The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided

Sandbrook, Chris; Fisher, Janet; Holmes, George; Luque‐Lora, Rogelio; Keane, Aidan

doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0267-5

Cited by 163 publications

(175 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

166

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it is known that people with different backgrounds and experiences favour different approaches for conservation generally (Sandbrook et al. ) and for conflicts specifically (Lute et al. ), our results shed further light on these differences and highlight the possible processes and factors influencing how conservationists make decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…For instance age, gender, and regional origin all predict respondent’ general conservation rationale and support for market‐based conservation (Sandbrook et al. ), and gender can predict local management preferences (Keane et al. ) and attitudes to particular taxa (Suryawanshi et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, like all people (Schultz ), the priorities of conservation professionals differ (Sandbrook et al. ) and are likely shaped by predispositions, cognitive biases, and values (Sheil & Meijaard ; Kiik ). However, how such factors may influence conflict‐intervention decision making remains underexplored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts

Baynham-Herd

Redpath

Keane

2019

Conservation Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing interest in developing effective interventions to manage socially and environmentally damaging conservation conflicts. There are a variety of intervention strategies that can be applied in various contexts, but the reasons one type of intervention is chosen over another remain underexplored. We surveyed conservation researchers and practitioners (n = 427) to explore how characteristics of conflicts and characteristics of decision makers influence recommendations to alleviate conservation conflict. Using a full-factorial design, we experimentally manipulated 3 aspects of the descriptions of 8 different wildlife-conflict scenarios (development status of the conflict country, conflict framing, and legality of killing wild animals) and recorded which of 5 intervention types (wildlife impact reduction, awareness, enforcement, economic incentives, or stakeholder engagement) respondents prioritized. We also recorded information on respondents' demographic and disciplinary backgrounds. Stakeholder-based interventions were recommended most often in the survey and in written feedback. However, when we fitted multinomial mixed logit models with fully completed scenario responses (n = 411), recommendations were influenced by small changes in the details of conflict and differed according to respondent characteristics. Enforcement and awareness interventions were prioritized relatively more for conflicts in more highly developed nations and by respondents with more natural science backgrounds and relatively less experience with conflict. Contrastingly, economic interventions were prioritized more when wildlife killing was described as illegal. Age, gender, and development status of the respondent's home country also predicted some intervention decisions. Further, interrogating the influences shaping conservation decision making will further helps in the development of evidence-informed interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts

Baynham-Herd

Redpath

Keane

2019

Conservation Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Through a critical re-interpretation, we seek to take out the current discussion on conservation science (its foundations, motivations, implications, approaches, etc.) from the swamp in which we believe it is (see Sandbrook et al 2019); and help move it towards a more participatory, democratic, egalitarian, effective and transformative debate. Thus, as an objective derived from the first one above mentioned, we will try to show why we believe the SES perspective should be incorporated in the field of conservation science, provided that it paves the road among researchers, practitioners and actual stakeholders (see Mehring et al 2017), and its effects reach all the way down to local implementation of science-influenced public policies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Although in recent years the SES perspective has been gaining ground and momentum among some groups of conservation scientists (e.g., Balvanera et al 2017 and references therein), its implementation is far from being hegemonic in the conservation arena (see Mehring et al 2017). The most widespread conservation practices are still much closer to those defined and structured by their historical referents, such as e.g., Soulé (1985Soulé ( , 2013, but see the heated dispute called 'Anthropocene conservation debate' between this author and Michelle Marvier and Peter Kareiva, among others (e.g., Kareiva and Marvier 2012; but see Sandbrook et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving towards public policy-ready science: philosophical insights on the social-ecological systems perspective for conservation science

Sala

Torchio

2019

Ecosystems and People

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The social-ecological systems (SES) perspective stems from the need to rethink the ways humans relate to the environment, given the evidence that conventional conservation and management approaches are often ineffective in dealing with complex socio-environmental problems. The SES approach conceives non-scientific and scientific knowledge as equally necessary in the process of management and public policy formation. Thus, the adoption of the SES approach must also serve to make better decisions about what kind of science and technology would be 'public policy-ready' (as well as also 'policy-relevant'); that is, a science oriented and conceived to provide concrete solutions to societal needs and demands. Here we review and reinterpret the SES perspective as a real paradigm change for conservation science. Under the lenses of philosophy, we try to untangle some weak points of the SES approach in order to advance to a conservation science closer to the process of science-based public policy creation and to enhance the intertwining with other types of knowledge. In this sense, we discuss how co-production of knowledge and decision-making process under the SES perspective are a huge step forward towards fulfilling the need to bring increasingly closer the spheres of science and policy, narrowing its interface.

show abstract

Biogeosciences Perspectives on Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) Science

Dwivedi¹,

Santos²,

Barnard³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) principles in the American Geophysical Union Biogeosciences section, and discussion on the opportunities and challenges of adopting them. Each commentary focuses on a different topic: (a) Global collaboration, technology transfer, and application (Section 2), (b) Community engagement, community science, education, and stakeholder involvement (Section 3), and (c) Field, experimental, remote sensing, and real-time data research and application (Section 4). We discuss needs and strategies for implementing ICON and outline short-and long-term goals. The inclusion of global data and international community engagement are key to tackling grand challenges in biogeosciences. Although recent technological advances and growing open-access information across the world have enabled global collaborations to some extent, several barriers, ranging from technical to organizational to cultural, have remained in advancing interoperability and tangible scientific progress in biogeosciences. Overcoming these hurdles is necessary to address pressing large-scale research questions and applications in the biogeosciences, where ICON principles are essential. Here, we list several opportunities for ICON, including coordinated experimentation and field observations across global sites, that are ripe for implementation in biogeosciences as a means to scientific advancements and social progress. Plain Language SummaryBiogeosciences is an interdisciplinary field that requires multiscale global data and concerted international community efforts to tackle grand challenges. However, several technical, institutional, and cultural hurdles have remained as major roadblocks toward scientific progress, hindering seamless global data acquisition and international community engagement. To bring a paradigm shift in biogeosciences, there is a need to implement integrated, coordinated, open, and networked efforts, collectively known as the Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) principles. In this article, we present three related commentaries about the state of ICON, discuss needs to reduce geographical bias in data for enhancing scientific progress, and identify action items. Action items are primarily people-centric DWIVEDI ET AL.

show abstract

The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided

Abstract: Biodiversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate, making the conservation movement of critical importance for life on Earth. However, recent debates over the future of conservation have been polarised, acrimonious and dominated by an unrepresentative demographic group.

Cited by 163 publications

References 64 publications

Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts

Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts

Moving towards public policy-ready science: philosophical insights on the social-ecological systems perspective for conservation science

Biogeosciences Perspectives on Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About