Gap analysis of social science resources for conservation practice

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Diane Detoeuf, Emiel de Lange, Harriet Ibbett, Trisha Gupta, Constanza Monterrubio Solís, Krossy Mavakala, Mariana Labão Catapani, Heidi E. Kretser, Eleanor J. Milner-Gulland, Stephanie Brittain, Helen Newing, Brandie Fariss, Charlotte Spira, Harold N. Eyster, Nicole DeMello, Kenneth E. Wallen, Sara A. Thornton, Nathan J. Bennett, Li Ling Choo
{"title":"Gap analysis of social science resources for conservation practice","authors":"Diane Detoeuf,&nbsp;Emiel de Lange,&nbsp;Harriet Ibbett,&nbsp;Trisha Gupta,&nbsp;Constanza Monterrubio Solís,&nbsp;Krossy Mavakala,&nbsp;Mariana Labão Catapani,&nbsp;Heidi E. Kretser,&nbsp;Eleanor J. Milner-Gulland,&nbsp;Stephanie Brittain,&nbsp;Helen Newing,&nbsp;Brandie Fariss,&nbsp;Charlotte Spira,&nbsp;Harold N. Eyster,&nbsp;Nicole DeMello,&nbsp;Kenneth E. Wallen,&nbsp;Sara A. Thornton,&nbsp;Nathan J. Bennett,&nbsp;Li Ling Choo","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Conservation is an inherently social process—people collectively endeavor to enact conservation. Yet, in conservation social science, research methodologies, training, and competency are less common than in natural sciences. Globally, formal education and training in the social sciences are often unavailable or inaccessible to conservation practitioners, and nonformal education may help fill this gap. To identify potential opportunities, we implemented a global survey of practitioners to identify their knowledge gaps and social science training needs and conducted a gap analysis of available social science training resources. We compiled 449 resources, including 266 English-language and 183 non-English-languages resources into an open-access online database hosted by the Conservation Social Science Partnership. Resources were categorized as communication, data collection, ethics and human rights, intervention, impact evaluation, or analysis. Most resources were open access (90%) and half were specific to conservation practice. Survey responses (<i>n</i> = 90) revealed demand for help with data analyses, research ethics, and human rights considerations. We found a need for organization leaders to prioritize social sciences in conservation, greater diversity of accessible training resources in alternate mediums and languages, resources tailored to conservation contexts, and additional ethics and human rights and data analysis resources.</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.14463","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14463","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

Conservation is an inherently social process—people collectively endeavor to enact conservation. Yet, in conservation social science, research methodologies, training, and competency are less common than in natural sciences. Globally, formal education and training in the social sciences are often unavailable or inaccessible to conservation practitioners, and nonformal education may help fill this gap. To identify potential opportunities, we implemented a global survey of practitioners to identify their knowledge gaps and social science training needs and conducted a gap analysis of available social science training resources. We compiled 449 resources, including 266 English-language and 183 non-English-languages resources into an open-access online database hosted by the Conservation Social Science Partnership. Resources were categorized as communication, data collection, ethics and human rights, intervention, impact evaluation, or analysis. Most resources were open access (90%) and half were specific to conservation practice. Survey responses (n = 90) revealed demand for help with data analyses, research ethics, and human rights considerations. We found a need for organization leaders to prioritize social sciences in conservation, greater diversity of accessible training resources in alternate mediums and languages, resources tailored to conservation contexts, and additional ethics and human rights and data analysis resources.

Abstract Image

社科资源保护实践的差距分析
自然保护本质上是一个社会过程——人们共同努力实施自然保护。然而,与自然科学相比,在保护社会科学中,研究方法、培训和能力并不常见。在全球范围内,社会科学方面的正规教育和培训对保护从业者来说往往是不可获得或无法获得的,而非正规教育可能有助于填补这一空白。为了发现潜在的机会,我们对从业人员进行了一项全球调查,以确定他们的知识差距和社会科学培训需求,并对现有的社会科学培训资源进行了差距分析。我们将449种资源(包括266种英语资源和183种非英语资源)汇编到由保护社会科学伙伴关系托管的开放式在线数据库中。资源被分类为通讯、数据收集、伦理与人权、干预、影响评估或分析。大多数资源是开放获取的(90%),一半是专门用于保护实践的。调查回复(n = 90)显示了对数据分析、研究伦理和人权考虑方面的帮助需求。我们发现,组织领导者需要优先考虑保护中的社会科学,以替代媒介和语言提供更多样化的可获得培训资源,为保护环境量身定制资源,以及额外的伦理、人权和数据分析资源。
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