Advancing social impact assessments for more effective and equitable conservation

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Neil M. Dawson, Helen Suich
{"title":"Advancing social impact assessments for more effective and equitable conservation","authors":"Neil M. Dawson,&nbsp;Helen Suich","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Social objectives for conservation have expanded beyond consideration of material costs and benefits to recognize Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights, the importance of their full and effective participation, and the contribution of customary institutions and plural knowledge systems. Social impact assessment can help conservation professionals understand how social principles are reflected in practice and inform governance improvements. We reviewed the peer-reviewed and gray literature describing methodological approaches and their application to social impact assessments in conservation. We investigated whether the methodologies used empirically are advancing to reflect contemporary social objectives, in particular around rights, procedural justice, and recognition of identities and knowledge. In our initial review of methodological papers, we identified two interrelated themes that can drive high-quality social impact assessment: incorporation of the perspectives, knowledge systems and participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and the completeness and appropriateness of methodological approaches adopted. We categorized these themes into principles of good practice (e.g., local participation and disaggregated social analyses) and used them to analyze empirical social impact assessments and explore the extent to which they were applied. Empirical studies tended not to reflect expanded social objectives or methodological advancements. Few studies covered multiple domains of social impact, disaggregated results by social group, involved Indigenous Peoples and local communities, or presented a clear and informed methodological approach and strategy for use of mixed methods. To improve the quality of social impact assessments commensurate with the needs and social standards associated with conservation in the time of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the equitable involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in any assessment; the establishment of clear, appropriate, and complete methodological approaches; and the integration of social impact assessments into governance processes are essential.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14453","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14453","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social objectives for conservation have expanded beyond consideration of material costs and benefits to recognize Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights, the importance of their full and effective participation, and the contribution of customary institutions and plural knowledge systems. Social impact assessment can help conservation professionals understand how social principles are reflected in practice and inform governance improvements. We reviewed the peer-reviewed and gray literature describing methodological approaches and their application to social impact assessments in conservation. We investigated whether the methodologies used empirically are advancing to reflect contemporary social objectives, in particular around rights, procedural justice, and recognition of identities and knowledge. In our initial review of methodological papers, we identified two interrelated themes that can drive high-quality social impact assessment: incorporation of the perspectives, knowledge systems and participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and the completeness and appropriateness of methodological approaches adopted. We categorized these themes into principles of good practice (e.g., local participation and disaggregated social analyses) and used them to analyze empirical social impact assessments and explore the extent to which they were applied. Empirical studies tended not to reflect expanded social objectives or methodological advancements. Few studies covered multiple domains of social impact, disaggregated results by social group, involved Indigenous Peoples and local communities, or presented a clear and informed methodological approach and strategy for use of mixed methods. To improve the quality of social impact assessments commensurate with the needs and social standards associated with conservation in the time of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the equitable involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in any assessment; the establishment of clear, appropriate, and complete methodological approaches; and the integration of social impact assessments into governance processes are essential.

Abstract Image

保护的社会目标已从考虑物质成本和效益扩展到承认土著人民和当地社区的权利、他们充分有效参与的重要性以及传统机构和多元知识体系的贡献。社会影响评估可以帮助保护专业人员了解社会原则如何在实践中得到体现,并为改善治理提供信息。我们查阅了同行评议和灰色文献,这些文献介绍了保护工作中的社会影响评估方法及其应用。我们调查了实证使用的方法是否在不断进步,以反映当代的社会目标,特别是围绕权利、程序正义以及对身份和知识的认可。在对方法论论文的初步审查中,我们确定了两个可以推动高质量社会影响评估的相互关联的主题:纳入土著人民和当地社区的观点、知识体系和参与,以及所采用方法的完整性和适当性。我们将这些主题归类为良好实践原则(如当地参与和分类社会分析),并利用这些原则分析经验性社会影响评估,探讨其应用程度。经验性研究往往没有反映出社会目标的扩大或方法的进步。很少有研究涉及社会影响的多个领域、按社会群体对结果进行分类、让土著人民和当地社区参与进来,或提出了明确、知情的方法和使用混合方法的策略。为了提高社会影响评估的质量,使其符合昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架时期与保护相关的需求和社会标准,土著人民和当地社区公平参与任何评估;建立明确、适当和完整的方法论;以及将社会影响评估纳入治理过程都是至关重要的。
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