By the same authors

From the same journal

From the same journal

How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research. / Friedman, Rachel S.; Law, Elizabeth A.; Bennett, Nathan J.; Ives, Christopher D.; Thorn, Jessica Paula Rose; Wilson, Kerrie A.

In: Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 13, 053001, 27.04.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Friedman, RS, Law, EA, Bennett, NJ, Ives, CD, Thorn, JPR & Wilson, KA 2018, 'How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research', Environmental Research Letters, vol. 13, 053001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabcde

APA

Friedman, R. S., Law, E. A., Bennett, N. J., Ives, C. D., Thorn, J. P. R., & Wilson, K. A. (2018). How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research. Environmental Research Letters, 13, [053001]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabcde

Vancouver

Friedman RS, Law EA, Bennett NJ, Ives CD, Thorn JPR, Wilson KA. How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research. Environmental Research Letters. 2018 Apr 27;13. 053001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabcde

Author

Friedman, Rachel S. ; Law, Elizabeth A. ; Bennett, Nathan J. ; Ives, Christopher D. ; Thorn, Jessica Paula Rose ; Wilson, Kerrie A. / How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research. In: Environmental Research Letters. 2018 ; Vol. 13.

Bibtex - Download

@article{a30289c2065846029badd9ae690f70a0,
title = "How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research",
abstract = "Background: Conservation decisions not only impact wildlife, habitat, and environmental health, but also human wellbeing and social justice. The inclusion of safeguards and equity considerations in the conservation field has increasingly garnered attention in international policy processes and amongst conservation practitioners. Yet, what constitutes an ‘equitable’ solution can take many forms, and how the concept is treated within conservation research is not standardized. This review explores how social equity is conceptualized and assessed in conservation research. Methods/Design: Using a structured search and screening process, we identified 138 peer-reviewed studies that addressed equity in relation to conservation actions. The authors developed a coding framework to guide the review process, focusing on the current state of, definitions used for, and means of assessing social equity in empirical conservation research. Review Results: Results show that empirical research on social equity in conservation is rapidly growing, with the majority of studies on the topic published only since 2009. Equity within conservation research is skewed toward distributional concerns and to a lesser extent procedural issues, with recognition and contextual equity receiving little attention. Studies are primarily situated in forested biomes of the Global South. Conservation interventions mostly resulted in mixed or negative impacts on equity. Synthesis and Discussion: Our results demonstrate the current limitations of research on equity in conservation, and raise challenging questions about the social impacts of conservation and how to ameliorate equity concerns. Framing of equity within conservation research would benefit from greater transparency of study motivation, more explicit definition of how equity is used within the study context, and consideration for how best to assess it. We recommend that the empirical conservation literature more deeply engage with different notions of equity when studying, planning, and implementing actions to address potential trade-offs among equity and conservation objectives and beneficiaries.",
author = "Friedman, {Rachel S.} and Law, {Elizabeth A.} and Bennett, {Nathan J.} and Ives, {Christopher D.} and Thorn, {Jessica Paula Rose} and Wilson, {Kerrie A.}",
note = "{\circledC} 2018 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd.",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1088/1748-9326/aabcde",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
journal = "Environmental Research Letters",
issn = "1748-9318",
publisher = "IOP Publishing Ltd.",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research

AU - Friedman, Rachel S.

AU - Law, Elizabeth A.

AU - Bennett, Nathan J.

AU - Ives, Christopher D.

AU - Thorn, Jessica Paula Rose

AU - Wilson, Kerrie A.

N1 - © 2018 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd.

PY - 2018/4/27

Y1 - 2018/4/27

N2 - Background: Conservation decisions not only impact wildlife, habitat, and environmental health, but also human wellbeing and social justice. The inclusion of safeguards and equity considerations in the conservation field has increasingly garnered attention in international policy processes and amongst conservation practitioners. Yet, what constitutes an ‘equitable’ solution can take many forms, and how the concept is treated within conservation research is not standardized. This review explores how social equity is conceptualized and assessed in conservation research. Methods/Design: Using a structured search and screening process, we identified 138 peer-reviewed studies that addressed equity in relation to conservation actions. The authors developed a coding framework to guide the review process, focusing on the current state of, definitions used for, and means of assessing social equity in empirical conservation research. Review Results: Results show that empirical research on social equity in conservation is rapidly growing, with the majority of studies on the topic published only since 2009. Equity within conservation research is skewed toward distributional concerns and to a lesser extent procedural issues, with recognition and contextual equity receiving little attention. Studies are primarily situated in forested biomes of the Global South. Conservation interventions mostly resulted in mixed or negative impacts on equity. Synthesis and Discussion: Our results demonstrate the current limitations of research on equity in conservation, and raise challenging questions about the social impacts of conservation and how to ameliorate equity concerns. Framing of equity within conservation research would benefit from greater transparency of study motivation, more explicit definition of how equity is used within the study context, and consideration for how best to assess it. We recommend that the empirical conservation literature more deeply engage with different notions of equity when studying, planning, and implementing actions to address potential trade-offs among equity and conservation objectives and beneficiaries.

AB - Background: Conservation decisions not only impact wildlife, habitat, and environmental health, but also human wellbeing and social justice. The inclusion of safeguards and equity considerations in the conservation field has increasingly garnered attention in international policy processes and amongst conservation practitioners. Yet, what constitutes an ‘equitable’ solution can take many forms, and how the concept is treated within conservation research is not standardized. This review explores how social equity is conceptualized and assessed in conservation research. Methods/Design: Using a structured search and screening process, we identified 138 peer-reviewed studies that addressed equity in relation to conservation actions. The authors developed a coding framework to guide the review process, focusing on the current state of, definitions used for, and means of assessing social equity in empirical conservation research. Review Results: Results show that empirical research on social equity in conservation is rapidly growing, with the majority of studies on the topic published only since 2009. Equity within conservation research is skewed toward distributional concerns and to a lesser extent procedural issues, with recognition and contextual equity receiving little attention. Studies are primarily situated in forested biomes of the Global South. Conservation interventions mostly resulted in mixed or negative impacts on equity. Synthesis and Discussion: Our results demonstrate the current limitations of research on equity in conservation, and raise challenging questions about the social impacts of conservation and how to ameliorate equity concerns. Framing of equity within conservation research would benefit from greater transparency of study motivation, more explicit definition of how equity is used within the study context, and consideration for how best to assess it. We recommend that the empirical conservation literature more deeply engage with different notions of equity when studying, planning, and implementing actions to address potential trade-offs among equity and conservation objectives and beneficiaries.

U2 - 10.1088/1748-9326/aabcde

DO - 10.1088/1748-9326/aabcde

M3 - Article

VL - 13

JO - Environmental Research Letters

JF - Environmental Research Letters

SN - 1748-9318

M1 - 053001

ER -