The DOI matches its Crossref record; 215 of the 215 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation
Open accessAbstract
It has long been claimed that a better understanding of human or social dimensions of environmental issues will improve conservation.The social sciences are one important means through which researchers and practitioners can attain that better understanding.Yet, a lack of awareness of the scope and uncertainty about the purpose of the conservation social sciences impedes the conservation community's effective engagement with the human dimensions.This paper examines the scope and purpose of eighteen subfields of classic, interdisciplinary and applied conservation social sciences and articulates ten distinct contributions that the social sciences can make to understanding and improving conservation.In brief, the conservation social sciences can be valuable to conservation for descriptive, diagnostic, disruptive, reflexive, generative, innovative, or instrumental reasons.This review and supporting materials provides a succinct yet comprehensive reference for conservation scientists and practitioners.We contend that the social sciences can help facilitate conservation policies, actions and outcomes that are more legitimate, salient, robust and effective.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., et al. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/387253a0 · Cited by 22,585
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Field, B. C., & Ostrom, E. (1992) · Land Economics · doi:10.2307/3146384 · Cited by 18,859
Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
Djamba, Y. K., & Neuman, W. L. (2002) · Teaching Sociology · doi:10.2307/3211488 · Cited by 8,851
Mills, C. W. (1959) · The Mississippi Valley Historical Review · doi:10.2307/1891592 · Cited by 8,191
Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review
Reed, M. S. (2008) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 · Cited by 4,237
Knowledge systems for sustainable development
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100 · Cited by 3,660
Political ecology: a critical introduction
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-5341 · Cited by 2,246
Changing Learner Behavior Through Environmental Education
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990) · The Journal of Environmental Education · doi:10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743 · Cited by 2,122
Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature
Cronon, W. J. (1996) · Cited by 2,113
Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management
Robbins, P., & Berkes, F. (2000) · Economic Geography · doi:10.2307/144393 · Cited by 1,753
Cited by
O.Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12860 · Cited by 2,619
“Although the use of focus group discussion as a research technique has been dominant in the other disciplines such as sociology and psychology, its use has recently grown in the conservation social science research (Bennett et al., 2017; Khadka et al., 2013; Paloniemi et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAzzurro, E., Sbragaglia, V., Cerri, J., Bariche, M., Bolognini, L., Ben Souissi, J., Busoni, G., Coco, S., Chryssanthi, A., Fanelli, E., et al. (2019) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14670 · Cited by 179
The progress of interdisciplinarity in invasion science
Vaz, A. S., Kueffer, C., Kull, C. A., Richardson, D. M., Schindler, S., Muñoz-Pajares, A. J., Vicente, J. R., Martins, J., Hui, C., Kühn, I., et al. (2017) · Ambio · doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0897-7 · Cited by 158
Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation
Unnithan Kumar, S., & Cushman, S. A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-20370-w · Cited by 83
Unnithan Kumar, S., Turnbull, J., Hartman Davies, O., Hodgetts, T., & Cushman, S. A. (2022) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-022-01504-x · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., Cullman, G., Curran, D., Durbin, T. J., Epstein, G., Greenberg, A., Nelson, M. P., Sandlos, J., Stedman, R., Teel, T. L., Thomas, R., Veríssimo, D., & Wyborn, C.
- Venue
- Biological Conservation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 205
- Pages
- 93-108
- ISSN
- 0006-3207 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2557811647
- Cited by
- 1,254
- References
- 215
- FWCI
- 166.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006
- The paper
- Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., Cullman, G., Curran, D., Durbin, T. J., Epstein, G., Greenberg, A., Nelson, M. P., Sandlos, J., Stedman, R., Teel, T. L., Thomas, R., Veríssimo, D., & Wyborn, C. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
