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:10.1111/cobi.12788

Cited by 342 publications

(286 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

284

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Research and information must be effectively communicated and congruent with the priorities of decision makers [17], and cross-sector collaboration can help to facilitate the assimilation of knowledge. Traditional conservation efforts have unfortunately been hindered by a general paucity of strategic and lasting cross-sector partnerships [18][19][20][21][22]. This lack of connection can impede the development and implementation of standardized methods for conducting and monitoring restoration making broad-scale comparison of restoration success difficult [23,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Global Synthesis Reveals Gaps in Coastal Habitat Restoration Research

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Coastal ecosystems have drastically declined in coverage and condition across the globe. To combat these losses, marine conservation has recently employed habitat restoration as a strategy to enhance depleted coastal ecosystems. For restoration to be a successful enterprise, however, it is necessary to identify and address potential knowledge gaps and review whether the field has tracked scientific advances regarding best practices. This enables managers, researchers, and practitioners alike to more readily establish restoration priorities and goals. We synthesized the peer-reviewed, published literature on habitat restoration research in salt marshes, oyster reefs, and seagrasses to address three questions related to restoration efforts: (i) How frequent is cross-sector authorship in coastal restoration research? (ii) What is the geographic distribution of coastal restoration research? and (iii) Are abiotic and biotic factors equally emphasized in the literature, and how does this vary with time? Our vote-count survey indicated that one-third of the journal-published studies listed authors from at least two sectors, and 6% listed authors from all three sectors. Across all habitat types, there was a dearth of studies from Africa, Asia, and South America. Finally, despite many experimental studies demonstrating that species interactions can greatly affect the recovery and persistence of coastal foundation species, only one-fourth of the studies we examined discussed their effects on restoration. Combined, our results reveal gaps and discrepancies in restoration research that should be addressed in order to further propel coastal restoration science.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Global Synthesis Reveals Gaps in Coastal Habitat Restoration Research

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most internationally derived indicator sets (e.g., GDP ranking, world development indicators, IUCN Red List index) measure ecosystem and human health separately. Recent efforts to reconcile nature conservation and human development include promoting the integration of social sciences into conservation (Mascia et al 2003, Agrawal and Ostrom 2006, Brosius 2006, Barry and Born 2013, Sandbrook et al 2013, Bennett et al 2016, Ives et al 2017 and the integration of local actors (e.g., community members, NGOs, local government) into research and action through social-ecological systems resilience studies, community-based management, or in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity (Altieri and Merrick 1987, Alcorn 1993, Pinedo-Vásquez and Padoch 1993, Berkes 2008, Liu and Opdam 2014, Ens et al 2016. These efforts have led to (1) more nuanced human well-being indicators, modified from the Human Development Index, to better integrate material conditions, quality of life (e.g., spiritual dimensions, social connections, environmental quality, and subjective wellbeing), and sustainability of well-being (i.e., human, social, economic, and natural capital) (Clark 2014, OECD 2015, Biedenweg et al 2017, Gross-Camp 2017, Wali et al 2017, and (2) sets of indicators, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, that include people-focused and ecological goals but fall short in integrating these domains through attention to the feedbacks and interactions between humans and the environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators

