Carina Wyborn

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to societys understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers-ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity-to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy-influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science-one that includes the natural and social sciences-will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.

Future oriented conservation: knowledge governance, uncertainty and learning

Despite significant progress in understanding climate risks, adaptation efforts in biodiversity conservation remain limited. Adaptation requires addressing immediate conservation threats while also attending to long term, highly uncertain and potentially transformative future changes. To date, conservation research has focused more on projecting climate impacts and identifying possible strategies, rather than understanding how governance enables or constrains adaptation actions. We outline an approach to future-oriented conservation that combines the capacities to anticipate future ecological change; to understand the implications of that change for social, political and ecological values; and the ability to engage with the governance (and politics) of adaptation. Our approach builds on the adaptive management and governance literature, however we explicitly address the (often contested) rules, knowledge and values that enable or constrain adaptation. We call for a broader focus that extends beyond technical approaches to acknowledge the socio-political challenges inherent to adaptation. More importantly, we suggest that conservation policy makers and practitioners can use this approach to facilitate learning and adaptation in the context of complexity, transformational change and uncertainty.

Situating adaptation: how governance challenges and perceptions of uncertainty influence adaptation in the Rocky Mountains

Adaptation is situated within multiple, interacting social, political, and economic forces. Adaptation pathways envision adaptation as a continual pathway of change and response embedded within this broader sociopolitical context. Pathways emphasize that current decisions are both informed by past actions and shape the landscape of future options. This research examines how adaptation actors in Grand County, Colorado perceive adaptation in the context of environmental change and uncertainty. Grand County residents drew on experiences of past change to suggest they had a high capacity to respond to future change, in particular a significant outbreak of mountain pine beetle. While residents and land managers characterized adaptation as gradual and incremental, they also recognized the ways that powerful cross-scale processes related to federal land management and water diversions challenged local adaptation. Further, Grand County residents identified multiple uncertainties in addition to those associated with climate projections, suggesting that addressing uncertainty extends beyond developing strategies robust across different climate scenarios. The challenges of uncertainty and cross-scale governance require more than increased adaptive capacity; they demand that we understand how local and extra-local structures shape the adaptation envelope that enables and constrains local decisions and implementation. Within this envelope, local actors pursue particular adaptation pathways and exercise agency to influence the structures shaping their options. Drawing on empirical insights, we argue that the concepts of pathways and envelopes together provide theoretical space for understanding the dynamic interplay between structure and agency in the context of adaptation.

Embrace complexity to improve conservation decision making

To the Editor — In a recent issue of Nature Ecology & Evolution, Sutherland and Wordley argued that evidence is not routinely sought or used in conservation decision making1. We share the authors’ concern that management and policy decisions do not always result in good conservation outcomes, despite the availability of relevant evidence. However, the notion of ‘evidence complacency’ risks overlooking insights from decades of collective scholarship and practice on how evidence can most effectively be harnessed to inform decisions2–6. Policymakers draw on many sources of information to make decisions, with scientific evidence being just one6. Many conservation problems are highly complex, involving trade-offs between multiple objectives, values and interests7. Improving access to evidence and ensuring its relevance to policymakers and practitioners can and does influence the use of such information in decision making, but evidence is also most easily utilized in tractable, uncontroversial management situations5. As highlighted by Papworth in the same issue8, decision makers who have the time, experience and expertise are more likely to engage with additional sources of information. In cases where the political stakes are higher and conservation is just one of many competing priorities, scientific evidence alone is less likely to influence a decision. Unfortunately, the term ‘evidence complacency’ overlooks these complexities and instead implies that evidence is not used or sought out in decision making due to wilful ignorance, laziness, or carelessness (the term ‘complacency’ is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as ‘selfsatisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies’). This characterization is potentially harmful, as it seems to ascribe blame to policymakers and practitioners for situations that are often highly complex, political and beyond their direct control. As message framing is a key contributor to influencing action9, we suggest that the term ‘evidence complacency’ may undermine important efforts to increase the use of evidence in conservation policy and practice. What may be perceived as complacency can alternatively be understood as the reality of conservation policy and practice: a series of spaces with multiple knowledge types, political interests and ongoing deliberation4,5. In these spaces, researchers need to think strategically of impact pathways for evidence to inform the policy and political debates of the problem they are interested in. We need to rethink how we engage in framing conservation problems and solutions, and how we leverage multisectoral networks to ensure science forms part of decision making. We can build on the work of the Conservation Evidence project by supporting intermediary organizations and individuals who actively build relationships between science, policy and practice10, or initiatives that set research objectives and produce knowledge in collaboration with those who will use that knowledge3. The influence of science in decision making is slow, non-linear, inherently political, and based on relationships and links between multiple societal actors with a stake in a particular issue3. In a post-truth world, where science and facts are contested, there is an opportunity for the conservation community to break from traditional linear science–policy approaches to ones that embrace complexity, diversity of knowledge systems and contextual politics4,7. ❐

Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy

Aichi Target 11 has galvanized expansion of the global protected area network, but there is little evidence that this brings real biodiversity gains. We argue that area-based prioritization risks unintended perverse consequences and that the focus of protected area target development should shift from quantity to quality.

