Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation

Bennett, Nathan; Roth, Robin; Klain, Sarah C.; Chan, Kai M. A.; Christie, Patrick; Clark, Douglas A.; Cullman, Georgina; Curran, Deborah; Durbin, Trevor J.; Epstein, Graham; Greenberg, Alison; Nelson, Michael Paul; Sandlos, John; Stedman, Richard C.; Teel, Tara L.; Thomas, Rebecca; Veríssimo, Diogo; Wyborn, Carina

doi:10.31230/osf.io/be7xq

Cited by 143 publications

(220 citation statements)

References 166 publications

(258 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

215

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Focus group discussion has had broad appeal as a research tool, as evidenced by this review. Although the use of focus group discussion as a research technique has been dominant in the other disciplines such as sociology and psychology, its use has recently grown in the conservation social science research (Bennett et al., ; Khadka et al., ; Paloniemi et al., ). During this review, we observed that researchers in conservation have not adequately reported on the methodological choices from planning to data analysis.…”

Section: Geographical Distribution Of the Use Of Focus Group Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conservation social science has come of age (Bennett et al., ). From being an outlier and on the sidelines of the discourse on conservation, the importance of understanding human perspectives is now centre stage in conservation decision making (Bennett et al., ; Khadka, Hujala, Wolfslehner, & Vacik, ; Paloniemi et al., ). Within the repertoire of tools that conservation biologists can use, focus group discussion is a commonly used method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract1. Focus group discussion is frequently used as a qualitative approach to gain an in-depth understanding of social issues. The method aims to obtain data from a purposely selected group of individuals rather than from a statistically representative sample of a broader population. Even though the application of this method in conservation research has been extensive, there are no critical assessment of the application of the technique.In addition, there are no readily available guidelines for conservation researchers.2. Here, we reviewed the applications of focus group discussion within biodiversity and conservation research between 1996 and April 2017. We begin with a brief explanation of the technique for first-time users. We then discuss in detail the empirical applications of this technique in conservation based on a structured literature review (using Scopus).3. The screening process resulted in 170 articles, the majority of which (67%, n = 114,) were published between 2011 and 2017. Rarely was the method used as a standalone technique. The number of participants per focus group (where reported) ranged from 3 to 21 participants with a median of 10 participants. There were seven (median) focus group meetings per study. Focus group discussion sessions lasted for 90 (median) minutes. Four main themes emerged from the review: understanding of people's perspectives regarding conservation (32%), followed by the assessment of conservation and livelihoods practices (21%), examination of challenges and impacts of resource management interventions (19%) and documenting the value of indigenous knowledge systems (16%). Most of the studies were in Africa (n = 76), followed by Asia (n = 44), and Europe (n = 30).4. We noted serious gaps in the reporting of the methodological details in the reviewed papers. More than half of the studies (n = 101) did not report the sample size and group size (n = 93), whereas 54 studies did not mention the number of focus group discussion sessions while reporting results. Rarely have the studies provided any information on the rationale for choosing the technique. We have provided guidelines to improve the standard of reporting and future application of the technique for conservation. © 2018 The Authors. Methods in Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological SocietyThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.[The copyright line for this article was changed on 22 January 2018 after original online publication] | 21Methods in Ecology and Evoluঞon NYUMBA et Al. | INTRODUCTIONConservation social science has come of age (Bennett et al., 2017).From being an outlier and on the sidelines of the discourse on conservation, the importance of understanding human perspectives is now centre stage in conservation decision making (Bennett et al., 2017;Khadka, Hujala, Wolfslehner, & Vacik, 2013;Pal...

show abstract

Section: Geographical Distribution Of the Use Of Focus Group Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since biodiversity conservation is also a social construct (Fischer & Young, ), its management requires an explicit recognition of the dynamics of shifting perceptions (framings) and goals of conservation (Brown & Everard, ; Mace, ). Failing to integrate the human dimension in conservation often leads to less effective interventions (Bennett et al., ). This is in contrast to the current paradigm of mechanistic underpinnings of solving decision‐making problems (Gregory et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adem Esmail & Geneletti, ). The call for inter‐ and trans‐disciplinarity resonates in both the science (Bennett et al., ; Mace, ; Tallis et al., ) and policy communities (IPBES, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision‐making

Zabala²,

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract1. Decision-making is a complex process that typically includes a series of stages: identifying the issue, considering possible options, making judgements and then making a decision by combining information and values. The current status quo relies heavily on the informational aspect of decision-making with little or no emphasis on the value positions that affect decisions.2. There is increasing realization of the importance of adopting rigorous methods for each stage such that the information, views and judgements of stakeholders and experts are used in a systematic and repeatable manner. Though there are several methodological textbooks which discuss a plethora of social science techniques, it is hard to judge the suitability of any given technique for a given decision problem.3. In decision-making, the three critical aspects are "what" decision is to be made, "who" makes the decisions and "how" the decisions are made. The methods covered in this paper focus on "how" decisions can be made. We compare six tech- 4. Based on structured reviews of 423 papers covering all six methods, we compare the conceptual and logistical characteristics of the methods, and map their suitability for the different stages of the decision-making process. While interviews and FGD are well-known, techniques such the Nominal Group technique and Q methodology are relatively under-used. In situations where conflict is high, we recommend using the Q methodology and Delphi technique to elicit judgements. Where

show abstract

Linking Ocean's Benefits to People (OBP) with Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs)

Belgrano

Villasante

2020

Population Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fundamental challenge of the inclusion of the human dimension of the oceans in the Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) provides an opportunity for a transdisciplinary approach to create synergies between the current research by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We have highlighted the importance of ocean inequality as a critical aspect to consider to unlock current barriers to integrate social sciences in marine integrated assessments. To create bridges between them, we develop an Ocean's Benefits to People (OBP) framework that embraces the blue economy, equity, the UN SDGs goals and support an Ecosystem‐Based Management (EBM) for the oceans.

show abstract

Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation

Cited by 143 publications

References 166 publications

The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation

The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation

Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision‐making

Linking Ocean's Benefits to People (OBP) with Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About