Conservation Biology最新文献

{"title":"Advancing social impact assessments for more effective and equitable conservation","authors":"Neil M. Dawson,&nbsp;Helen Suich","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14453","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14453","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":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14453","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143740981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Social science integration at state and federal fish and wildlife organizations in the United States","authors":"Michael R. Quartuch,&nbsp;Ashley Gramza,&nbsp;Chelsey Crandall,&nbsp;Emily Pomeranz,&nbsp;Rene Valdez,&nbsp;Natalie Sexton,&nbsp;Ann B. Forstchen,&nbsp;Coren Jagnow","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70004","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Increasingly, conservation professionals and scholars recognize the need for more holistic integration of social science in fish and wildlife management. This call is often framed around the complexity of 21st century conservation challenges and changing societal values toward fish and wildlife and its management. Fish and wildlife management agencies must engage with conservation social sciences to proactively address pressing conservation challenges, such as climate change, habitat degradation, wildfire, and biodiversity loss, and to identify, understand, and be responsive to changing societal needs, interests, and preferences. However, little data exist on fish and wildlife organizations’ abilities to address and effectively incorporate social science information into decision-making processes, policy, or practice. We examined how social science is conducted, supported, and integrated in state and federal fish and wildlife agencies in the United States and the barriers that might stymie successful integration. We surveyed social scientists working in these organizations through an online questionnaire. Although most state and federal social scientists believed social science information is important to their agency, support (e.g., adequate funding, staffing, professional development opportunities) was limited and barriers (i.e., knowledge, capacity, institutional, and ideological) stymied successful integration. To increase support and minimize barriers to integration, we recommend increasing or reallocating funds to hire social scientists to meet agency needs, clearly communicating the importance of conservation social science to staff, providing or funding social science training for all staff, and incorporating social science research methods and best practices in agency decision-making, planning, and policy efforts. Implementing the aforementioned strategies can improve agencies’ abilities to address complex conservation challenges and ensure agencies meet their public trust responsibilities through increased application of social science in fish and wildlife organizations.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Intimidation as epistemological violence against social science conservation research","authors":"Stasja Koot,&nbsp;Nowella Anyango-van Zwieten,&nbsp;Sian Sullivan,&nbsp;Wolfram Dressler,&nbsp;Marja Spierenburg,&nbsp;Lisa Trogisch,&nbsp;Esther Marijnen,&nbsp;Robert Fletcher,&nbsp;Inaya Rakhmani,&nbsp;Suraya Abdulwahab Afiff,&nbsp;Tor A. Benjaminsen,&nbsp;Sarah Milne,&nbsp;Hanne Svarstad,&nbsp;Bram Büscher,&nbsp;Anwesha Dutta,&nbsp;Celia Lowe,&nbsp;Nitin D. Rai","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14454","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14454","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We investigated intimidation of conservation social scientists, which is ongoing and aimed at silencing or discrediting research findings. Although social scientists share with conservation biologists the desire to understand and address the biodiversity crisis, their analysis of structural power relations and contradictions in conservation is sometimes not appreciated. Intimidation can take place before and during fieldwork, during the publication process, and after publication in academic and public spheres. We examined our diverse experiences of intimidation, including legal threats, character assassination, physical threats, job exclusion, and curtailment of academic freedom. Diverse actors, including national research granting bodies, international policy makers, donors, ethics bodies, and conservation biologists and organizations, may target research that does not align with their political, economic, financial, and ideological interests. We refer to intimidating practices to suppress or alter unwelcome perspectives or research findings as <i>epistemological violence</i>. Tactics of epistemological violence relate to structural, systemic, symbolic, discursive, and material violence and have significant implications for understanding and improving long-term conservation. Epistemological violence can impede the progress, effectiveness, and social justness of conservation and suppress critical or differently informed perspectives crucial for a well-functioning academia. Intimidation hampers crucial collaborations among disciplines and with societal partners. Epistemological violence has detrimental consequences for affected individuals, the broader conservation community, people living in or near conservation areas, and conservation achievements.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Essential skills for the training of conservation social scientists","authors":"Laura Thomas-Walters,&nbsp;Francisco Gelves-Gomez,&nbsp;Stephanie Brittain,&nbsp;Lily M. van Eeden,&nbsp;Nick Harvey Sky,&nbsp;Amit Kaushik,&nbsp;Kaylan Kemink,&nbsp;Patricia Manzano-Fischer,&nbsp;Kyle Plotsky,&nbsp;Matthew Selinske","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14456","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14456","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Since 2000, the field of biodiversity conservation has been reckoning with the historical lack of effective engagement with the social sciences in parallel with rapid declines in biodiversity and escalating concerns regarding socioecological justice exacerbated by many common conservation practices. As a result, there is now wide recognition among scholars and practitioners of the importance of understanding and engaging human dimensions in conservation practice. Developing and applying theoretical and practical knowledge related to the