Reviewing the science on 50 years of conservation: Knowledge production biases and lessons for practice

IF 5.8 2区环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL

Ambio Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1007/s13280-024-02049-w

Neil M. Dawson, Brendan Coolsaet, Aditi Bhardwaj, David Brown, Bosco Lliso, Jacqueline Loos, Laura Mannocci, Adrian Martin, Malena Oliva, Unai Pascual, Pasang Sherpa, Thomas Worsdell

{"title":"Reviewing the science on 50 years of conservation: Knowledge production biases and lessons for practice","authors":"Neil M. Dawson, Brendan Coolsaet, Aditi Bhardwaj, David Brown, Bosco Lliso, Jacqueline Loos, Laura Mannocci, Adrian Martin, Malena Oliva, Unai Pascual, Pasang Sherpa, Thomas Worsdell","doi":"10.1007/s13280-024-02049-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Drawing on 662 studies from 102 countries, we present a systematic review of published empirical studies about site-level biodiversity conservation initiated between 1970 and 2019. Within this sample, we find that knowledge production about the Global South is largely produced by researchers in the Global North, implying a neocolonial power dynamic. We also find evidence of bias in reported ecological outcomes linked to lack of independence in scientific studies, serving to uphold narratives about who should lead conservation. We explore relationships in the sample studies between conservation initiative types, the extent of Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ influence in governance, and reported social and ecological outcomes. Findings reveal positive ecological and social outcomes are strongly associated with higher levels of influence of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and their institutions, implying equity in conservation practice should be advanced not only for moral reasons, but because it can enhance conservation effectiveness.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":461,"journal":{"name":"Ambio","volume":"53 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11383897/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ambio","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-024-02049-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drawing on 662 studies from 102 countries, we present a systematic review of published empirical studies about site-level biodiversity conservation initiated between 1970 and 2019. Within this sample, we find that knowledge production about the Global South is largely produced by researchers in the Global North, implying a neocolonial power dynamic. We also find evidence of bias in reported ecological outcomes linked to lack of independence in scientific studies, serving to uphold narratives about who should lead conservation. We explore relationships in the sample studies between conservation initiative types, the extent of Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ influence in governance, and reported social and ecological outcomes. Findings reveal positive ecological and social outcomes are strongly associated with higher levels of influence of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and their institutions, implying equity in conservation practice should be advanced not only for moral reasons, but because it can enhance conservation effectiveness.

查看原文本刊更多论文

回顾科学保护 50 年：知识生产偏差与实践经验。

我们利用来自 102 个国家的 662 项研究，对 1970 年至 2019 年间发表的有关遗址级生物多样性保护的实证研究进行了系统回顾。在这一样本中，我们发现有关全球南部的知识主要由全球北部的研究人员创造，这意味着一种新殖民主义的权力动态。我们还发现，有证据表明，报告的生态结果存在偏差，这与科学研究缺乏独立性有关，有助于维护关于谁应该领导保护工作的说法。我们在样本研究中探讨了保护措施类型、原住民和当地社区在治理中的影响程度以及报告的社会和生态成果之间的关系。研究结果表明，积极的生态和社会成果与原住民和当地社区及其机构的较高影响力密切相关，这意味着在保护实践中应促进公平，这不仅是出于道德原因，还因为它可以提高保护效果。

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

Ambio 环境科学-工程：环境

CiteScore

14.30

自引率

3.10%

发文量

123

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： Explores the link between anthropogenic activities and the environment, Ambio encourages multi- or interdisciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. Ambio addresses the scientific, social, economic, and cultural factors that influence the condition of the human environment. Ambio particularly encourages multi- or inter-disciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. For more than 45 years Ambio has brought international perspective to important developments in environmental research, policy and related activities for an international readership of specialists, generalists, students, decision-makers and interested laymen.