Pathways to just conservation: A crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis of environmental defender mobilization in conservation conflicts

IF 8.6 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Raphael Anammasiya Ayambire , Jeremy Pittman , Gideon Abagna Azunre , Cynthia Itbo Musah , Romeo Agominab , Abdul-Salam Jahanfo Abdulai , Owusu Amponsah , Stephen Appiah Takyi
{"title":"Pathways to just conservation: A crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis of environmental defender mobilization in conservation conflicts","authors":"Raphael Anammasiya Ayambire ,&nbsp;Jeremy Pittman ,&nbsp;Gideon Abagna Azunre ,&nbsp;Cynthia Itbo Musah ,&nbsp;Romeo Agominab ,&nbsp;Abdul-Salam Jahanfo Abdulai ,&nbsp;Owusu Amponsah ,&nbsp;Stephen Appiah Takyi","doi":"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2025.103030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Conservation policies intended to address biodiversity loss and climate change are increasingly linked to land dispossession, human rights violations, and the criminalization of environmental defenders. While prior research has highlighted the risks defenders face, less is known about the strategies and conditions that enable them to succeed. This study uses crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA) of 25 conservation conflict cases from the Environmental Justice Atlas to identify the pathways through which defenders effectively resist unjust conservation practices. We identify four causal pathways to successful mobilization: two epistemic strategies, where defenders use alternative knowledge mobilization to either strengthen legal claims or build broad coalitions; one preventive strategy focused on early mobilization; and a comprehensive strategy drawing on nearly all conditions, except direct action. Across all pathways, alternative knowledge mobilization, such as defender-led health studies and ecological assessments, plays a central role in successful mobilization, while direct action tactics were notably absent in all successful pathways. These findings challenge assumptions about confrontation as a necessary ingredient for effective resistance and advance new insights into how knowledge politics shape just outcomes in conservation conflicts. As the global conservation community intensifies efforts to safeguard biodiversity and uphold the rights of affected communities, centering the strategies and experiences of environmental defenders is essential to ensuring equitable and effective conservation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":328,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 103030"},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Change","FirstCategoryId":"6","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378025000676","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conservation policies intended to address biodiversity loss and climate change are increasingly linked to land dispossession, human rights violations, and the criminalization of environmental defenders. While prior research has highlighted the risks defenders face, less is known about the strategies and conditions that enable them to succeed. This study uses crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA) of 25 conservation conflict cases from the Environmental Justice Atlas to identify the pathways through which defenders effectively resist unjust conservation practices. We identify four causal pathways to successful mobilization: two epistemic strategies, where defenders use alternative knowledge mobilization to either strengthen legal claims or build broad coalitions; one preventive strategy focused on early mobilization; and a comprehensive strategy drawing on nearly all conditions, except direct action. Across all pathways, alternative knowledge mobilization, such as defender-led health studies and ecological assessments, plays a central role in successful mobilization, while direct action tactics were notably absent in all successful pathways. These findings challenge assumptions about confrontation as a necessary ingredient for effective resistance and advance new insights into how knowledge politics shape just outcomes in conservation conflicts. As the global conservation community intensifies efforts to safeguard biodiversity and uphold the rights of affected communities, centering the strategies and experiences of environmental defenders is essential to ensuring equitable and effective conservation.
公正保护之路:保护冲突中环境保护者动员的脆集定性比较分析
旨在解决生物多样性丧失和气候变化问题的保护政策越来越多地与土地剥夺、侵犯人权和将环境维护者定罪联系在一起。虽然先前的研究强调了防御者面临的风险,但对使他们成功的策略和条件知之甚少。本研究采用脆集定性比较分析(csQCA)对来自环境正义地图集的25个保护冲突案例进行分析,以确定捍卫者有效抵制不公正保护行为的途径。我们确定了成功动员的四种因果途径:两种认知策略,捍卫者使用替代知识动员来加强法律主张或建立广泛的联盟;一项预防战略侧重于早期动员;以及一项综合战略,考虑到除了直接行动之外的几乎所有条件。在所有途径中,替代性知识动员,如捍卫者主导的健康研究和生态评估,在成功的动员中起着核心作用,而在所有成功的途径中明显缺乏直接行动策略。这些发现挑战了对抗是有效抵抗的必要因素的假设,并提出了知识政治如何在保护冲突中塑造公正结果的新见解。随着全球保护界加强保护生物多样性和维护受影响社区权利的努力,以环境维护者的战略和经验为中心,对于确保公平和有效的保护至关重要。
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
Global Environmental Change
Global Environmental Change 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
18.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
146
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Global Environmental Change is a prestigious international journal that publishes articles of high quality, both theoretically and empirically rigorous. The journal aims to contribute to the understanding of global environmental change from the perspectives of human and policy dimensions. Specifically, it considers global environmental change as the result of processes occurring at the local level, but with wide-ranging impacts on various spatial, temporal, and socio-political scales. In terms of content, the journal seeks articles with a strong social science component. This includes research that examines the societal drivers and consequences of environmental change, as well as social and policy processes that aim to address these challenges. While the journal covers a broad range of topics, including biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate, coasts, food systems, land use and land cover, oceans, urban areas, and water resources, it also welcomes contributions that investigate the drivers, consequences, and management of other areas affected by environmental change. Overall, Global Environmental Change encourages research that deepens our understanding of the complex interactions between human activities and the environment, with the goal of informing policy and decision-making.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信