Conservation Biology最新文献

{"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}

{"title":"Integrating criminology, criminal justice, and crime science in conservation science and practice","authors":"William D. Moreto,&nbsp;Richard L. Elligson","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70006","url":null,"abstract":"<p>It has been argued that the integration of the social sciences is crucial in understanding the human dimensions of conservation. Because the human dimensions of conservation can include the violation of conservation law and policies, criminology, criminal justice, and crime science may prove useful for the broader conservation community by providing insight into factors that influence criminal behavior, how the criminal justice system functions, and how crime occurs and can be prevented. Fortunately, criminologists, criminal justice scholars, and crime scientists are increasingly conducting conceptual and empirical research on conservation-related topics. We devised a theory of change that demonstrates how these fields can be integrated along with other conservation social sciences, and how enabling conditions can foster the integration of criminology, criminal justice, and crime science in conservation science and practice.</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":"143741057","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":"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":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14463","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":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14463","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741320","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":"Improving transparency in conservation social science research to enhance quality, equity, and collaboration","authors":"Marie-Annick Moreau,&nbsp;Emily Woodhouse","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70003","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recognition of the value of multidisciplinary research that bridges natural and social science perspectives has come with calls for conservation scientists to reflect critically on underlying assumptions and power relations involved in the production of knowledge and its application. We propose that improving transparency in conservation social science—around researchers’ positionality, study limitations, and fieldwork challenges—is essential to and depends on enhanced reflexivity and can allow readers to assess research quality, foster ethical research, and support constructive dialogue and collaboration across subdisciplines of conservation science. We assessed gaps and opportunities for enhanced transparency based on an in-depth review of 39 papers on the social impacts of protected areas published in 12 conservation journals from 2010 to 2022. We evaluated transparency in these publications based on whether authors reported on their collaborations, values, and identity; methodology and methods; data collection; influence of the wider sociopolitical context; potential limitations and challenges; and linked recommendations to evidence. Authors reported consistently on research aims, intended methods, and sampling strategy but provided limited information on their backgrounds; relationships between authors, field teams, and participants; and field site. Gaps included not reporting who collected the data (lacking from 43% of papers), whether data collectors spoke participants’ language (46%), participant recruitment strategy (56%), women's representation in samples (41%), and time spent in the field (28%). Based on our findings, we devised a reflexive tool relevant to field-based studies and advice on preparing positionality statements for use by researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. We recommend conservation social scientists shift their expectations of what is reflected on and reported in publications, develop positionality statements, engage with other available reflexive tools, and adopt the first person in their writing to make more visible their role and responsibilities in the research process.</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.70003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741370","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":"Insights on human−wildlife coexistence from social science and Indigenous and traditional knowledge","authors":"Helina Jolly,&nbsp;Amanda Stronza","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14460","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14460","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Much work on human−wildlife conflict focuses on safeguarding wildlife from humans and vice versa, protecting humans, their crops, livestock, and property from wildlife, and mitigating negative, sometimes lethal encounters. The emphasis is on conflict, a framing that reinforces human−nature dualisms and instills the notion of humans and wild animals as adversaries. Although human−wildlife interactions are sometimes negative, they can also be neutral, coadaptive, and mutually beneficial. They can demonstrate coexistence. Conservationists have tended to overlook or simplify such relations. They have either failed to define coexistence or characterized it as the outcome of externally driven conservation strategies. Conflict has been perceived as the norm, with coexistence a distant ideal. This way of seeing ignores the many ways people have coexisted with wildlife and coadapted with wild animals in multispecies landscapes for generations. We encourage greater attention to Indigenous and traditional experiences and knowledge, and seeing how coexistence can be a norm, which sometimes includes negative interactions and conflict. Scholars in geography, anthropology, animal studies, philosophy, Indigenous studies, and multispecies ethnography offer insights into how paying attention to coexistence can reshape understanding of human−wildlife interactions that decenters humans, and actively supports ethical conservation. Contributions from social scientists include focusing on relational ways of thinking and seeing that the lives of humans and other beings are intertwined and not governed solely by conflict.</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.14460","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741054","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}