social sciences, therefore, should be a priority for people working in biodiversity conservation. We considered the training needs for the next generation of conservation social science professionals by surveying conservation professionals working in multiple sectors. Based on 119 responses, the 3 most cited soft skills (i.e., nontechnical abilities that facilitate effective interpersonal interaction, collaboration, and adaptability in diverse contexts) were cultural awareness and the ability to understand the values and perspectives of others, people management and conflict resolution skills, and the ability to develop and maintain inter- and intraorganizational networks and working relationships. The 3 most cited technical skills were expertise in behavior change expertise, expertise in government and policy, and general critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Overall, we found that current conservation social scientists believe students and early career conservationists should prioritize soft skills rather than technical skills to be effective. These skills were also correlated with the skills considered hardest to acquire through on-the-job training. We suggest early career conservationists develop essential soft and technical skills, including cultural awareness, networking, critical thinking, and statistical analysis tailored to sectoral and regional needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"New opportunities and challenges for conservation evidence synthesis from advances in natural language processing","authors":"Charlotte H. Chang,&nbsp;Susan C. Cook-Patton,&nbsp;James T. Erbaugh,&nbsp;Luci Lu,&nbsp;Yuta J. Masuda,&nbsp;István Molnár,&nbsp;Dávid Papp,&nbsp;Brian E. Robinson","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14464","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14464","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Addressing global environmental conservation problems requires rapidly translating natural and conservation social science evidence to policy-relevant information. Yet, exponential increases in scientific production combined with disciplinary differences in reporting research make interdisciplinary evidence syntheses especially challenging. Ongoing developments in natural language processing (NLP), such as large language models, machine learning (ML), and data mining, hold the promise of accelerating cross-disciplinary evidence syntheses and primary research. The evolution of ML, NLP, and artificial intelligence (AI) systems in computational science research provides new approaches to accelerate all stages of evidence synthesis in conservation social science. To show how ML, language processing, and AI can help automate and scale evidence syntheses in conservation social science, we describe methods that can automate querying the literature, process large and unstructured bodies of textual evidence, and extract parameters of interest from scientific studies. Automation can translate to other research agendas in conservation social science by categorizing and labeling data at scale, yet there are major unanswered questions about how to use hybrid AI-expert systems ethically and effectively in conservation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14464","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Use of theories of human action in recent conservation research","authors":"Harold N. Eyster,&nbsp;Rachelle K. Gould,&nbsp;Kai M. A. Chan,&nbsp;Terre Satterfield","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14461","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14461","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Social sciences are increasingly recognized as useful for reorienting human action toward environmental conservation. Fully realizing the social sciences’ potential requires applying social science methods to conservation challenges and drawing from and building on human action theories from across the social sciences to better understand how and when actions can realize positive social and environmental priorities. We conducted an in-depth analysis of a bounded, systematically selected set of conservation science peer-reviewed articles to investigate the prevalence of social science theories of human action in conservation research and whether these theories represent the richness of the social science literature related to human action. We censused papers published in 2023 in <i>Conservation Biology</i>, <i>Conservation Letters</i>, and <i>Biological Conservation</i> and assessed each paper's geographic scope, social science engagement, whether it investigated human action, and weather it explicitly used human action theories and underlying metatheory (i.e., ways of understanding the world and how one gains knowledge of it). Results across 533 papers showed that 32% of papers incorporated social science and that 64% of these social science papers investigated human action. Twenty-seven percent of these human action papers used explicit human action theories. The theory of planned behavior was the most used explicit theory (17% of action theory papers). The independent self metatheory was the most prevalent; it underlies the theory of planned behavior and focuses on understanding how personal attributes, such as values, shape intentional individual behavior. The prevalence of a few theories and metatheories in these dominant conservation journals may indicate a limited capacity for conservation research to build on previous research, avoid redundant reinvention, and unmask novel applications of social science theory that could reorient human action toward conservation. Human action theory use in conservation might be broadened by changing attitudes on the importance of human action theories for research; incorporating social theory in conservation education; asking reviewers to comment on theory usage and mandating theory reporting; creating spaces for social scientists and theory scholars; providing social scientists and theorists with decision-making power in organizations; rewarding theory use; recognizing feedback loops among theory use; and replacing colonial and capitalistic approaches to conservation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14461","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Trends and future directions in the conservation social sciences","authors":"Ans Vercammen,&nbsp;Sayan Banerjee,&nbsp;Kyle Clifton,&nbsp;Matthew Selinske,&nbsp;Chris Sandbrook","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70011","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;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).