Gap analysis of social science resources for conservation practice

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Electronic versions

DOI

  • Diane Detoeuf
    Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NYC
  • Emiel de Lange
    Wildlife Conservation Society
  • Harriet Ibbett
  • Trisha Gupta
    University of Oxford
  • Constanza Monterrubio Solís
    Johns Hopkins University
  • Krossy Mavakala
    École Régionale Postuniversitaire d'Aménagement et de Gestion intégrés des Forêts et Territoires tropicaux (ERAIFT)
  • Mari Catapani
    Chester Zoo
  • Heidi Kretser
    Wildlife Conservation Society
  • EJ Milner-Gulland
    University of Oxford
  • Steph Brittain
    University of Oxford
  • H. Newing
    University of Oxford
  • Brandie Fariss
    The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, Colorado
  • Charlotte Spira
    Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF)
  • Harold Eyster
    Nature Conservancy Colorado, USA
  • Nicole DeMello
    Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia
  • Kenneth Wallen
    University of Idaho
  • Sara Thornton
    WWT, Ecosystem Health and Social Dimensions, Slimbridge Wetland Centre, Gloucestershire, UK
  • Nathan J Bennett
    Global Science, WWF
  • Li Ling Choo
    Wildlife Conservation Society
Conservation is an inherently social process—people collectively endeavor to enact conservation. Yet, in conservation social science, research methodologies, training, and competency are less common than in natural sciences. Globally, formal education and training in the social sciences are often unavailable or inaccessible to conservation practitioners, and nonformal education may help fill this gap. To identify potential opportunities, we implemented a global survey of practitioners to identify their knowledge gaps and social science training needs and conducted a gap analysis of available social science training resources. We compiled 449 resources, including 266 English-language and 183 non-English-languages resources into an open-access online database hosted by the Conservation Social Science Partnership. Resources were categorized as communication, data collection, ethics and human rights, intervention, impact evaluation, or analysis. Most resources were open access (90%) and half were specific to conservation practice. Survey responses (n = 90) revealed demand for help with data analyses, research ethics, and human rights considerations. We found a need for organization leaders to prioritize social sciences in conservation, greater diversity of accessible training resources in alternate mediums and languages, resources tailored to conservation contexts, and additional ethics and human rights and data analysis resources.

Keywords

  • Capacity Building, Conservation Policy, Conservation of Natural Resources, Desarrollo De Capacidades, Evaluación De Necesidades, Humans, Investigación Cualitativa, Investigación Cuantitativa, Métodos De Ciencias Sociales, Needs Assessment, Política De Conservación, Qualitative Research, Quantitative research, Social Science Methods, Social Sciences
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere14463
JournalConservation Biology
Volume39
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2025
View graph of relations