The scope of empowerment for conservation and communities.

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Conservation Biology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-15 DOI:10.1111/cobi.14249
Michael A Petriello, Lauren Redmore, Aby L Sène, Dhananjaya Katju, Lilian Barraclough, Sara Boyd, Carly Madge, Anastasia Papadopoulos, Reddi S Yalamala
{"title":"The scope of empowerment for conservation and communities.","authors":"Michael A Petriello, Lauren Redmore, Aby L Sène, Dhananjaya Katju, Lilian Barraclough, Sara Boyd, Carly Madge, Anastasia Papadopoulos, Reddi S Yalamala","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conservationists increasingly position conservation that is mutually beneficial to people and biodiversity on the promise of empowerment of people through participatory discourse, metrics, processes, and outcomes. Empowerment represents multidimensional concepts and theories that permeate the interlinking levels of power, from the psychological to the political, and social scales in which conservation operates. The multifaceted nature of empowerment makes it challenging to understand, pursue, and evaluate as a central philosophical commitment and goal-oriented practice in conservation. Moreover, definitional and methodological uncertainty may disempower interested and affected groups because they can foster conceptual assumptions that reinforce institutionalized barriers to systemic changes. Despite these complexities, there are no targeted reviews of empowerment in conservation. We conducted a scoping review of the conservation literature to synthesize the meanings and uses of empowerment in the field. We reviewed 121 of the most cited conservation articles that invoked or assessed empowerment from 1992 to 2017 to document geographic, conceptual, and methodological trends in the scales and theories of empowerment deployed by conservationists. Research claiming or assessing empowerment through conservation often focused on communities in the Global South. Most studies relied on qualitative and mixed methods (78%) collected largely from male or non-Indigenous participants. Few studies (30%) defined the 20 types of empowerment they referenced. Fewer studies (3%) applied empowerment theories in their work. Our findings show that empowerment discourse of local and Indigenous communities permeates the discourse of people-centered conservation. Yet, overreliance on empowerment's rhetorical promise and minimal engagement with theory (e.g., postcolonial theory) risks disempowering people by obscuring empowerment's foundational value to conservation and communities and oversimplifying the complex realities of people-centered conservation. Lasting change could come from more meaningful engagement with empowerment, including coproducing definitions and measures with and for disempowered social groups to tackle widespread power disparities in conservation today.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e14249"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11780202/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14249","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conservationists increasingly position conservation that is mutually beneficial to people and biodiversity on the promise of empowerment of people through participatory discourse, metrics, processes, and outcomes. Empowerment represents multidimensional concepts and theories that permeate the interlinking levels of power, from the psychological to the political, and social scales in which conservation operates. The multifaceted nature of empowerment makes it challenging to understand, pursue, and evaluate as a central philosophical commitment and goal-oriented practice in conservation. Moreover, definitional and methodological uncertainty may disempower interested and affected groups because they can foster conceptual assumptions that reinforce institutionalized barriers to systemic changes. Despite these complexities, there are no targeted reviews of empowerment in conservation. We conducted a scoping review of the conservation literature to synthesize the meanings and uses of empowerment in the field. We reviewed 121 of the most cited conservation articles that invoked or assessed empowerment from 1992 to 2017 to document geographic, conceptual, and methodological trends in the scales and theories of empowerment deployed by conservationists. Research claiming or assessing empowerment through conservation often focused on communities in the Global South. Most studies relied on qualitative and mixed methods (78%) collected largely from male or non-Indigenous participants. Few studies (30%) defined the 20 types of empowerment they referenced. Fewer studies (3%) applied empowerment theories in their work. Our findings show that empowerment discourse of local and Indigenous communities permeates the discourse of people-centered conservation. Yet, overreliance on empowerment's rhetorical promise and minimal engagement with theory (e.g., postcolonial theory) risks disempowering people by obscuring empowerment's foundational value to conservation and communities and oversimplifying the complex realities of people-centered conservation. Lasting change could come from more meaningful engagement with empowerment, including coproducing definitions and measures with and for disempowered social groups to tackle widespread power disparities in conservation today.

保护和社区的赋权范围。
保护主义者越来越多地将保护人类和生物多样性的互惠互利定位在通过参与性话语、衡量标准、过程和结果赋予人们权力的承诺上。赋权代表了多层面的概念和理论,渗透到权力的相互联系层面,从心理到政治,以及保护工作所涉及的社会范围。赋权的多面性使其作为保护工作的核心理念承诺和目标导向实践,在理解、追求和评估方面具有挑战性。此外,定义和方法上的不确定性可能会削弱相关群体和受影响群体的能力,因为它们可能会助长概念性假设,强化系统性变革的制度化障碍。尽管存在这些复杂性,但目前还没有对保护中的赋权进行有针对性的回顾。我们对保护文献进行了一次范围界定审查,以综合赋权在该领域的含义和用途。我们回顾了从 1992 年到 2017 年引用或评估赋权最多的 121 篇保护文章,记录了保护工作者在赋权规模和理论方面的地理、概念和方法趋势。通过保护主张或评估赋权的研究通常侧重于全球南部的社区。大多数研究依赖于定性和混合方法(78%),主要从男性或非土著参与者那里收集资料。很少有研究(30%)定义了他们提到的 20 种赋权类型。更少的研究(3%)在其工作中应用了赋权理论。我们的研究结果表明,地方和土著社区的赋权论述贯穿于以人为本的保护论述中。然而,过度依赖赋权的言辞承诺和对理论(如后殖民主义理论)的极少参与,有可能会掩盖赋权对保护和社区的基础价值,并过度简化以人为本的保护的复杂现实,从而削弱人们的权能。持久的变革可能来自于更有意义地参与赋权,包括与被剥夺权力的社会群体共同制定定义和措施,以解决当今保护领域普遍存在的权力不平等问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conservation Biology
Conservation Biology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
175
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信