in

each region to identify priorities and needs where SWOT can help with on-‐the-‐ground data

collection methods and education and outreach materials. Regional networks would also

help the SWOT Program to prioritize regional and global SWOT objectives and identify new

nesting and in-‐water data contributors and partners.

32

Regional Tools

Establishing regional networks could help to identify tools that would be most

useful for certain geographic areas. These tools could include regional SWOT Reports,

reports focused on specific threats to marine turtles, and semi-‐annual newsletters

highlighting both successes and failures.

These materials would need to be offered in the native language and should be

printed. There are currently SWOT Reports in both French and Spanish, but focus group

and survey respondents did not find them as useful as printed versions when working with

remote coastal communities.

Increase Visibility within Global Community

It is important to increase SWOT’s presence within the global marine turtle research

community, primarily though the Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and

Conservation. As it stands, the SWOT Program has a vendor presence at this symposium

each year for the distribution of SWOT Reports. Expanding to hold SWOT Program sessions

before or after the symposium could attract new data contributors who are wary of sharing

data, highlight projects that would benefit from SWOT tools, and encourage overall

participation. This forum could also serve as a vehicle to update information on global

nesting maps. In addition, SWOT sessions could build upon existing sessions, such as the in-‐

water session, to identify projects and individuals to populate an in-‐water network and

database.

33

Expansion and Improvement of Existing Tools

The SWOT Small Grants Program was listed as one of the least-‐used tools, but

respondents expressed interest in expanding the program. On average, the program gives

five small grants annually. Given resource availability, the program could distribute grants

of a larger sum or additional smaller grants.

In addition to expanding the SWOT Small Grants Program, it is recommended that

the Program update and publish worldwide nesting maps on all marine turtle species.

Although the data is regularly updated and available on OBIS-‐SEAMAP, participants noted

that printed updated maps would be beneficial for their project. Many SWOT constituents

live and/or work in remote coastal communities with limited access to Internet. Thus,

printed copies of SWOT materials are crucial.

The Minimum Data Standards (MDS) tool was ranked low in both use and in

awareness. Respondents expressed an interest in learning more about the MDS tool when

asked for SWOT Program recommendations. Consequently, regional workshops to

introduce the MDS tool and standardization techniques are recommended. In addition,

SWOT should conduct an MDS workshop for its current and potential data contributors at

the Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. MDS workshops will not

only help to increase awareness of SWOT resources but also address respondents’

concerns regarding improvements in access, consistency, and reliability of SWOT data.

SWOT Network Manager

It is also recommended that the SWOT Program hire a dedicated person to manage

the SWOT Network. Currently, a year-‐round team of three people manage the SWOT

34

Program. These three individuals focus on fundraising, research, and day-‐to-‐day operations

and tasks necessary to maintain the program running in addition to other deliverables set

by one of the SWOT partner organizations for which they work. In addition, the Program

hires a data coordinator, based at Duke University. The data coordinator makes an annual

call to marine turtle researchers worldwide for data to update the database and create

maps for the SWOT Report.

Therefore, interaction with the existing SWOT network is low. A dedicated person to

foment the network and communicate with existing partners, as well as to identify new

data contributors, could increase awareness of SWOT tools and resources and contribute to

improvements in access, consistency, and reliability of SWOT data. This position would

keep consistent contact with existing SWOT partners and projects to stay informed about

constituent needs and regional priorities.

The SWOT Network Manager would assist in coordinating workshops to

disseminate information on SWOT Products. Similarly, the manager would oversee

production of existing and new regional SWOT Products including SWOT Reports and

newsletters.

CONCLUSION

The SWOT Program has grown considerably since its inception in 2003. Overall,

survey results show that the Program has achieved its goals of creating a global scale, geo-‐

referenced database; a network of people who voluntarily populate and use the database;

and an effective communications strategy – all advancing marine turtle conservation and

research.

35

The differences between focus group and survey results serve as indicators to

further such an evaluation to include multiple methods that incorporate the knowledge,

attitudes, and beliefs of those individuals working in remote locations without access to

surveys such as the one presented here. While images and printed SWOT Reports in

multiple languages were of little value to survey respondents, focus group participants felt

as if those were factors that had a greater impact in their communities. The dissimilarity

in demographic makeup of survey and focus group participants – US-‐based vs. Global –

serves as an indicator of discrepancy between results.

