Scholarlink

<p>Scientists are divided about how to respond to high levels of biodiversity loss. These differences have become clear in recent debates over the role of area-based conservation, which includes protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Debates between supporters and critics of these measures reflect the views of different epistemic communities who engage with area-based conservation using various methods, framings and normative positions. Conservation scientists emphasize biodiversity protection and habitat integrity; land systems scientists foreground land-use dynamics in interconnected socio-ecological systems; and political ecologists examine power relations and the social implications of protected areas. Despite these emphases differing in focus, they are internally compatible in that they share concerns about both biodiversity loss and social equity, although they assign different weights to these priorities. This Perspective brings together authors representing these three epistemic communities along with a fourth — environmental data justice scholars. We argue that disagreements among conservation scientists, land systems scientists and political ecologists can become constructive by applying vocabularies and frameworks from environmental data justice. Introducing environmental data justice to the debate will help conservation researchers and practitioners to&#xa0;develop more effective interventions to achieve the underlying goals of area-based conservation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Environmental data justice is key for developing more effective area-based conservation approaches

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月27日

查看全文
  • Jenny E. Goldstein,
  • Dan Brockington,
  • Chris Sandbrook,
  • Patrick Meyfroidt,
  • Jonas Geldmann,
  • Tobias Kuemmerle,
  • Marion Pfeifer,
  • Laura A. Sauls,
  • Lourdes Vera,
  • Anwesha Dutta,
  • Rose Pritchard,
  • Nina Bhola,
  • Ruth DeFries,
  • Lauren Drakopulos,
  • Freya A. V. St John,
  • Neema Pathak Broome,
  • Joycelyn Longdon,
  • Kate Schreckenberg,
  • Gary Watmough,
  • Cleo Cunningham,
  • Munib Khanyari,
  • Richard Ladle,
  • Thaniá Lessa,
  • Deepshikha Sharma,
  • Ryan Unks

摘要

Scientists are divided about how to respond to high levels of biodiversity loss. These differences have become clear in recent debates over the role of area-based conservation, which includes protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Debates between supporters and critics of these measures reflect the views of different epistemic communities who engage with area-based conservation using various methods, framings and normative positions. Conservation scientists emphasize biodiversity protection and habitat integrity; land systems scientists foreground land-use dynamics in interconnected socio-ecological systems; and political ecologists examine power relations and the social implications of protected areas. Despite these emphases differing in focus, they are internally compatible in that they share concerns about both biodiversity loss and social equity, although they assign different weights to these priorities. This Perspective brings together authors representing these three epistemic communities along with a fourth — environmental data justice scholars. We argue that disagreements among conservation scientists, land systems scientists and political ecologists can become constructive by applying vocabularies and frameworks from environmental data justice. Introducing environmental data justice to the debate will help conservation researchers and practitioners to develop more effective interventions to achieve the underlying goals of area-based conservation.