Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-db5sh Total loading time: 0.388 Render date: 2021-06-17T03:42:56.274Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Re-conceptualizing the role(s) of science in biodiversity conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2021

Megan C Evans
Affiliation:
Public Service Research Group, School of Business, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia and Centre for Policy Futures, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Summary

Science, as both a body of knowledge and a process of acquiring new knowledge, is widely regarded as playing a central role in biodiversity conservation. Science undoubtedly enhances our understanding of the drivers of biodiversity loss and assists in the formulation of practical and policy responses, but it has not yet proved sufficiently influential to reverse global trends of biodiversity decline. This review seeks to critically examine the science of biodiversity conservation and to identify any hidden assumptions that, once interrogated and explored, may assist in improving conservation science, policy and practice. By drawing on existing reviews of the literature, this review describes the major themes of the literature and examines the historical shifts in the framing of conservation. It highlights the dominance of research philosophies that view conservation through a primarily ecological lens, changes in the goal(s) of conservation and a lack of clarity over the role(s) of science in biodiversity conservation. Finally, this review offers a simple framework to more clearly and consistently conceptualize the role(s) of science in biodiversity conservation in the future. Greater critical reflection on how conservation science might better accommodate multiple knowledges, goals and values could assist in ‘opening up’ new, legitimate pathways for biodiversity conservation.

Type
Subject Review
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Arksey, H, O’Malley, L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8: 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, D, Oelschlaeger, M (1996) A science for survival: values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology 10: 905911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benham, CF, Daniell, KA (2016) Putting transdisciplinary research into practice: a participatory approach to understanding change in coastal social-ecological systems. Ocean & Coastal Management 128: 2939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, NJ, Roth, R, Klain, SC, Chan, K, Christie, P, Clark, DA et al. (2017) Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205: 93108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolam, FC, Mair, L, Angelico, M, Brooks, TM, Burgman, M, Hermes, C et al. (2021) How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation action prevented? Conservation Letters 14: e12762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, TM, Baquero, RA, da Fonseca, GAB, Gerlach, J, Hoffmann, M, Lamoreux, JF et al. (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313: 5861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butchart, SHM, Clarke, M, Smith, RJ, Sykes, RE, Scharlemann, JPW, Harfoot, M et al. (2015) Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conservation Letters 8: 329337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castree, N (2019) An alternative to civil disobedience for concerned scientists. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3: 14991499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, KMA, Boyd, DR, Gould, RK, Jetzkowitz, J, Liu, J, Muraca, B et al. (2020) Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People and Nature 2: 693717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhury, A, Colla, S (2020) Next steps in dismantling discrimination: Lessons from ecology and conservation science. Conservation Letters. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, JA, May, RM (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297: 191192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colloff, MJ, Lavorel, S, van Kerkhoff, LE, Wyborn, CA, Fazey, I, Gorddard, R et al. (2017) Transforming conservation science and practice for a post-normal world. Conservation Biology 31: 10081017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colvin, RM, Witt, GB, Lacey, J (2016) Approaches to identifying stakeholders in environmental management: insights from practitioners to go beyond the ‘usual suspects’. Land Use Policy 52: 266276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davila, F, Plant, R, Jacobs, B (2021) Biodiversity revisited through systems thinking. Environmental Conservation. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1017/S0376892920000508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Marco, M, Chapman, S, Althor, G, Kearney, S, Besancon, C, Butt, N et al. (2017) Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. Global Ecology and Conservation 10: 3242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S, Demissew, S, Carabias, J, Joly, C, Lonsdale, M, Ash, N et al. (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework – connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S, Pascual, U, Stenseke, M, Martín-López, B, Watson, RT, Molnár, Z et al. (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359: 270272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S, Settele, J, Brondízio, ES, Ngo, HT, Agard, J, Arneth, A et al. (2019) Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366: eaax3100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixon-Woods, M, Agarwal, S, Jones, D, Young, B, Sutton, A (2005) Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 10: 4553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doak, DF, Bakker, VJ, Goldstein, BE, Hale, B (2014) What is the future of conservation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29: 7781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donaldson, MR, Burnett, NJ, Braun, DC, Suski, CD, Hinch, SG, Cooke, SJ, Kerr, JT (2016) Taxonomic bias and international biodiversity conservation research. FACETS 1: 105113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenfeld, D (1992) Conservation biology: its origins and definition. Science 255: 16251626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, MC, Cvitanovic, C (2018) An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Communications 4: 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, MC, Davila, F, Toomey, A, Wyborn, C (2017) Embrace complexity to improve conservation decision making. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1: 1588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazey, I, Fischer, J, Lindenmayer, DB (2005) What do conservation biologists publish? Biological Conservation 124: 6373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, J, Riechers, M (2019) A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People and Nature 1: 115120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funtowicz, SO, Ravetz, JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25: 739755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Game, ET, Kareiva, P, Possingham, HP (2013) Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conservation Biology 27: 480485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, CJ, Wordley, CFR (2019) Scientists must act on our own warnings to humanity. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3: 12711272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrard, GE, Fidler, F, Wintle, BC, Chee, YE, Bekessy, SA (2016) Beyond advocacy: making space for conservation scientists in public debate. Conservation Letters 9: 208212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, KJ, Jackson, SF, Cantú-Salazar, L, Cruz-Piñón, G (2008) The ecological performance of protected areas. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39: 93113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godet, L, Devictor, V (2018) What conservation does. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33: 720730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, RK, Phukan, I, Mendoza, ME, Ardoin, NM, Panikkar, B (2018) Seizing opportunities to diversify conservation. Conservation Letters 11: e12431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, SJ, Armstrong, J, Bogan, M, Darling, E, Kross, S, Rochman, CM et al. (2015) Conservation needs diverse values, approaches, and practitioners. Conservation Letters 8: 385387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagedorn, G, Kalmus, P, Mann, M, Vicca, S, van den Berge, J, van Ypersele, JP et al. (2019) Concerns of young protesters are justified. Science 364: 139140.Google ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, M, Hilton-Taylor, C, Angulo, A, Böhm, M, Brooks, TM, Butchart, SHM et al. (2010) The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330: 15031509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsieh, H-F, Shannon, SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15: 12771288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IPBES (2019) Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Díaz, S, Settele, J, Brondízio, ES, Ngo, HT, Guèze, M, Agard, J et al. (eds.). Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat.Google Scholar
Isgren, E, Boda, CS, Harnesk, D, O’Byrne, D (2019) Science has much to offer social movements in the face of planetary emergencies. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3: 14981498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobson, SK (1990) Graduate education in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 4: 431440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, SK, McDuff, MD (1998) Training idiot savants: the lack of human dimensions in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 12: 263267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kareiva, P, Marvier, M (2012) What is conservation science? BioScience 62: 962969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, CN, Reid, RS, Fernández-Giménez, ME, Klein, JA, Galvin, KA (2019) Placing transdisciplinarity in context: a review of approaches to connect scholars, society and action. Sustainability 11: 4899.Google Scholar
Knapp, S (2019) The link between diversity, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services. In: Schröter, M, Bonn, A, Klotz, S, Seppelt, R, Baessler, C (eds.), Atlas of Ecosystem Services: Drivers, Risks, and Societal Responses (pp. 1315). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, F, Holland, TG, Kotiaho, JS, Desrousseaux, M, Potts, MD (2019) Embracing diverse worldviews to share planet Earth. Conservation Biology 33: 10141022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latulippe, N, Klenk, N (2020) Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42: 714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawler, JJ, Aukema, JE, Grant, JB, Halpern, BS, Kareiva, P, Nelson, CR et al. (2006) Conservation science: a 20-year report card. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4: 473480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemos, MC, Arnott, JC, Ardoin, NM, Baja, K, Bednarek, AT, Dewulf, A et al. (2018) To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nature Sustainability 1: 722724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, X, Zhang, L, Hong, S (2011) Global biodiversity research during 1900–2009: a bibliometric analysis. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 807826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louder, E, Wyborn, C (2020) Biodiversity narratives: stories of the evolving conservation landscape. Environmental Conservation 47: 251259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lövbrand, E, Beck, S, Chilvers, J, Forsyth, T, Hedrén, J, Hulme, M et al. (2015) Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change 32: 211218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mace, GM (2014) Whose conservation? Science 345: 15581560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mace, GM, Barrett, M, Burgess, ND, Cornell, SE, Freeman, R, Grooten, M, Purvis, A (2018) Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability 1: 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mace, GM, Reyers, B, Alkemade, R, Biggs, R, Chapin, FS III, Cornell, SE et al. (2014) Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 28: 289297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mammides, C, Goodale, UM, Corlett, RT, Chen, J, Bawa, KS, Hariya, H et al. (2016) Increasing geographic diversity in the international conservation literature: a stalled process? Biological Conservation 198: 7883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margules, CR, Pressey, RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marris, E (2007) What to let go. Nature 450: 152155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mascia, MB, Brosius, JP, Dobson, TA, Forbes, BC, Horowitz, L, McKean, MA, Turner, NJ (2003) Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology 17: 649650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matulis, BS, Moyer, JR (2017) Beyond inclusive conservation: the value of pluralism, the need for agonism, and the case for social instrumentalism. Conservation Letters 10: 279287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazor, T, Doropoulos, C, Schwarzmueller, F, Gladish, DW, Kumaran, N, Merkel, K et al. (2018) Global mismatch of policy and research on drivers of biodiversity loss. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2: 10711074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, DP, Donald, PF, Scharlemann, JPW, Buchanan, GM, Balmford, A, Green, JMH et al. (2012) Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs. Science 338: 946949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meine, C (2004) Correction Lines: Essays on Land, Leopold, and Conservation, 1st ed. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Meine, C, Soule, M, Noss, RF (2006) ‘A mission-driven discipline’: the growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20: 631651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, CA, Wyborn, C (2018) Co-production in global sustainability: histories and theories. Environmental Science & Policy 113: 8895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miteva, DA, Pattanayak, SK, Ferraro, PJ (2012) Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t? Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28: 6992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A, Wilson, KA, Possingham, H (2009) Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moon, K, Blackman, D (2014) A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology 28: 11671177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moon, K, Blackman, DA, Adams, VM, Colvin, RM, Davila, F, Evans, MC et al. (2019) Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10: 294302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mora, C, Tittensor, DP, Adl, S, Simpson, AGB, Worm, B (2011) How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology 9: e1001127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, DL (1993) Qualitative content analysis: a guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research 3: 112121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, MJ, Schwartz, MW (2009) Academic research training for a nonacademic workplace: a case study of graduate student alumni who work in conservation. Conservation Biology 23: 13571368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, Z, Peters, MDJ, Stern, C, Tufanaru, C, McArthur, A, Aromataris, E (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18: 143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, N, Mittermeier, RA, Mittermeier, CG, da Fonseca, GAB, Kent, J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norström, AV, Cvitanovic, C, Löf, MF, West, S, Wyborn, C, Balvanera, P et al. (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3: 182190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, RF (1997) The failure of universities to produce conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 11: 12671269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, RF (1999) Is there a special conservation biology? Ecography 22: 113122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, RF (2007) Values are a good thing in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 21: 1820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Brien, K (2012) Global environmental change III: closing the gap between knowledge and action. Progress in Human Geography 37: 587596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, K, Kothari, A, Mays, N (2019) The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Research Policy and Systems 17: 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pereira, L, Frantzeskaki, N, Hebinck, A, Charli-Joseph, L, Drimie, S, Dyer, M et al. (2020) Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South. Sustainability Science 15: 161178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielke, RA Jr (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilbeam, V (2019) Revisiting conservation through evaluative thinking: towards a more impactful theory of change. In: Wyborn, C, Kalas, N, Rust, N (eds.), Seeds of Change: Provocations for a New Research Agenda (pp. 133136). Vienna, Austria: Luc Hoffmann Institute.Google Scholar
Pimm, SL, Jenkins, CN, Abell, R, Brooks, TM, Gittleman, JL, Joppa, LN et al. (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344: 1246752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pregernig, M (2014) Framings of science–policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: examples from conservation and environmental policy. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 36153639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, MS, Graves, A, Dandy, N, Posthumus, H, Hubacek, K, Morris, J et al. (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 19331949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rein, M, Schön, D (1996) Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy 9: 85104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, DP, Hull, RB (2001) Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for conservation. Conservation Biology 15: 970979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roebuck, P, Phifer, P (1999) The persistence of positivism in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13: 444446.Google Scholar
