Trends and future directions in the conservation social sciences

Abstract

This special issue commemorates the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Society for Conservation Biology's (SCB) Social Science Working Group (SSWG). In these 2 decades, the SSWG has grown into a global, interdisciplinary professional community. Our membership represents close to 60 countries and offers a home to a diverse group of social scientists, natural scientists, and conservation practitioners. The SSWG has been instrumental in legitimizing and mainstreaming the social sciences within SCB, elevating standards for conservation social sciences research and practice, and applying social science insights to conservation theory, practice, and policy. The special issue coincides with 2 other important recent milestones: the inaugural Conservation Social Science Conference, held online in November 2024, and the development of SSWG's new strategic plan (2025–2030).

“Trends and Future Directions in the Conservation Social Sciences” reflects on 2 decades of systematic application, integration, and expansion of the social sciences in conservation research and practice. It has been almost a decade since Bennett et al.’s (Bennett, Roth, Klain, Chan, Christie, et al., 2017; Bennett, Roth, Klain, Chan, Clark, et al., 2017) highly influential assessments of social science integration and mainstreaming in conservation. We conceived a special issue as an opportunity to highlight lessons learned from historical patterns, to examine emerging methodologies and technological advances, and to forecast trends in the contributions of the social sciences to conservation science and practice. Although the value of local case studies and small-scale investigations is considerable, our objective was to address major trends and transferable opportunities and challenges.

We received an overwhelming, yet geographically biased, response to the call for abstracts in 2024. Among the first authors of the 93 abstracts received, 48% were from universities, government, or other organizations in North America (primarily the United States and Canada), 20% were from Asia (India, China, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, and Indonesia), 19% from Europe (the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Norway), 8% from Oceania (primarily Australia), 3% from South America (Brazil and Chile), and one abstract was from Africa (South Africa). We reflect on this geographic imbalance below. Of these, we invited authors of 30 of the abstracts to submit full papers based on fit with the journal's general scope and requirements and the specific aims of the special issue. Following rigorous, double-blind peer review, 17 articles are included in the special issue, covering 5 major themes.

First, several manuscripts explore the growing role of the social sciences in the study and practice of conservation across biodiversity challenges, geographic regions, and time. For example, Detoeuf et al. (this issue) conducted a gap analysis of social science resources for conservation practice, highlighting an increasing need for more open-access social science training courses, including ethics training, practical guidance, and the development of resources in languages other than English. Dacks et al. (this issue) reflect on the emerging field of marine social science in the Oceania region, noting the untapped potential of qualitative and participatory research and calling for transdisciplinary collaborations to establish a richer, more comprehensive, and more just understanding of the world's peopled seas.

A second set of manuscripts examines the development of thematic interests in the study and practice of conservation social science, including drivers and outcomes in regional and global conservation. Jolly and Stronza (this issue), drawing on evidence from the Kattunayakans, a forest-dwelling Adivasi group living in and near the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary in southern India, examine the impact of protected areas on communities, emphasizing the need to integrate Indigenous knowledge of human–nature coexistences for effective and ethical conservation. Trimbach and Biedenweg (this issue) also draw on empirical data, this time from the United States and Chile, to reflect on how human well-being has become a major conceptual and applied mechanism that is needed to successfully integrate the social sciences on a global scale. They highlight how well-being indicators could further the inclusion of social goals, human data, local communities, and environmental justice into conservation. Complementing this approach, Dawson and Suich (this issue) assess whether current practices in social impact assessments for conservation reflect changing social objectives and whether their application is being used to drive progress toward more effective and equitable conservation governance. They conclude with practical recommendations to continue developing the robustness of social impact assessments.

A third theme highlights potential gaps or drawbacks associated with the direction and growth of the conservation social sciences. Bunce et al. (this issue) use social network analysis to illustrate how the structure and dynamics of epistemic communities influence knowledge production in conservation social science. Using neoliberal conservation literature as an example, the authors argue that this method uncovers critical gaps and imbalances that must be addressed to further just conservation practices. Moreau and Woodhouse (this issue) note challenges and opportunities for mainstreaming best practices in reporting standards and transparency to foster ethical research and enhance constructive interdisciplinary collaboration. They focus on opportunities to improve reporting on researchers’ positionality and relationships in the field and on how these affect methodological choices, data collection, analyses pursued, and conclusions. Eyster et al. (this issue) review the use of theoretical frameworks in recent publications in major conservation journals, highlighting the limitations associated with the predominant reliance on a subset of theories, which may mask important opportunities to reorient human action toward conservation action.

A fourth theme is successes and challenges in the application and integration of the social sciences into conservation. These contributions reflect on experiences within an environmental nongovernmental organization in the United Kingdom (Thornton et al., this issue) and a government department in the United States (Quartuch et al., this issue). Koot et al. (this issue) address the complex and often unacknowledged experience of intimidation and use and abuse of power structures to suppress or alter unwelcome perspectives in knowledge generation and dissemination. The authors investigate how “epistemological violence” might impede the progress and effectiveness of conservation and slow achievement of transdisciplinarity in our field. DePuy et al. (this issue) consider how the intensifying efforts to maximize impact may create tensions in interdisciplinary projects, especially when it comes to questions of scale. They encourage researchers to engage in more open and reflexive discussions about objectives, epistemological differences, and scale choices and how these are affected by power structures, positionality, and ethical considerations.

The final theme challenges us to look ahead by engaging in reflexive forecasting. Chang et al. (this issue) describe how developments in large language models, machine learning, and data mining can accelerate and scale the production of reliable evidence syntheses in conservation, thus overcoming challenges related to disciplinary differences in methodologies and reporting standards. Hajjar et al. (this issue) address key social science challenges that hinder the large-scale study of joint social and environmental conservation impact assessments. They introduce emerging tools to improve understanding of socioenvironmental synergies and trade-offs and ultimately social outcomes of conservation actions at scale. Thomas-Walters et al. (this issue) report on a survey of over 100 professionals working across different conservation sectors, highlighting the skills deemed necessary to prepare professionals to face emerging challenges in the ever-evolving field of conservation and noting the potential for building a more adaptable and resilient workforce to navigate the uncertainties of the future. Finally, Moreto et al. (this issue) explain why the fields of criminology, crime science, and criminal justice should be included in an expansion of Bennett, Roth, Klain, Chan, Christie, et al.’s (2017) framework to better integrate the social sciences. The manuscript provides a primer on the different fields’ relation to conservation problems and proposes a theory of change to illustrate how these fields can be integrated into existing and future conservation strategies and initiatives.

These works are clearly meritorious contributions to deepening understanding of the evolution, challenges, and opportunities in the conservation social sciences, but curating a special issue of this nature has its limitations. Despite a broad call for abstract submissions through a variety of SCB communication channels and efforts to promote access (e.g., through publication fee waivers), most abstract submissions were from authors in the Global North. This imbalance bears reflecting on because it reproduces regional and linguistic biases in the evidence base. The SCB is committed to ensuring that the science published in its journals meaningfully reflects the diversity of work being conducted and gives voice to perspectives from around the globe (e.g., Burgman et al., 2015). The relative lack of diversity in authorship and study location may be indicative of insufficient representation within SCB and SSWG networks and unresolved systemic barriers to the active engagement of researchers and practitioners from underrepresented groups and regions (e.g., Amano & Sutherland, 2013; Dawson et al., 2024; Maas et al., 2021). Important scholarship related to conservation social science exists in the Global South and the non-Anglophone sphere. In the future, to improve diversity, equity, justice, and inclusivity in publishing in conservation social science, special issues should focus on active recruitment of contributors from underrepresented regions (Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean) and enhancing support for authors via community building, mentoring, and networking.

Among the abstracts that did originate with Global South authors, the majority of submissions were case study reports that lacked the requirement of presenting broader trends and future directions of conservation social science. Despite presenting valuable scientific knowledge, contributions of this kind were out of scope for the special issue. With the benefit of hindsight, we acknowledge some missed opportunities to provide a platform for the knowledge generated through these efforts to be amplified. However, SCB offers an inclusive portfolio of journals with different foci, where the authors can pursue publishing these works to showcase the practitioner and researcher learning in the conservation social sciences at different scales.

Humanity undoubtedly faces a raft of socioecological crises as climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and geopolitical stressors dynamically reinforce and interact with resource constraints, human rights violations, displacement of people, conflict, and inequality at multiple scales (e.g., Gadsden et al., 2023; Hodgetts et al., 2021; Leach et al., 2018). Dietsch et al. (this issue), reflecting on the lessons of the past 2 decades, call on us to honor the disciplinary contributions to conservation policy and practice and highlight the integral role the conservation social sciences play in effectively and equitably addressing these complex problems. Critical scholarship and action research are needed to enable pathways for transformative change toward improved relationships between people and nature and toward lasting enhancements to biodiversity, human well-being, and social justice (e.g., Kimmerer, 2013; Massarella et al., 2021; Montgomery et al., 2024; Wyborn et al., 2021).

The SSWG has played a fundamental role in building capacity, legitimizing, and mainstreaming the social sciences within and beyond SCB. Thanks in large part to the dedication of social scientists and interdisciplinary conservationists active within SSWG and SCB over the past 2 decades, the role of the social sciences is now widely viewed as indispensable to the study and practice of conservation (e.g., Bennett, Roth, Klain, Chan, Christie, et al., 2017; Bennett, Roth, Klain, Chan, Clark, et al., 2017; Kareiva & Marvier, 2012; Mascia et al., 2003; Sandbrook et al., 2013) and high disciplinary standards of quality are being maintained to advance effective conservation (e.g., Teel et al., 2018). However, more remains to be done. The SSWG will continue to encourage contributions from across the social sciences, expanding its reach to even more disciplines, perspectives, and traditions, in recognition of the value of their distinct epistemological and ontological foundations to enhance theory, methods, and practices. As the organizational home for conservation social scientists within the SCB, the SSWG supports sharing knowledge, constructing disciplinary standards, promoting professional development, and giving a social science voice to academic and policy debates in conservation. We commit to expanding our vibrant, respected global community of conservation social scientists and ensuring the next generation of leaders even more fully reflects its diverse voices and expertise.

We are current elected members of the Board of Directors for the SSWG (Banerjee, Selinske, Vercammen), a former board member (Sandbrook), and an SCB member supporting the SSWG work in a voluntary capacity (Clifton). All of us have been involved with SCB in various roles over several years; we were not active at the inception of the SSWG. This introduction was reviewed by current members of the SSWG Board. We acknowledge that, based on demographic background, life history, educational and professional journeys, and personal values, we each hold biases and world views that affect how we understand and approach conservation questions, challenges, and opportunities. The selection of articles for this special issue was based on best practices in peer review, and each manuscript was rigorously evaluated under the auspices of one of the guest editors (Banerjee, Selinske, Vercammen). We acknowledge the valued contributions of the reviewers who were instrumental in promoting the highest standards for the application of social science research and practice in conservation.