Place-Based Bias in Environmental Scholarship Derived from Social–Ecological Landscapes of Fear

Abstract

Historical perspectives (e.g., moments of social, political, and economic significance) are increasingly relevant for developing insights into landscape change and ecosystem degradation. However, the question of how to incorporate historical events into ecological inquiry is still under development, owing to the evolving paradigm of transdisciplinary thinking between natural science and the humanities. In the present article, we call for the inclusion of negative human histories (e.g., evictions of communities and environmental injustices) as important factors that drive landscape change and shape research questions relevant to environmental conservation. We outline the detrimental effects of conservationists not addressing negative human histories by likening this social phenomenon to the ecological concept of landscapes of fear, which describes how not acknowledging these histories produces a landscape that constrains where and how research is conducted by scientists. Finally, we provide three positive recommendations for scholars or practitioners to address the manifestation of historic place-based bias in ecological research. What we call the social–ecological landscapes of fear provides a conceptual framework for more inclusive practices in ecology to increase the success of environmental and conservation goals.

A framework for contextualizing social‐ecological biases in contributory science data

“…Moreover, the history of the United States as a land of immigrants founded on stolen land and built by stolen enslaved peoples has left lasting legacies on land, people and society (Cushing et al, 2015;Gadsden et al, 2023;Morello-Frosch et al, 2011;Norgaard & Reed, 2017;Pulido, 2016;Schell, Dyson, et al, 2020;Swope et al, 2022). Consequently, the United States illustrates how socialecological variables interact to produce biases in contributory data.…”

“…At the landscape scale, place‐based bias due to negative human histories (e.g. war, segregation and displacement) may also influence where data are spatially reported (Gadsden et al., 2023), leading to race‐based spatial biases in the United States (Blake et al., 2020; Ellis‐Soto et al., 2023; Estien et al., 2023; Mahmoudi et al., 2022). In parallel, the policy of particular contributory projects or databases, for instance the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), may lead to some species‐rich countries to be undersampled compared with species‐poor areas (Beck et al., 2013; Yesson et al., 2007).…”

“…political disempowerment and segregation), inequities (e.g. economic disparity and educational access) and ecosystems vary regionally as a result of political history, culture, current and historical landscape use, and biotic and abiotic variables (Baldwin & Erickson, 2020; Cushing et al., 2015; Des Roches et al., 2021; Füssel, 2010; Gadsden et al., 2023; United Nations, 1965) To illustrate how social‐ecological variables can influence the data reported to contributory projects, we focus on a city in the United States—St. Louis, Missouri.…”

“…Given our positionality as Western scientists concentrated in the United States (see Positionality Statement in Supporting Information S1), we decided to base our case study on the country in which we currently reside, work and have first‐hand experience. The United States is a model for examining how societal inequity influences contributory data, given its extensive history and ongoing practices of racist and classist policies rooted in white supremacy, which shape the ecology of cities and their inhabitants (Agénor et al., 2021; Bonilla‐Silva, 2006; Bullard, 2020; Cushing et al., 2015; Gadsden et al., 2023; Jesdale et al., 2013; Joseph‐Salisbury & Connelly, 2018; Lavalley & Johnson, 2022; Lett et al., 2021; Mascarenhas et al., 2021; Morello‐Frosch et al., 2011; Pulido, 2015, 2016, 2018; Schell, Dyson, et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2020; Swope et al., 2022; Wright, 2021). Moreover, the history of the United States as a land of immigrants founded on stolen land and built by stolen enslaved peoples has left lasting legacies on land, people and society (Cushing et al., 2015; Gadsden et al., 2023; Morello‐Frosch et al., 2011; Norgaard & Reed, 2017; Pulido, 2016; Schell, Dyson, et al., 2020; Swope et al., 2022).…”

“…With contributory data, sampling locations and objectives are generally not predefined, and participants autonomously choose to collect data on certain organisms in certain areas (Roth, 2021). Historical legacies of injustice serve as the undercurrent of this supposed ‘autonomy’, as oppressive societal forces, such as apartheid and societal housing arrangements, constrain and dictate how participants of varying racial, ethnic, gender and socioeconomic identities navigate spaces (Finney, 2014; Gadsden et al., 2023; Wesely & Gaarder, 2004). Would‐be participants consequently select areas and environments they perceive as safe or have access to (Finney, 2014).…”