Furthering this study to include on-‐the-‐ground data collection, such as interviews

and observation, would create a more representative sample of the SWOT membership.

The preliminary evaluation presented serves as a tool to produce immediate-‐ and medium-‐

term recommendations for the next phase of the SWOT Program.

36

LITERATURE CITED Ackerman, R. A. (1997). The Nest Environment and Embryonic Development of Sea Turtles.

In P. L. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles: CRC Press. Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. London: Sage Publications. Bjorndal, K. A., Bolten, A. B., & Lagueux, C. J. (1994). Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile

sea turtles in costal Florida habitats. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 28(3), 154-‐158. Bjorndal, K., & Jackson, J. (2002). Roles of Sea Turtles in Marine Ecosystems. In P. L. Lutz, J.

A. Musick & J. Wyneken (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II (pp. 259-‐273): CRC Press.

Bolten, A. (2002). Variation in Sea Turtle Life History Patterns: Neritic vs. Oceanic Developmental Stages The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II (pp. 243-‐257): CRC Press.

Bugoni, L., Krause, L., & Petry, M. V. (2001). Maine Debris and Human Impacts of Sea Turtles in Southern Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(12), 1330-‐1334.

Bowen, B. W., & Karl, S. A. (2007). Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles. [Invited Review]. Molecular Ecology, 16, 4886-‐4907.

Campbell, L. (2003). Contemporary Culture, Use, and Conservation of Sea Turtles The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II (pp. 307-‐338): CRC Press.

Crain, D. A., Bolten, A. B., & Bjorndal, K. A. (1995). Effects of Beach Nourishment on Sea Turtles: Review and Research Initiatives. Restoration Ecology, 3(2), 95-‐104. Hawkes, L. A., Broderick, A. C., Godfrey, M. H., & Godley, B. J. (2009). Climate change and marine turtles. Endangered Species Research, 7, 137-‐154. Hsieh, H.-‐F. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9). International Union for Conservation of Nature. Retrieved October 2011, from <www.iucn.org> IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group. Retrieved November 30, 2011, from

<http://iucn-‐mtsg.org/about-‐turtles/hazards> IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. Retrieved December 1, 2011, from <http://www.iucnredlist.org> Leeuw, F., & Vaessen, J. (2009). Impact Evaluations and Development: NONIE Guidance on

Impact Evaluation. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Lohmann, K. J., Witherington, B. E., Lohmann, C. M. F., & Salmon, M. (1997). Orientation,

Navigation, and Natal Beach Homing in Sea Turtles. In P. L. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles: CRC Press.

Marcovaldi, M. A., & Thome, J. C. A. (1999). Reducing Threats to Sea Turtles. In K. L. Eckert, K. A. Bjorndal, F. A. Abreu-‐Grobois & M. Donnelly (Eds.), Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles (Vol. 4, pp. 165-‐168): IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group / SSC.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Josey-‐Bass Publishers.

Meylan, A. B., & Meylan, P. A. (1999). Introduction to the Evolution, Life History, and Biology of Sea Turtles. In K. L. Eckert, K. A. Bjorndal, F. A. Abreu-‐Grobois & M. Donnelly (Eds.), Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea

37

Turtles (Vol. 4, pp. 3-‐5). Miller, J. D. (1997). Reproduction in Sea Turtles. In P. L. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), The

Biology of Sea Turtles: CRC Press. Moore, J. E., Wallace, B. R., Lewison, R. L., Zydelis, R., Cox, T. M., & Crowder, L. B.

(2009). A review of marine mammal, sea turtle and seabird bycatch in USA fisheries and the role of policy in shaping management. Marine Policy, 33(3), 435-‐451. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.09.003

Musick, J. A., & Limpus, C. J. (1997). Habitat Utilization and Migration in Juvenile Sea Turtles. In P. L. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles: CRC Press. "Oceans' Uptake of Manmade Carbon May Be Slowing." 2009. The Earth Institute Columbia

University. <www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2586> Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing & Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive

Guide (Third Edition ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-‐Bass. Shadish, W. R. (1994). Need-‐Based Evaluation Theory: What Do You Need to Know to Do

Good Evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation, 15(3), 347-‐358. The State of the World's Sea Turtles. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from

<www.seaturtlestatus.org> The State of the World's Sea Turtles Report, Volumes I-‐VII. 2005-‐2012. Wallace, B. P., Heppell, S. S., Lewison, R. L., Kelez, S., & Crowder, L. B. (2008). Impacts of

fisheries bycatch on loggerhead turtles worldwide inferred from reproductive value analyses. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 1076-‐1085.