Rose, DC, Evans, MC, Jarvis, RM (2020) Effective engagement of conservation scientists with decision-makers. In: Sutherland, WJ, Brotherton, PNM, Davies, ZG, Ockendon, N, Pettorelli, N, Vickery, JA (eds.), Conservation Research, Policy and Practice (pp. 162182). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, A, Lertzman, K, Brown, K, Wilson, KB, Secord, D, McKechnie, I (2018) Democratizing conservation science and practice. Ecology and Society 23: 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandbrook, C (2015) What is conservation? Oryx 49: 565566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandbrook, C, Adams, WM, Büscher, B, Vira, B (2013) Social research and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 27: 14871490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandbrook, C, Fisher, JA, Holmes, G, Luque-Lora, R, Keane, A (2019) The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nature Sustainability 2: 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scoones, I, Stirling, A, Abrol, D, Atela, J, Charli-Joseph, L, Eakin, H et al. (2020) Transformations to sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42: 6575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2020) The Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 (GBO-5). Montreal, Canada: Convention on Biological Diversity [www document]. URL http://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/global-biodiversity-outlook-5-gbo-5 Google Scholar
Soulé, ME (1985) What is conservation biology? BioScience 35: 727734.Google Scholar
Soulé, ME (1991) Conservation: tactics for a constant crisis. Science 253: 744750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stirling, A (2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 33: 262294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, WJ, Ockendon, N, Smith, RK, Dicks, LV (2015) What Works in Conservation 2015. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, WJ, Shackelford, G, Rose, DC (2017) Collaborating with communities: co-production or co-assessment? Oryx 51: 569570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tengö, M, Brondizio, ES, Elmqvist, T, Malmer, P, Spierenburg, M (2014) Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO 43: 579591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toomey, AH, Knight, AT, Barlow, J (2017) Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation: research-implementation spaces. Conservation Letters 10: 619625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnhout, E, Stuiver, M, Klostermann, J, Harms, B, Leeuwis, C (2013) New roles of science in society: different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy 40: 354365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaismoradi, M, Turunen, H, Bondas, T (2013) Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences 15: 398405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Kerkhoff, LE, Lebel, L (2015) Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world. Ecology and Society 20: 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velasco, D, García-Llorente, M, Alonso, B, Dolera, A, Palomo, I, Iniesta-Arandia, I, Martín-López, B (2015) Biodiversity conservation research challenges in the 21st century: a review of publishing trends in 2000 and 2011. Environmental Science & Policy 54: 9096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visconti, P, Butchart, SHM, Brooks, TM, Langhammer, PF, Marnewick, D, Vergara, S et al. (2019) Protected area targets post-2020. Science 364: 239241.Google ScholarPubMed
Waldron, A, Miller, DC, Redding, D, Mooers, A, Kuhn, TS, Nibbelink, N et al. (2017) Reductions in global biodiversity loss predicted from conservation spending. Nature 551: 364367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, JEM, Dudley, N, Segan, DB, Hockings, M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515: 6773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, DR, Balmford, A, Wilcove, DS (2020) The past and future role of conservation science in saving biodiversity. Conservation Letters 13: e12720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, KA, Carwardine, J, Possingham, HP (2009) Setting conservation priorities. Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 2009 1162: 237264.Google ScholarPubMed
Wilson, KA, McBride, MF, Bode, M, Possingham, HP (2006) Prioritizing global conservation efforts. Nature 440: 337340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyborn, C, Datta, A, Montana, J, Ryan, M, Leith, P, Chaffin, B et al. (2019) Co-producing sustainability: reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44: 319346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyborn, C, Davila, F, Pereira, L, Lim, M, Alvarez, I, Henderson, G et al. (2020a) Imagining transformative biodiversity futures. Nature Sustainability 3: 670672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyborn, C, Kalas, N, Rust, N (eds.) (2020b) Seeds of Change: Provocations for a New Research Agenda. Vienna, Austria: Luc Hoffmann Institute.Google Scholar
Wyborn, C, Louder, E, Harfoot, M, Hill, S (2021a) Engaging with the science and politics of biodiversity futures: a literature review. Environmental Conservation. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1017/S037689292000048X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyborn, C, Montana, J, Kalas, N, Clement, S, Cisneros, FD, Knowles, N et al. (2021b) An agenda for research and action towards diverse and just futures for life on Earth. Conservation Biology. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Evans supplementary material

Evans supplementary material

Download Evans supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 222 KB
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Re-conceptualizing the role(s) of science in biodiversity conservation
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Re-conceptualizing the role(s) of science in biodiversity conservation
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Re-conceptualizing the role(s) of science in biodiversity conservation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *