{"title":"Pathways to just conservation: A crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis of environmental defender mobilization in conservation conflicts","authors":"Raphael Anammasiya Ayambire , Jeremy Pittman , Gideon Abagna Azunre , Cynthia Itbo Musah , Romeo Agominab , Abdul-Salam Jahanfo Abdulai , Owusu Amponsah , 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.
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.