Beaver mimicry is a fast-growing conservation technique to restore streams and manage water that is gaining popularity within the natural resource management community because of a wide variety of claimed socio-environmental benefits. Despite a growing number of projects, many questions and concerns about beaver mimicry remain. This study draws on qualitative data from 49 interviews with scientists, practitioners, and landowners, to explore the question of how beaver mimicry projects continue to be promoted and implemented, despite the lack of comprehensive scientific studies and unclear regulatory requirements. Specifically, we investigate how these three groups differentially assess the salience, credibility, and legitimacy of evidence for beaver mimicry and analyze how those assessments affect each group's conclusions about the feasibility, desirability, and scalability of beaver mimicry. By highlighting the interaction between how someone assesses evidence and how they draw conclusions about an emerging natural resource management approach, we draw attention to the roles of experiential evidence and scientific data in debates over beaver mimicry. Our research emphasizes that understanding how different groups perceive salience, credibility, and legitimacy of scientific information is necessary for understanding how they make assessments about conservation and natural resource management strategies.
In the realm of socioenvironmental justice, much discourse centers on equal access to green areas and on climate injustice in the United States. Marginalized communities, including Indigenous populations, are being excluded from current narratives surrounding the natural spaces that in many cases are historically tied to under-represented groups. This article aims to explore some of the many dimensions of environmental racism, green inequities, climate injustice, and access. The dimensions include but are not limited to racial gatekeeping, nature deprivation in low-income communities, green gentrification, light pollution, and access to clean water. The recommendations section serves as a guide during decisionmaking processes at the local, state, and federal level, as well as moving forward in offering impacted communities protection from environmental racism and socioenvironmental injustice to impacted communities. Authors' noteWe acknowledge the fluidity of language use and inclusive terminology. We recognize that over time, some terminology may come to be considered outdated due to societal changes and advances in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. We aim to use language in a way that respects and commemorates diversity. It is imperative to consider personal preferences when using language to address a collective. Furthermore, personal preference is not always synonymous with that of a group of people. The terminology used in this article considers current inclusive terminology and the personal preferences in language and self-identities of our diverse authors. In order for our readers to stay current on terminology, we have provided a link in the References to the National Assembly of State Art Agencies Inclusive Language Guide.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.