Caillon¹,

Cullman²,

Verschuuren³

et al. 2017

E&S

Self Cite

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Diverse and productive ecosystems and human well-being are too often considered opposing targets. This stems mainly from nature being perceived as separate from culture, which results in resilience indicators that focus predominantly on either ecosystems or humans, and that overlook the interplay between the two. Meanwhile, global targets for biodiversity conservation and human wellbeing have yet to be satisfactorily achieved. We believe that in order to develop effective, culturally appropriate, and equitable conservation strategies that ensure social-ecological resilience, conservation planners and practitioners must conceive of human and ecological wellbeings as an interrelated system. By giving nature a voice, and by viewing nature and people as an undifferentiated whole, some indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) have philosophical bases for achieving well-being for both humans and nature. Biocultural approaches to conservation ground management in local knowledges, practices, and ontologies. These approaches encompass both the biological and cultural aspects of a system, address complex relationships and feedbacks within human and ecological well-being, and offer flexible frameworks that facilitate synthesis across different metrics, knowledge systems, and ontologies. The process of developing indicators of resilience with a biocultural approach could help (1) overcome the human-nature dichotomy that often makes global approaches incompatible with local approaches by integrating local peoples' diverse forms of relating to nature, (2) reflect two-way feedbacks between people and their environment by focusing on processes, not just final states, and (3) define, measure, and monitor ecological and human well-being as a whole. It can also facilitate dialog between IPLCs and global decisionmakers who are disconnected from local realities, and between people from a diversity of disciplinary, ontological, and professional backgrounds.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Efforts in related interdisciplinary fields, such as the conservation sciences, demonstrate the extent to which engagement within and across the natural and social sciences tends to be fragmented and superficial (Bennett et al 2017b). The role social science can play in informing viable future trajectories is not only often misunderstood by scholars who sit outside those fields (Bennett et al 2017b), it is also internally contested among social scientists. Aside from philosophical divides among the life, physical, and social sciences, there exist deep-rooted competing ontological and epistemological assumptions, emphases, and understandings of society-environment interactions within the social sciences (see Miller et al 2008, ISSC/UNESCO 2013, Leyshon 2014, Moon and Blackman 2014.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the contribution of the social sciences to social-ecological resilience research

Stone-Jovicich¹,

Goldstein²,

Brown³

et al. 2018

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 2018. Expanding the contribution of the social sciences to social-ecological resilience research. Ecology and Society 23 (1) INTRODUCTIONAs we are confronted with mounting evidence of the profound and potentially irreversible impacts of human activities on the planet-encapsulated in the notion of the Anthropocene-the need to engage across a range of ways of knowing and doing becomes increasingly urgent. The intersection and interdependence of human-environment systems is seen by scholars, policy makers, and other stakeholders as providing a promising vehicle for bridging understandings and guiding actions toward a more sustainable future Folke 1998, Berkes et al. 2008).Growing attention is thus being focused on social-ecological resilience. Indeed, it is increasingly being adopted as a centerpiece of policy making, planning processes, and management strategies (e.g., Field et al. 2014; http://www.100resilientcities.org). It also is being embraced in other fora-such as civil society and social movements (e.g., the Transition Movement) and in arts and creative practice-as a means to invoke and provoke critical reflection and debates about society directions and alternative visions (e.g., Rathwell and Armitage 2016, Brown et al. 2017; https://transitionnetwork.org).The effectiveness of social-ecological resilience in informing transitions to more sustainable futures and actions depends on an understanding of biophysical, environmental, and human systems. There is widespread agreement that we need integrative research that transcends disciplinary boundaries and embraces ideas from the natural and social sciences, as well as other bodies of knowledge (e.g., Castree et al. 2014, Brondizio et al. 2016). This is not new to social-ecological resilience. Over the past decade, the field has taken a "social turn" (Brown 2013) as resilience researchers broadened their theoretical and methodological lens to incorporate insights and approaches from a wide range of non-natural science disciplines: from the social and behavioral sciences (e.g., sociology, anthropology, human geography, economics, psychology) to closely aligned interdisciplinary fields (e.g., sustainability sciences, global environmental change sciences, environmental education, architecture, planning, law) and, to some extent, the humanities (e.g., literature, philosophy, religion, arts, and music). The field also has widened its concept of what are credible knowledge practices, expanding from a positivist tradition of scientific inquiry to interpretive and participatory modes of research (e.g., Fazey et al. 2018). This crossdisciplinary engagement has gained momentum over the years, as evidenced in the expansion in number and scope of integrative work presented at the Resilience conferences since 2008 (see Bousquet et al. 2016) and related publications.This Special Feature emerged in response to this mounting crossdisciplinary appetite and the opportunity to open up a discussion about how and in what ways this collaboration can be strengthened moving forwar...

show abstract

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Cited by 342 publications

References 29 publications

A Global Synthesis Reveals Gaps in Coastal Habitat Restoration Research

A Global Synthesis Reveals Gaps in Coastal Habitat Restoration Research

Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators

Expanding the contribution of the social sciences to social-ecological resilience research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Cited by 342 publications

References 29 publications

A Global Synthesis Reveals Gaps in Coastal Habitat Restoration Research

A Global Synthesis Reveals Gaps in Coastal Habitat Restoration Research

Moving beyond the human&#8211;nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators

Expanding the contribution of the social sciences to social-ecological resilience research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators