CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 93Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementEnvironmental Philosophy and EthicsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Data justice and biodiversity conservation

Open access
Pritchard, Rose, Sauls, Laura Aileen, Oldekop, Johan A., Kiwango, Wilhelm Andrew, Brockington, Dan·2022·Conservation Biology
DOI 10.1111/cobi.13919PMC PMC9796839
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Increases in data availability coupled with enhanced computational capacities are revolutionizing conservation. But in the excitement over the opportunities afforded by new data, there has been less discussion of the justice implications of data used in conservation, that is, how people and environments are represented through data, the conservation choices made based on data, and the distribution of benefits and harms arising from these choices. We propose a framework for understanding the justice dimensions of conservation data composed of five elements: data composition, data control, data access, data processing and use, and data consequences. For each element, we suggest a set of guiding questions that conservationists could use to think through their collection and use of data and to identify potential data injustices. The need for such a framework is illustrated by a synthesis of recent critiques of global conservation prioritization analyses. These critiques demonstrate the range of ways data could serve to produce social and ecological harms due to the choice of underlying data sets, assumptions made in the analysis, oversimplification of real‐world conservation practice, and crowding out of other forms of knowledge. We conclude by arguing that there are ways to mitigate risks of conservation data injustices, through formal ethical and legal frameworks and by promoting a more inclusive and more reflexive conservation research ethos. These will help ensure that data contribute to conservation strategies that are both socially just and ecologically effective.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cobi.13919

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This imbalance between where mammals live and where their specimens are preserved helps to perpetuate geographic disparities in biodiversity knowledge and conservation outcomes.

    “This imbalance between where mammals live and where their specimens are preserved helps to perpetuate geographic disparities in biodiversity knowledge and conservation outcomes (see Pritchard et al. 2022).”

    From How many mammal species are there now? Updates and trends in taxonomic, nomenclatural, and geographic knowledge (2025) · cites this paper as Pritchard et al. 2022

    In “The Need for Critical Perspectives on Conservation Data,” the paper says biodiversity data are biased toward particular locations and that these biases affect the distribution of conservation resources. The “Risks of Global Prioritization Analyses” section also describes how data omissions can make places or species less visible. It does not address the specific imbalance between where mammals live and where their specimens are preserved. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Adams, W. M. (2019). Geographies of conservation II: Technology, surveillance and conservation by algorithm. Progress in Human Geography, 43(2), 337– 350.
  2. Bakker, K., & Ritts, M. (2018). Smart Earth: A meta‐review and implications for environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 52, 201– 211.
  3. Bastin, J. F., Finegold, Y., Garcia, C., Mollicone, D., Rezende, M., Routh, D., Zohner, C. M., & Crowther, T. W. (2019). The global tree restoration potential. Science, 365(6448), 76– 79. 31273120
  4. Bennett, M. M., Chen, J. K., Alvarez Léon, L. F., & Gleason, C. J. (2022). The politics of pixels: A review and agenda for critical remote sensing. Progress in Human Geography, 46(3), 729–752.
  5. Bond, W. J. (2016). Ancient grasslands at risk. Science, 351(6269), 120– 122. 26744392
  6. Briggs, C., Burfurd, I., Duckham, M., Guntarik, O., Kerr, D., McMillan, M., & San Martin Saldias, D. (2020). Bridging the geospatial gap: Data about space and Indigenous knowledge of place. Geography Compass, 14(11), e12542.
  7. Brockington, D., & Wilkie, D. (2015). Protected areas and poverty. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370, 20140271. PMC4614728 26460124
  8. Bowker, G. C. (2000). Biodiversity datadiversity. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 643– 683.
  9. Burkart, K., Vynne, C., Dinerstein, E., Lee, a., Joshi, A., Pharand‐Deschênes, F., França, M., Fernando, S., Birch, T., Asner, G., & Olson, D. (2021). Electronic response to Dutta et al., 2021. Appended to Dinerstein et al. 2020 A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth's climate. Science Advances, 6(36), eabb2824. PMC7473742 32917614
  10. Celermajer, D., Schlosberg, D., Rickards, L., Stewart‐Harawira, M., Thaler, M., Tschakert, P., Verlie, B., & Winter, C. (2021). Multispecies justice: Theories, challenges, and a research agenda for environmental politics. Environmental Politics, 30(1–2), 119– 140.
  11. Chambers, J. M., Wyborn, C., Ryan, M. E., Reid, R. S., Riechers, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N. J., Cvitanovic, C., Fernández‐Giménez, M. E., Galvin, K. A., & Goldstein, B. E. (2021). Six modes of co‐production for sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 4(11), 983– 996.
  12. Chi, G., Fang, H., Chatterjee, S., & Blumenstock, J. E. (2022). Microestimates of wealth for all low‐and middle‐income countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(3), e2113658119. PMC8784134 35017299
  13. Cooper, M. H. (2015). Measure for measure? Commensuration, commodification, and metrology in emissions markets and beyond. Environment and Planning A, 47(9), 1787– 1804.
  14. Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A. R., Vynne, C., Lee, A. T. L., Pharand‐Deschênes, F., França, M., Fernando, S., Birch, T., Burkart, K., Asner, G. P., & Olson, D. (2020). A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth's climate. Science Advances, 6(36), eabb2824. 32917614 PMC7473742
  15. Duffy, R., Massé, F., Smidt, E., Marijnen, E., Büscher, B., Verweijen, J., Ramutsindela, M., Simlai, T., Joanny, L., & Lunstrum, E. (2019). Why we must question the militarisation of conservation. Biological Conservation, 232, 66– 73. 31007267 PMC6472544
  16. Dutta, A., Allan, J., Worsdell, T., Duffy, R., Kumar, K., Rai, N., Fischer, H. W., Shimray, G., & Sherpa, P. D. (2020). Electronic response to Dinerstein et al. 2020 A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth's climate. Science Advances, 6(36), eabb2824. 32917614 PMC7473742
  17. Fleischman, F., Basant, S., Chhatre, A., Coleman, E. A., Fischer, H. W., Gupta, D., Güneralp, B., Kashwan, P., Khatri, D., Muscarella, R., & Powers, J. S. (2020). Pitfalls of tree planting show why we need people‐centered natural climate solutions. Bioscience, 70(11), 947– 950.
  18. Fraser, N. (2008). Abnormal justice. Critical Inquiry, 34(3), 393– 422.
  19. Gabrys, J. (2016). Practicing, materialising and contesting environmental data. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 10.1177/2053951716673391 · DOI
  20. Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., & Woodbury, P. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645– 11650. PMC5676916 29078344
  21. Hannah, L., Roehrdanz, P. R., Marquet, P. A., Enquist, B. J., Midgley, G., Foden, W., Lovett, J. C., Corlett, R. T., Corcoran, D., Butchart, S. H., & Boyle, B. (2020). 30% land conservation and climate action reduces tropical extinction risk by more than 50%. Ecography, 43(7), 943– 953.
  22. Heeks, R., & Shekhar, S. (2019). Datafication, development and marginalised urban communities: An applied data justice framework. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 992– 1011.
  23. Hudson, L. N., Newbold, T., Contu, S., Hill, S. L., Lysenko, I., De Palma, A., Phillips, H. R., Senior, R. A., Bennett, D. J., Booth, H., & Choimes, A. (2014). The PREDICTS database: A global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts. Ecology and Evolution, 4(24), 4701– 4735. 25558364 PMC4278822
  24. Jasanoff, S. (2017). Virtual, visible, and actionable: Data assemblages and the sightlines of justice. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 10.1177/2053951717724477 · DOI
  25. Kashwan, P., Duffy, R. V., Massé, F., Asiyanbi, A. P., & Marijnen, E. (2021). From racialized neocolonial global conservation to an inclusive and regenerative conservation. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 63(4), 4– 19.
  26. Kontinen, T., & Nguyahambi, A. M. (2020). Disrupting habits of North–South research collaboration: Learning in co‐authoring. European Journal of Development Research, 32(3), 529– 543.
  27. Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (2016). Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda. ANU Press.
  28. Lewis, S. L., Mitchard, E. T., Prentice, C., Maslin, M., & Poulter, B. (2019). Comment on “The global tree restoration potential”. Science, 366(6463), eaaz0388. 31624179
  29. Maas, B., Pakeman, R. J., Godet, L., Smith, L., Devictor, V., & Primack, R. (2021). Women and Global South strikingly underrepresented among top‐publishing ecologists. Conservation Letters, 14(4), e12797.
  30. Machen, R., & Nost, E. (2021). Thinking algorithmically: The making of hegemonic knowledge in climate governance. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 46(3), 555– 569.
  31. Mah, A. (2017). Environmental justice in the age of big data: Challenging toxic blind spots of voice, speed, and expertise. Environmental Sociology, 3(2), 122– 133.
  32. National Research Council. (1998). People and pixels: Linking remote sensing and social science. National Academies Press.
  33. Newell, S., & Marabelli, M. (2015). Strategic opportunities (and challenges) of algorithmic decision‐making: A call for action on the long‐term societal effects of ‘datification.’ Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(1), 3– 14.
  34. Nost, E., & Goldstein, J. E. (2021). A political ecology of data. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 5(1), 3– 17.
  35. Ploton, P., Mortier, F., Réjou‐Méchain, M., Barbier, N., Picard, N., Rossi, V., Dormann, C., Cornu, G., Viennois, G., Bayol, N., & Lyapustin, A. (2020). Spatial validation reveals poor predictive performance of large‐scale ecological mapping models. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1– 11. PMC7486894 32917875
  36. Power, M. (2004). Counting, control and calculation: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations, 57(6), 765– 783.
  37. Radjawali, I., Pye, O., & Flitner, M. (2017). Recognition through reconnaissance? Using drones for counter‐mapping in Indonesia. Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(4), 817– 833.
  38. Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 153– 181.
  39. Runting, R. K., Phinn, S., Xie, Z., Venter, O., & Watson, J. E. (2020). Opportunities for big data in conservation and sustainability. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1– 4. PMC7181767 32332744
  40. Sandbrook, C., Luque‐Lora, R., & Adams, W. M. (2018). Human bycatch: Conservation surveillance and the social implications of camera traps. Conservation and Society, 16(4), 493– 504.
  41. Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political theories. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 517– 540.
  42. Seddon, N., Smith, A., Smith, P., Key, I., Chausson, A., Girardin, C., House, J., Srivastava, S., & Turner, B. (2021). Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change. Global Change Biology, 27(8), 1518– 1546. 33522071
  43. Simlai, T., & Sandbrook, C. (2021). Digital surveillance technologies in conservation and their social implications. In S. Wich, & A. Piel (Eds.), Conservation Technology, (pp. 239– 249).
  44. Schleicher, J., Zaehringer, J. G., Fastré, C., Vira, B., Visconti, P., & Sandbrook, C. (2019). Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people. Nature Sustainability, 2(12), 1094– 1096.
  45. Schreckenberg, K., Franks, P., Martin, A., & Lang, B. (2016). Unpacking equity for protected area conservation. Parks, 22(2), 11– 26.
  46. Tsatsou, P. (2011). Digital divides revisited: What is new about divides and their research? Media, Culture & Society, 33(2), 317– 331.
  47. Veldman, J. W., Silveira, F. A., Fleischman, F. D., Ascarrunz, N. L., & Durigan, G. (2017). Grassy biomes: An inconvenient reality for large‐scale forest restoration? A comment on the essay by Chazdon and Laestadius. American Journal of Botany, 104(5), 649– 651. 28456760
  48. Veldman, J. W., Aleman, J. C., Alvarado, S. T., Anderson, T. M., Archibald, S., Bond, W. J., Boutton, T. W., Buchmann, N., Buisson, E., Canadell, J. G., & de Sá Dechoum, M. (2019). Comment on “The global tree restoration potential”. Science, 366(6463), eaay7976. 31624182
  49. Vera, L. A., Walker, D., Murphy, M., Mansfield, B., Siad, L. M., & Ogden, J. (2019). When data justice and environmental justice meet: Formulating a response to extractive logic through environmental data justice. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 1012– 1028. 31787840 PMC6884364
  50. Walker, D., Nost, E., Lemelin, A., Lave, R., & Dillon, L. (2018). Practicing environmental data justice: From dataRescue to data together. Geo: Geography and Environment, 5(2), e00061.
  51. Wyborn, C., & Evans, M. C. (2021). Conservation needs to break free from global priority mapping. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5, 1– 3. 34426678
  52. Zeng, Y., Sarira, T. V., Carrasco, L. R., Chong, K. Y., Friess, D. A., Lee, J. S. H., Taillardat, P., Worthington, T. A., Zhang, Y., & Koh, L. P. (2020). Economic and social constraints on reforestation for climate mitigation in Southeast Asia. Nature Climate Change, 10(9), 842– 844.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pritchard, R., Sauls, L. A., Oldekop, J. A., Kiwango, W. A., & Brockington, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • The University of Dodoma (TZ)
Corresponding author
Pritchard, Rose
ORCID
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-07-13
Volume
36
Issue
5
Pages
e13919-e13919
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
DOI
10.1111/cobi.13919
PMC
PMC9796839
OpenAlex
W4223904921
Cited by
93
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4
FWCI
6.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Conservation Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Leverhulme Trust
  • British Academy
  • Royal Academy of Engineering
  • Royal Society
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
data justice, biodiversity conservation, conservation data, data ethics, data control, data access, conservation prioritization, ecological justice, indigenous knowledge
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Social Justice, Biodiversity

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