Wallace, B. P., R. L. Lewison, S. L. McDonald, R. K. McDonald, C. Y. Kot, S. Kelez, R. K. Bjorkland, E. M. Finkbeiner, S. Helmbrecht, and L. B. Crowder. "Global Patterns of Marine Turtle Bycatch." Conservation Letters 3, no. 3 (2010): 131-‐42.

Wallace B.P., DiMatteo A.D., Hurley B.J., Finkbeiner E.M., Bolten A.B., Chaloupka M.Y., Hutchinson B.J., Abreu-‐Grobois, F.A., Amorocho D., Bjorndal K.A., Bourjea J., Bowen B.W., Briseño-‐Dueñas R., Casale P., Choudhury B.C., Costa A., Dutton P.H., Fallabrino A., Girard A., Girondot M., Godfrey M.H., Hamann M., López-‐Mendilaharsu M., Marcovaldi M.A., Mortimer J.A., Musick J.A., Nel R., Pilcher N.J., Seminoff J.A., Troëng S., Witherington B., Mast R.B. (2010). Regional Management Units for marine turtles: A novel framework for prioritizing conservation and research across multiple scales. PLoS ONE 5(12): e15465. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015465.

Wibbels, T. (2003). Critical Approaches to Sex Determination in Sea Turtles. In P. L. Lutz, J. A. Musick & J. Wyneken (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles Volume II (Vol. II): CRC Press.

Wold, C. (2002). The Status of Sea Turtles under International Environmental Law and International Environmental Agreements. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 5, 11-‐48.

Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (Second Edition ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

38

APPENDICIES

Duke University Institutional Review Board Clearance Protocol: [A0591] Assessing the State of the Worlds Sea Turtles Project

Researcher(s): Xavier Basurto (Advisor) Patricia Elena Villegas (Graduate Student Researcher)

Anniversary Date: 6/4/2012

Your Request for a Screening for Exemption has been approved. Exempt research does not require continuing review; however, you will be contacted at one-‐year intervals to ask if the research is still active. We encourage you to let us know when the research has been completed. Write to us at ors-‐[email protected]. When conducting research approved as exempt, it is essential that researchers: • Submit proposed changes to the IRB for review. The form, Request to Amend an

Exemption, may be submitted via email. No signatures are required. The form can be found at <http://www.ors.duke.edu/Research-‐with-‐Human-‐Subjects/forms>.

There are two possible outcomes of the review of the request: 1. The proposed changes are such that the research no longer qualifies for exemption. You will be asked to submit a Request for protocol Approval: Expedited Review or Full Review. 2. The proposed changes do not change the status of the research as exempt. If this is the case, you will receive an Exemption Amendment Approval notice when the amendment is approved. • Notify the IRB immediately at [email protected] if there are any unanticipated

risks to subjects or deviations from the research procedures described in the protocol.

• Retain all research data, including signed consent forms, for at least five years, as required by Duke's Data Retention Policy.

39

Focus Group Statement of Informed Consent Distributed April 14, 2011

You have been selected to participate in a discussion group hosted by a graduate student researcher at Duke University. The purpose of this discussion is to obtain your insights and opinions regarding The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Project in order to help construct a survey instrument.

This discussion group will be comprised of Patricia Elena Villegas and Elena Finkbeiner from Duke University and 8 other representatives from the greater sea turtle community. The discussion will take approximately 45 minutes. During this discussion, you will be asked to share your opinions; there are no right or wrong answers.

In order to ensure your privacy, only first names will be utilized during this discussion and there will be no personal information associated with any information obtained from this focus group. If all group members consent, the discussion will be audio recorded in order to make a transcript of responses at a later time. The recording and transcript will only be used by the researcher. As soon as a written transcript is made of the tape, the recording will be destroyed.