Key concepts and methods in social vulnerability and adaptive capacity

National forests have been asked to assess how climate change will impact nearby human communities. To assist their thinking on this topic, we examine the concepts of social vulnerability and adaptive capacity with an emphasis on a range of theoretical and methodological approaches. This analysis is designed to help researchers and decision-makers select appropriate research approaches suited to particular planning and management needs. We first explore key conceptual frameworks and theoretical divisions, including different definitions of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. We then focus on the different methods that have been used to assess vulnerability and adaptive capacity and their respective pros and cons. Finally, we present and discuss three case examples and their respective research approaches.

2014 Future Earth Young Scientists Conference on integrated science and knowledge co-production for ecosystems and human well-being.

Effective integration in science and knowledge co-production is a challenge that crosses research boundaries, climate regions, languages and cultures. Early career scientists are crucial in the identification of, and engagement with, obstacles and opportunities in the development of innovative solutions to complex and interconnected problems. On 25–31 May 2014, International Council for Science and International Social Science Council, in collaboration with the International Network of Next-Generation Ecologists and Institute for New Economic Thinking: Young Scholars Initiative, assembled a group of early career researchers with diverse backgrounds and research perspectives to reflect on and debate relevant issues around ecosystems and human wellbeing in the transition towards green economy, funded by the German Research Foundation, at Villa Vigoni, Italy. As a group of young scientists, we have come to a consensus that collaboration and communication among a diverse group of peers from different geographic regions could break down the barriers to multi-disciplinary research designed to solve complex global-scale problems. We also propose to establish a global systematic thinking to monitor global socio-ecological systems and to develop criteria for a “good” anthropocene. Finally, we aim to bridge gaps among research, the media, and education from a governance perspective linking with “sustainable development goals”.

Engaging Communities and Climate Change Futures with Multi-Scale, Iterative Scenario Building (MISB) in the Western United States

Current projections of future climate change foretell potentially transformative ecological changes that threaten communities globally. Using two case studies from the United States Intermountain West, this article highlights the ways in which a better articulation between theory and methods in research design can generate proactive applied tools that enable locally grounded dialogue about the future, including key vulnerabilities and potential adaptive pathways. Moreover, anthropological knowledge and methods, we find, are well-suited to the complexities and uncertainties that surround future climate change. In this article, we outline a narrative-driven assessment methodology we call multi-scale, iterative scenario building (MISB) that adheres to four key principles: (1) meaningful integration of socioecological interactions, (2) engagement with uncertainty, (3) awareness and incorporation of dynamic spatial and temporal scales, and (4) inclusion of diverse knowledge(s) from both social and natural sciences as well as from communities, including skeptics and deniers. The research found that MISB illuminated the complex, relational nature of vulnerability and adaptation and provided significant insight into potential, and sometimes surprising, future conflicts, synergies, and opportunities. We also found that MISB engendered a deep appreciation among participants, even skeptics and deniers, about the numerous, multi-scaled feedbacks and path dependencies generated by interacting drivers of social and ecological change. In conclusion, we argue this approach provides substantial space for the reflexive learning needed to create the “critical emancipatory knowledge” required in the face of transformational threats like climate change, and as such, we suggest potential avenues to support planning and decision making in the face of uncertain futures.

Achieving the promise of integration in social-ecological research: a review and prospectus

An integrated understanding of both social and ecological aspects of environmental issues is essential to address pressing sustainability challenges. An integrated social-ecological systems perspective is purported to provide a better understanding of the complex relationships between humans and nature. Despite a threefold increase in the amount of social-ecological research published between 2010 and 2015, it is unclear whether these approaches have been truly integrative. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the conceptual, methodological, disciplinary, and functional aspects of social-ecological integration. In general, we found that overall integration is still lacking in social-ecological research. Some social variables deemed important for addressing sustainability challenges are underrepresented in social-ecological studies, e.g., culture, politics, and power. Disciplines such as ecology, urban studies, and geography are better integrated than others, e.g., sociology, biology, and public administration. In addition to ecology and urban studies, biodiversity conservation plays a key brokerage role in integrating other disciplines into social-ecological research. Studies founded on systems theory have the highest rates of integration. Highly integrative studies combine different types of tools, involve stakeholders at appropriate stages, and tend to deliver practical recommendations. Better social-ecological integration must underpin sustainability science. To achieve this potential, future social-ecological research will require greater attention to the following: the interdisciplinary composition of project teams, strategic stakeholder involvement, application of multiple tools, incorporation of both social and ecological variables, consideration of bidirectional relationships between variables, and identification of implications and articulation of clear policy recommendations.