Data justice and biodiversity conservation

Abstract

Increases in data availability coupled with enhanced computational capacities are revolutionizing conservation. But in the excitement over the opportunities afforded by new data, there has been less discussion of the justice implications of data used in conservation, that is, how people and environments are represented through data, the conservation choices made based on data, and the distribution of benefits and harms arising from these choices. We propose a framework for understanding the justice dimensions of conservation data composed of five elements: data composition, data control, data access, data processing and use, and data consequences. For each element, we suggest a set of guiding questions that conservationists could use to think through their collection and use of data and to identify potential data injustices. The need for such a framework is illustrated by a synthesis of recent critiques of global conservation prioritization analyses. These critiques demonstrate the range of ways data could serve to produce social and ecological harms due to the choice of underlying data sets, assumptions made in the analysis, oversimplification of realworld conservation practice, and crowding out of other forms of knowledge. We conclude by arguing that there are ways to mitigate risks of conservation data injustices, through formal ethical and legal frameworks and by promoting a more inclusive and more reflexive conservation research ethos. These will help ensure that data contribute to conservation strategies that are both socially just and ecologically effective.

Recognizing the equity implications of restoration priority maps

“…More broadly, we reiterate that restoration interventions have the potential to benefit or harm local livelihoods depending on their consideration of social equity [35][36][37]66]. This includes the distributional concerns that we highlight above, but also inter-related procedural and recognitional concerns regarding whose interests are acknowledged and incorporated into restoration decision-making.…”

“…We understand equity as an ethical requirement to take fair and just steps to support the sustainability of socio-ecological systems [35]. Four dimensions of equity are often underscored in environmental planning [35][36][37]. First, procedural equity requires that decision-making procedures are inclusive and democratic, with effective participation of relevant voices.…”

“…However, this argument sidesteps the threat such analyses pose to fair decision-making. Priority-setting exercises may shape future policy implementation, yet they often do not incorporate information on the values and interests of communities who would be most affected by restoration [37]. These communities are often overlooked in subsequent steps of the restoration policymaking process as well [47,48].…”

Between monitoring and surveillance: Geographies of emerging drone technologies in contemporary conservation

“…Such projects can relate to the ambitions of a broader 'data justice' that seeks to transform the inequalities underpinning and informing what gets considered 'objective' factand what gets excluded from it (Haraway, 2013;Pritchard et al 2022). Environmental justice scholars have developed capacity around this area for decades, producing important datasets in relation to, for example, pollution's uneven effects or the racist biases of urban waste disposal (Walker et al 2022).…”

Digitalizing forest landscape restoration: a social and political analysis of emerging technological practices

“…Environmental data justice issues also potentially arise when information can exert political and economic influence over communities and conservation relations, such as data on Indigenous peoples and their lands (Pritchard et al . 2022 ).…”