Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

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

doi:10.31230/osf.io/f3v6a

Cited by 51 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Effective management necessitates a firm understanding of how and why decisions are made. Given calls for greater integration of social science methods in conservation research (Bennett et al., ), methodologies commonly used in the social sciences such as interviews can be employed to understand the factors which influence decision‐maker behaviour. However, lack of robust requirements from interdisciplinary conservation research journals results in poor and inadequate reporting of key points needed to interpret the quality of social research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interviews are a widely used methodology in conservation research. They are flexible, allowing in‐depth analysis from a relatively small sample size and place the focus of research on the views of participants. While interviews are a popular method, several critiques have been raised in response to their use, including the lack of transparency in sampling strategy, choice of questions and mode of analysis. In this paper, we analyse the use of interviews in research aimed at making decisions for conservation. Through a structured review of 227 papers, we explore where, why and how interviews were used in the context of conservation decision making The review suggests that interviews are a widely used method for a broad range of purposes. These include gaining ecological and/or socio‐economic information on specific conservation issues, understanding knowledge, values, beliefs or decision‐making processes of stakeholders, and strengthening research design and output. The review, however, identifies a number of concerns. Researchers are not reporting fully on their interview methodology. Specifically, results indicate that researchers are: failing to provide a rationale as to why interviews are the most suitable method, not piloting the interviews (thus questions may be poorly designed), not outlining ethical considerations, not providing clear guides to analysis and not critically reviewing their use of interviews. Based on the results of the review, we provide a detailed checklist aimed at conservation researchers who wish to use interviews in their research (whether experienced in using the methodology or not), and journal editors and reviewers to ensure the robustness of interview methodology use.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the main aims of action research is knowledge co-production, a term that refers to a "process of producing usable, or actionable, science through collaboration between scientists and those who use science to make policy and management decision" [43]. Both action research and knowledge co-production require collaboration at all stages, including framing the questions, designing the research, collecting data, analyzing results, creating outputs and implementation of recommendations [34,41,43]. Our approach was to convene a three-day think tank on the HD of LSMPAs in Honolulu, Hawaii from Feb 8-10, 2016.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While interest in the HD of conservation has grown, there remains a surprising lack of full engagement with HD recommendations in conservation practice in general [34,35] and in LSMPAs in particular [10]. Three reasons emerge to explain this oversight.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three reasons emerge to explain this oversight. First, the leading paradigm of conservation practice still privileges scientific ecological knowledge and priorities over human dimensions [34]. Yet, research on conservation, MPAs and fisheries management effectiveness consistently highlight that HD considerations are central to the success of conservation [28][29][30][36][37][38][39].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why people matter in ocean governance: Incorporating human dimensions into large-scale marine protected areas

Christie¹,

Bennett²,

Gray³

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large-scale marine protected areas (LSMPAs) are rapidly increasing. Due to their sheer size, complex sociopolitical realities, and distinct local cultural perspectives and economic needs, implementing and managing LSMPAs successfully creates a number of human dimensions challenges. It is timely and important to explore the human dimensions of LSMPAs. This paper draws on the results of a global "Think Tank on the Human Dimensions of Large Scale Marine Protected Areas" involving 125 people from 17 countries, including representatives from government agencies, non-governmental organizations, academia, professionals, industry, cultural/indigenous leaders and LSMPA site managers. The overarching goal of this effort was to be proactive in understanding the issues and developing best management practices and a research agenda that address the human dimensions of LSMPAs. Identified best management practices for the human dimensions of LSMPAs included: integration of culture and traditions, effective public and stakeholder engagement, maintenance of livelihoods and wellbeing, promotion of economic sustainability, conflict management and resolution, transparency and matching institutions, legitimate and appropriate governance, and social justice and empowerment. A shared human dimensions research agenda was developed that included priority topics under the themes of scoping human dimensions, governance, politics, social and economic outcomes, and culture and tradition. The authors discuss future directions in researching and incorporating human dimensions into LSMPAs design and management, reflect on this global effort to co-produce knowledge and re-orient practice on the human dimensions of LSMPAs, and invite others to join a nascent community of practice on the human dimensions of large-scale marine conservation.

show abstract

“…While recent studies have shown the educational impacts zoos and aquariums can foster globally (e.g., Jensen, ; Moss, Jensen, & Gusset, ; Moss, Jensen, & Gusset, ; Wagoner & Jensen, , ), there are no published longitudinal studies that track zoos’ and aquariums’ learning impacts at the individual level over an extended period of time. Given the long‐term nature of change that is required to establish a more environmentally sustainable world, quantifying such long‐term impact is a key interest in the conservation social sciences (Bennett et al, ). The present study builds on a previous repeated‐measures impact evaluation that assessed differences between zoo and aquarium visitors’ pre‐ and post‐visit biodiversity literacy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying long‐term impact of zoo and aquarium visits on biodiversity‐related learning outcomes

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zoos and aquariums aim to achieve lasting impact on their public audiences' awareness of biodiversity, its value, and the steps they can take to conserve it. Here, we evaluate the long-term educational impact of visits to zoos and aquariums on biodiversity understanding and knowledge of actions to help protect biodiversity. A minimum of two years after completing a repeated-measures survey before and after visiting a zoo or aquarium, the same participants were invited to take part in a follow-up online survey. Despite the small number of respondents (n = 161), our study may still represent the best available quantitative evidence pertaining to zoo and aquarium visits' long-term educational impact. We found that improvements in respondents' biodiversity understanding from pre- to post-visit leveled off, staying unchanged in the follow-up survey. In contrast, the improved knowledge of actions to help protect biodiversity from pre- to post-visit showed further improvement from post-visit to delayed post-visit follow-up survey. These results suggest that the immediate positive effects of a zoo or aquarium visit on biodiversity-related learning outcomes may be long lasting and even help lay the groundwork for further improvements over an extended period of time following the visit.

show abstract

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Cited by 51 publications

References 10 publications

A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research

A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research

Why people matter in ocean governance: Incorporating human dimensions into large-scale marine protected areas

Quantifying long‐term impact of zoo and aquarium visits on biodiversity‐related learning outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About