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;“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., &lt;span&gt;2017&lt;/span&gt;; Bennett, Roth, Klain, Chan, Clark, et al., &lt;span&gt;2017&lt;/span&gt;) 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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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 soci","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.70011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Human well-being indicators as a boundary object for social science integration into conservation","authors":"David J. Trimbach,&nbsp;Kelly Biedenweg","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14459","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14459","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Social science integration into conservation has taken many forms. We considered social science integration through human well-being indicator development and monitoring in Puget Sound (Washington, USA). We frame human well-being as a boundary object, which through boundary work and embedded social science research, has led to the integration of the social sciences into regional conservation. Through our framing, we show how human well-being indicator development and monitoring has produced 5 outcomes, which include the enhancement of a social-ecological narrative; institutionalization of social scientific expertise; integrated restoration planning and actions; funding for social science and monitoring; and provision of environmental justice data.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143740972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Navigating data challenges in socioeconomic impact assessments of conservation regimes","authors":"Reem Hajjar,&nbsp;Johan A. Oldekop,&nbsp;Roberto Toto,&nbsp;Lucas Alencar,&nbsp;Samuel D. Bell,&nbsp;Katie Devenish,&nbsp;Duong T. Khuu,&nbsp;Mariana Hernandez-Montilla,&nbsp;Suhyun Jung,&nbsp;Sandy Nofyanza,&nbsp;Lok Mani Sapkota","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14457","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14457","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Scholars are increasingly assessing the impact of conservation interventions at national and regional scales with robust causal inference methods designed to emulate randomized control trials (quasi-experimental methods). Although spatial and temporal data to measure habitat loss and gain with remote sensing tools are increasingly available, data to measure spatially explicit poverty and human well-being at a high resolution are far less available. Bridging this data gap is essential to assess the social outcomes of conservation actions at scale and improve understanding of socioenvironmental synergies and trade-offs. We reviewed the kinds of socioeconomic data that are publicly available to measure the effects of conservation interventions on poverty and well-being, including national census data, representative household surveys funded by international organizations, surveys collected for individual research programs, and high-resolution gridded poverty and well-being data sets. We considered 4 challenges in the use of these data sets: consistency and availability of indicators and metrics across regions and countries, availability of data at appropriate temporal and spatial resolutions, and technical considerations associated with data available in different formats. Potential workarounds to these challenges include analytical methods to help resolve data mismatches and the use of emerging data products.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14457","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741058","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A social network analysis of an epistemic community studying neoliberal conservation","authors":"Brittany Bunce,&nbsp;Elia Apostolopoulou,&nbsp;Sara Maestre Andres,&nbsp;Alejandra Pizarro Choy,&nbsp;Marina Requena-i-Mora,&nbsp;Dan Brockington","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70001","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Researchers typically operate in epistemic communities: groups that share common approaches to research agendas and sociopolitical action and define areas of debate. Although productive in their own spheres, a lack of understanding among these communities can undermine scientific progress. Thus, analyzing epistemic communities is important for understanding the politics of knowledge production. Social network analysis sheds light on these dynamics by mapping the collaborative networks that shape academic output. We used 255 publications examined in Apostolopoulou et al.’s review of neoliberal conservation literature and 2135 additional publications in a social network analysis. We compiled a coauthorship network for 318 authors and found a dispersed and polycentric network with low connectivity and relatively small clusters of scholars collaborating within tightly knit groups. Although the structure is conducive to innovation and diversity, building new connections among dispersed coauthor groups could enrich knowledge sharing to drive novel approaches. We identified central actors in building collaborations among communities and communicating ideas across the network. We considered actor attributes, such as gender and geographic location, alongside centrality measures. We found that seventy percent of the 20 authors with the highest betweenness centrality were men, and only one male author was affiliated to an institution in the Global South. Our analysis of thematic clusters in the literature highlighted the spatial patchiness and partialness of the literature across different subfields. Scholars should undertake more work on identified themes in currently excluded geographic regions through effective interdisciplinary collaborations and with local communities of research and practice and grassroots movements. There is a need to strengthen the field's intellectual diversity and to have a deeper engagement with issues of class, gender, and race. This would allow neoliberal conservation to reimagine conservation in ways that are not only environmentally sustainable, but also socially just.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.70001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143740971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}