Your participation in this focus group is entirely voluntary. You may decline to answer any question and you may leave at any time.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this discussion please ask now or at any time during or after the discussion. You may also contact my academic advisor, Xavier Basurto (252.504.7540). If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the chair of the Human Subjects Committee at (919) 684-‐3030.

I agree to participate in this focus group and to be audio recorded. I understand that I will receive a copy of this consent form for my records.

Print name Signature Date

40

Focus Group Script 31st Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation San Diego, California, USA April 14, 2011 Moderator Introduction:

Thank you all for agreeing to meet with me. My name is Pati Villegas and I will be leading this discussion. I am a graduate student researcher at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University and am using this focus group to assist in creating a survey to assess the efficacy of The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Project.

Elena Finkbeiner will be assisting me in recording our discussion. In order to ensure your privacy, I will refer to everyone only by first names and there will be no personal information associated with any information obtained from this focus group. To note, although your identities will be protected on paper once the discussion is completed (in our notes and reports, etc.), I cannot ensure the confidentiality of information shared during the discussion.

Before we begin, I’d like to go over the consent form, and if you are willing, please sign. Does anyone have any questions?

Today we will be discussing your thoughts and opinions about The State of the Worlds Sea Turtles (SWOT) Project in order to inform the format and content of a survey. The objective of my research is to assist the Conservation International (CI) Marine Flagship Species Program (MFSP) in assessing the efficacy of the SWOT Project, identifying opportunities for improvement, and guiding future directions of the project. There are no right or wrong answers and SWOT is interested to know all types of feedback. I will ask a question, and then give everyone an opportunity to respond. It is completely up to you which questions you choose to answer and to what extent.

Let’s begin by going around the room so each of you can introduce yourselves. Please tell us only your first name.

Questions: Q. I’d like to begin the discussion by hearing about what SWOT is to you.

Q. When you say tool are you referring to the report or the database? Or what are you referring to?

Moderator commentary:

Thank you for your answers. I’d like to give you a brief overview of what the SWOT Project is in order to help with questions as we move forward. The State of the World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT) Project is a collaboration of hundreds of individuals and institutions around the world and is coordinated by Conservation International, Duke University’s OBIS-‐SEAMAP, and the Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG) of the International Union for Conservation

41

of Nature (IUCN). SWOT was created in 2003 with the goal of creating a dynamic, global-‐scale, geo-‐referenced database of all sea turtle species, a network of people who generate and use the data to guide conservation efforts, and a targeted communications and outreach strategy, centered around an annual report, to diffuse information on sea turtle conservation and science to people who can make a difference for conserving turtles and improving ocean health.

Over the past seven years, SWOT has grown to include more than 550 data providers, has published and distributed six SWOT Reports with maps on global sea turtle nesting distribution for the seven sea turtle species and stories from throughout the sea turtle conservation community, and has awarded grants to sea turtle projects around the globe. Questions:

Q. Have you used SWOT products (network, database & publications/website)? If yes, how? If you could go into a bit of detail on how you’ve used it with your respective organizations and/or your personal research that would be great also.

Q. I’d like to follow up on a question. When you say the copies are limited, is that in reference to the English or Spanish versions?

Q. Do you feel that the paper copies are more useful than the English and Spanish online versions?

Q. What needs do you have that you think SWOT could help meet?

Q. Do you think the SWOT project has been successful in advancing sea turtle research and conservation? If so, how? If not, why not, how do you think it can improve?

Q. Can you offer any ideas as to how SWOT can better support and/or improve conservation efforts? What ideas and recommendations do you have for the future in order to advance sea turtle research and conservation? Is there something that is not being done that you’d like to see?

Q. Do you think SWOT has the potential to be a connector and bring people together?

Q. Do you have any other thoughts or suggestions that can help in designing the survey or thoughts or comments about SWOT?

Moderator commentary:

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I really appreciate it! All of your answers are very valuable. Have a great day!

42

Focus Group Reconsent Email Sent June 1, 2011

Dear colleagues:

Thank you for your participation in The State of the World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT) Project focus group at the 31st International Sea Turtle Symposium in San Diego, California, USA.

All of your responses were extremely helpful in constructing the survey instrument for an evaluation of the SWOT Project, which is currently under expert review. In addition to helping to structure the survey, some of the responses collected would be useful as supporting quotes for presentations and would be helpful to include in my Masters Project thesis.

