社会生态系统视角下人类与野生动物冲突研究中的环境正义缺口

IF 4.4 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Daniela Alba-Patiño , Berta Martín-López , Miguel Delibes-Mateos , Juan M. Requena-Mullor , Antonio J. Castro
{"title":"社会生态系统视角下人类与野生动物冲突研究中的环境正义缺口","authors":"Daniela Alba-Patiño ,&nbsp;Berta Martín-López ,&nbsp;Miguel Delibes-Mateos ,&nbsp;Juan M. Requena-Mullor ,&nbsp;Antonio J. Castro","doi":"10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are increasingly prevalent and complex phenomena that often result in social tensions and environmental injustices. While the social–ecological systems (SES) perspective has been recently applied to understand the dynamics of HWC, little attention has been paid to how environmental justice is addressed in this field. This study presents a systematic review of 85 studies that analyse HWC using a SES lens, with the aim of examining to what extent these studies incorporate the three dimensions of environmental justice: distributive, procedural, and recognition justice. We assessed how social actors were identified, how benefits and cost were distributed, and how these actors were involved in both decision-making and research processes. Our findings reveal that most studies focused on mammals (58 %), and those human–human conflicts caused by human activities affecting wildlife populations and/or their habitats were the most frequently studied category (54 %). While local communities were commonly identified as social actors and resource losers, their participation in research was mostly limited to consultation, with few cases of collaboration or engagement. Moreover, the social actors identified as most affected by conflicts—those experiencing resource and livelihood losses—were not the same as those most involved in decision-making processes. These findings highlight the need to adopt more context-sensitive and justice-oriented approaches to address HWCs, enabling more equitable and effective conservation strategies. A social–ecological perspective helps to recognise the role of shifting social norms in conflict dynamics, while integrating environmental justice enables a deeper understanding of power imbalances.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55375,"journal":{"name":"Biological Conservation","volume":"312 ","pages":"Article 111515"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Environmental justice gaps in human-wildlife conflict research from a social-ecological systems perspective\",\"authors\":\"Daniela Alba-Patiño ,&nbsp;Berta Martín-López ,&nbsp;Miguel Delibes-Mateos ,&nbsp;Juan M. Requena-Mullor ,&nbsp;Antonio J. Castro\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111515\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are increasingly prevalent and complex phenomena that often result in social tensions and environmental injustices. While the social–ecological systems (SES) perspective has been recently applied to understand the dynamics of HWC, little attention has been paid to how environmental justice is addressed in this field. This study presents a systematic review of 85 studies that analyse HWC using a SES lens, with the aim of examining to what extent these studies incorporate the three dimensions of environmental justice: distributive, procedural, and recognition justice. We assessed how social actors were identified, how benefits and cost were distributed, and how these actors were involved in both decision-making and research processes. Our findings reveal that most studies focused on mammals (58 %), and those human–human conflicts caused by human activities affecting wildlife populations and/or their habitats were the most frequently studied category (54 %). While local communities were commonly identified as social actors and resource losers, their participation in research was mostly limited to consultation, with few cases of collaboration or engagement. Moreover, the social actors identified as most affected by conflicts—those experiencing resource and livelihood losses—were not the same as those most involved in decision-making processes. These findings highlight the need to adopt more context-sensitive and justice-oriented approaches to address HWCs, enabling more equitable and effective conservation strategies. A social–ecological perspective helps to recognise the role of shifting social norms in conflict dynamics, while integrating environmental justice enables a deeper understanding of power imbalances.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55375,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biological Conservation\",\"volume\":\"312 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111515\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biological Conservation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632072500552X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632072500552X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类与野生动物冲突是日益普遍和复杂的现象,往往导致社会紧张和环境不公正。虽然社会生态系统(SES)的观点最近被应用于理解HWC的动态,但很少有人关注如何在这一领域解决环境正义问题。本研究对85项研究进行了系统回顾,这些研究使用SES镜头分析了HWC,目的是检查这些研究在多大程度上纳入了环境正义的三个维度:分配正义、程序正义和承认正义。我们评估了如何识别社会行动者,如何分配利益和成本,以及这些行动者如何参与决策和研究过程。研究结果表明,大多数研究集中在哺乳动物(58%),而人类活动引起的影响野生动物种群和/或其栖息地的人类冲突是研究最多的类别(54%)。虽然地方社区通常被认为是社会行动者和资源输家,但它们对研究的参与大多仅限于咨询,很少有合作或参与的情况。此外,被确定为受冲突影响最大的社会行为者——那些经历资源和生计损失的人——与那些参与决策过程最多的人并不相同。这些发现突出表明,需要采取更加注重具体情况和以正义为导向的方法来解决高碳气候变化问题,从而实现更公平、更有效的保护战略。社会生态视角有助于认识到冲突动态中不断变化的社会规范的作用,而整合环境正义则有助于更深入地理解权力失衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Environmental justice gaps in human-wildlife conflict research from a social-ecological systems perspective
Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are increasingly prevalent and complex phenomena that often result in social tensions and environmental injustices. While the social–ecological systems (SES) perspective has been recently applied to understand the dynamics of HWC, little attention has been paid to how environmental justice is addressed in this field. This study presents a systematic review of 85 studies that analyse HWC using a SES lens, with the aim of examining to what extent these studies incorporate the three dimensions of environmental justice: distributive, procedural, and recognition justice. We assessed how social actors were identified, how benefits and cost were distributed, and how these actors were involved in both decision-making and research processes. Our findings reveal that most studies focused on mammals (58 %), and those human–human conflicts caused by human activities affecting wildlife populations and/or their habitats were the most frequently studied category (54 %). While local communities were commonly identified as social actors and resource losers, their participation in research was mostly limited to consultation, with few cases of collaboration or engagement. Moreover, the social actors identified as most affected by conflicts—those experiencing resource and livelihood losses—were not the same as those most involved in decision-making processes. These findings highlight the need to adopt more context-sensitive and justice-oriented approaches to address HWCs, enabling more equitable and effective conservation strategies. A social–ecological perspective helps to recognise the role of shifting social norms in conflict dynamics, while integrating environmental justice enables a deeper understanding of power imbalances.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biological Conservation
Biological Conservation 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
295
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: Biological Conservation is an international leading journal in the discipline of conservation biology. The journal publishes articles spanning a diverse range of fields that contribute to the biological, sociological, and economic dimensions of conservation and natural resource management. The primary aim of Biological Conservation is the publication of high-quality papers that advance the science and practice of conservation, or which demonstrate the application of conservation principles for natural resource management and policy. Therefore it will be of interest to a broad international readership.
×
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