Toward a pluralistic conservation science

Abstract

This editorial reflects on the history of the conservation movement, the strong continuing influence of its colonial past, and the counter‐emergence of a more pluralistic and respectful worldview. Conservation Letters seeks to support and foster an ethical and inclusive discipline of conservation that discards elements of its colonial and racist history. This will involve broadening the disciplinary scope of “conservation” and paying greater attention to traditional ecological knowledge and nonwestern conservation approaches. We also see a particular need for theoretical advances that guide conservation practice by informing and connecting different kinds of expertise to understand social‐ecological interactions and their implications for both people and ecosystems. Conservation can and should play a vital role in securing the joint future of ecosystems and people, but it will only achieve its full potential if it retains its social license and stays relevant to emerging concerns and values.

Wilding cities for biodiversity and people: a transdisciplinary framework

“…However, despite calls to integrate knowledge in cities, there remain considerable differences in the perspectives of conservation and social sciences. Conservation approaches, underpinned by the protection of ecosystems, are sometimes carried out without considering local social issues or decision‐making systems, which can lead to social injustices and operational limitations (Cumming et al ., 2023; Pascual et al ., 2021; Robertson & Hull, 2001). Conversely, social and sustainability studies often consider nature in an instrumental and general manner, without considering the diversity of ecological and functional aspects (Botzat, Fischer & Kowarik, 2016).…”