I am writing to ask for your consent to use quotes and comments from the focus group as supporting data in my research. Names were not recorded during the focus group and none of the information requested for use will be attributed to any one identifiable individual.

The consent form you signed was for use of data to construct a survey therefore I am asking for consent via email stating that you agree or disagree to use of the focus group content for presentation and for use in my Masters Project thesis.

If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact me [email protected].

Thank you again for your participation!

Cheers,

Pati Villegas

43

The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Survey Email Sent August 23, 2011

Dear colleagues, I am a graduate student at Duke University and am conducting a survey on behalf of the State of the World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT) Program as part of my Master’s research. Specifically, survey responses will be used to evaluate the SWOT program's effectiveness and provide guidance for future activities. I encourage everyone to take the survey regardless of level of experience. All responses will remain confidential, and your name will not be linked to survey results. If you choose to participate, this survey should take no more than 20 minutes. For completing this survey, you may submit your email address to be entered into a raffle to win a Flip Video. The survey must be completed by Tuesday, September 13, 2011 to be eligible for the drawing. FOLLOW THIS LINK TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY: http://dukessri.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1OgAU8xAu4IPfiA I appreciate your participation. Please feel free to contact me ([email protected]) should you have any questions or concerns. Best, Pati Villegas

44

The State of the World's Sea Turtles Survey

Default Question Block

THE STATE OF THE WORLD'S SEA TURTLES PROGRAM SURVEYI am a graduate student at Duke University and am conducting a survey on behalf of the State of the World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT) Program to evaluate the program's effectiveness and provide guidance for future activities. Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary. You may skip any questions you do not wish to answer. There are no right or wrong answers and I am interested in all types of feedback.

All responses will remain confidential, and your name will not be linked to survey results. If you choose to participate, this survey should take no more than 20 minutes.

Upon completion of this survey, you will be redirected to enter your email address to be entered into a raffle to win a Flip Video. Your email address willonly be used for the purposes of the raffle and will not be linked to your survey responses. The survey must be completed by Tuesday, September 13, 2011 to be eligible for the drawing.

Please feel free to contact me [email protected] should you have any questions or concerns.

Before receiving this survey, were you aware of the State of the World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT) Program?

Yes

No

Where have you learned about the SWOT Program? Select all that apply.

Web

University Courses

Conferences

Word of Mouth

Received a copy of the SWOT Report

Scientific Literature

Direct Contact from SWOT Program

All of the Above

Other (Please Specify)

Have you used any of the SWOT tools (e.g. maps, data, SWOT Network, SWOT Reports, TurtleVision, outreach toolkit, SWOT small grants, website, Minimum Data Standards, etc.)?

Yes

No

Unsure

The following are SWOT tools and products. Please select all tools you are aware of:

Maps

Data

SWOT Network

SWOT Reports

TurtleVision

Outreach Toolkit

SWOT Small Grants

Page 1 of 7Qualtrics Survey Software

4/25/2012https://new.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/PopUp.php?PopType=SurveyPrintPreview&WID=...

The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Survey

45

Website

Minimum Data Standards

Please rate how often you use the following SWOT tools:

Never Annually2-3 Times a

Year Monthly Weekly Daily

» Maps

» Data

» SWOT Network

» SWOT Reports

» TurtleVision

» Outreach Toolkit

» SWOT Small Grants

» Website

» Minimum Data Standards

In addition to determining which SWOT tools are used, I am also interested to know how they are used. Please identify for what purposes you use the SWOT tools. Select all that apply.

» Maps » Data» SWOTNetwork

» SWOTReports » TurtleVision

» OutreachToolkit

» SWOTSmall Grants » Website

» MinimumData

Standards

To set priorities for research or conservation

To aid in assessing conservation status of sea turtles

To learn about distribution and abundance of sea turtles globally

To conduct outreach and education programs

To connect with other projects and people working on similar issues

To create maps

To raise awareness

Community volunteer work

To influence policy

To raise money

Other (Pleasespecify)

Do you use the SWOT Program's website (www.seaturtlestatus.org)?

Yes

No

I was unaware of this opportunity



46

How often do you access the SWOT website?

Never

Rarely (Several times a year)

Sometimes (Monthly)

Quite Often (Weekly)

Very Often (Daily)

Please select how you use/have used the SWOT website. Select all that apply.

To access SWOT Reports

To learn about sea turtle research or conservation

To view maps

To contribute data

To view or use data

To apply for a grant

To access educational material

To learn about individual collaborators and organizations

Other (Please specify)

Please rank the following types of content found in each SWOT Report by level of importance to you: 1 represents most important and 4 represents least important.

Maps

Photographs

Articles

Data Providers & Citations

Please select if you have used the printed and/or online editions of the SWOT Reports in any of the languages listed below.

English Spanish French

Yes No Unaware of opportunity Yes No Unaware of

opportunity Yes No Unaware of opportunity

Printed editions SWOTReports

Online editions of SWOTReports

Do you feel that the tools provided by the SWOT Program have helped your organization, research, or project?

Yes

No

Unsure

How has the SWOT Program helped your organization, research, or project? Select all that apply.

Increasing our/my visibility within the sea turtle community



47

Improving connectivity with people and organizations from the sea turtle community

Improving our/my knowledge of sea turtle research and conservation

Providing financial support

Assisting in influencing policy

Assisting in fundraising

Generating/providing useful data and/or maps

Aiding in community outreach and education


Please indicate how useful each SWOT tool listed below is to your research, organization, or project.

UselessSomewhat

Useless NeutralSomewhat

Useful Useful N/A

Maps

Data

SWOT Network

SWOT Reports

Outreach Toolkit

TurtleVision

SWOT Small Grants

Website


How effective do you feel each SWOT tool listed below is in contributing to the advancement of sea turtle research and conservation?

IneffectiveSomewhat Ineffective

Neither Effective norIneffective

Somewhat Effective Effective N/A

Maps

Data

SWOT Network

SWOT Reports

Outreach Toolkit

TurtleVision

SWOT Small Grants

Website


Please select how likely you would be to use each of the following potential SWOT products:

Very Unlikely Unlikely Undecided Likely Very Likely

Maps of foraging areas and other in-water sites

SWOT Reports in Spanish (printed)

SWOT Reports in French (printed)

SWOT Reports focused on specific threats

SWOT Reports focused on specific regions



48

Updated SWOT maps

Supplemental educational material to complement SWOT Reports

Fundraising toolkits


I am also interested in potential barriers to using each of the SWOT tools listed below. Please identify the barrier that would most likely affect your use of the following:

Lack of interest

Lack of knowledge

Difficulty in

accessing

Lack of

timeLack of

computerDifficulty of use

Language barrier Other

No barriers N/A

Maps

Data

SWOT Network

SWOT Reports

Outreach Toolkits

TurtleVision

SWOT Small Grants

Website


Please specify what barrier(s) affect your use of the SWOT tools listed in the previous question.

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. The SWOT Program...

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree Unsure

Diffuses information on sea turtle conservation and science

Creates a global network of sea turtle researchers and conservationists

Has created a global-scale, geo-referenced database

Has contributed to sea turtle research and conservation

Almost done! Please answer a few questions about yourself.

Sex

Male

Female

What is your occupation? Select all that apply.



49

Educator

Policy maker

Researcher

Student

Volunteer

Unemployed


Please select if you are affiliated with any of the following (select all that apply):

Non-governmental Organization

Local Government

State Government

Federal Government

Academic Institution


Have you participated in/contributed to the SWOT Program in any capacity (contributed data, photographs, etc.)?

Yes

No

Unsure

How many years have you worked on sea turtle related issues?

Under 5 years

5-9 years

10-14 years

15-19 years

20+ years

In which country do you reside?

Please select all areas in which you work and level of experience working in these regions.

No ExperienceLimited

Experience Experienced Very Experienced Expert

Australasia

East Africa / West Indian Ocean

East Pacific

Mediterranean

North Atlantic

Pacific Islands

South Asia



50

Southwest Atlantic

West Africa / East Atlantic

Wider Caribbean

Global

Please select all species with which you work.

LeatherbackDermochelys coriacea

GreenChelonia mydas

FlatbackNatator depressus

Olive ridleyLepidochelys olivacea

Kemp's ridleyLepidochelys kempii

HawksbillEretmochelys imbricata

LoggerheadCaretta caretta

What is/are the primary language(s) spoken in the region(s) where you work? Select all that apply.

English

Spanish

French

Mandarin

Portuguese


Please provide any recommendations for new tools that SWOT could produce to help advance sea turtle research and conservation.

Please provide any recommendations for ways that SWOT can improve its existing tools.

Please share any additional suggestions that you may have to help The SWOT Program in guiding the future direction on the program.



51

Publications & Posters

CI Connect, Marine Corner August 31, 2011

52

Poster Presentation 32nd Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation Huatulco, Oaxaca, Mexico March 12-‐16, 2012 Conservation, Management and Policy Session

53

SeaTurtleStatus.org | 39

The SWOT Program was created in 2004 with the goal of creating a dynamic, global, georeferenced database of the seven

sea turtle species; a network of people who generate and use the data for conservation; and a targeted communications e!ort built around an annual SWOT Report. Seven years later, SWOT has received data from more than 550 providers, has given more than 25 small grants for "eld-based research and conservation, has published and distrib-uted six annual reports (this is the seventh) in multiple languages, has developed a new approach to standardizing minimum data needs, and has done much more.

To help determine the next steps for the SWOT Program, SWOT is currently conducting a comprehensive program evaluation that is focused around an online survey among SWOT contributors and the broader sea turtle community. #e goal of the survey, conducted in August–September 2011, was to assess the degree to which SWOT has been e!ective in advancing sea turtle research and conservation and to identify areas of expansion (or contraction) of the program to make it most useful as a conservation tool. #e survey sought to identify speci"c ways in which SWOT’s tools are being used and to determine which aspects of SWOT are most (and least) valuable to the community.

More than 170 surveys were completed by respondents from 33 countries. Survey results show that more than 90 percent of respon-dents were aware of the SWOT Program and that 64 percent had used one or more of the SWOT tools. Such tools include SWOT Report, SWOT network, maps, database, website, TurtleVision, Outreach Toolkit, small grants program, and Minimum Data Standards. Respon-dents indicated that they used SWOT tools mainly to learn about global distribution and abundance of sea turtles and to assess the progress of conservation e!orts.

Of those respondents who have used SWOT tools, 86 percent feel that SWOT has helped their organization, research, or project. Respondents reported that their increased awareness of sea turtle research and conservation projects and the information gained from data and maps are among the most bene"cial ways in which SWOT has helped their organizations and projects.

Of the nine SWOT tools, SWOT Report is the most popular and is used to conduct outreach and education programs, to raise aware-ness, and to aid in assessing the conservation status of sea turtles. Similarly, SWOT Report ranked highest on a "ve-point scale assessing the usefulness of each tool.

Users are most familiar with the reports, maps, database, and website. In turn, they use those four tools most often and consider them the most helpful in contributing to the advancement of sea turtle research and conservation. Conversely, they reported that the least-used tools are TurtleVision and the Outreach Toolkit and—to a lesser degree—the small grants program and Minimum Data Standards. Generally, 84 percent of respondents agree that the SWOT Program has been successful in its mission to di!use information on sea turtle conservation and science through a global network of researchers and conservationists and its database.

When asked to select potential new SWOT tools that they would be most likely to use, respondents most often listed information on foraging areas, reports on speci"c threats and regions, and updated SWOT maps. Respondents’ recommendations for future improve-ments of the SWOT Program included increasing awareness of SWOT resources; focusing on speci"c regions; improving access, consistency, and reliability of data; expanding the SWOT small grants program; and developing maps showing foraging areas and in-water sites.

A full analysis of the survey results and of the program is still under way and will provide ideas for how to enhance and develop tools that can help the SWOT Program better serve its members and their conservation e!orts. �

THIS PAGE: A boy swims with a newly hatched leatherback turtle in West Papua, Indonesia. © JÜRGEN FREUND / WWW.JURGENFREUND.COM AT LEFT: A staff member of Sabah Parks collects data on a green turtle nest on Selingan Island in Turtle Islands National Park, Sabah, Malaysia. © KEITH A. ELLENBOGEN

The Future of SWOTWHAT DO YOU THINK?

By PATRICIA ELENA VILLEGAS

The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Report, Volume VII SWOT Team Section Published March 2012

Villegas MP Final - dukespace.lib.duke.edu

Documents