The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Decolonizing Nature
Abstract
British imperialism was almost unparalleled in its historical and geographical reach, leaving a legacy of entrenched social transformation in nations and cultures in every part of the globe. Colonial annexation and government were based on an all-encompassing system that integrated and controlled political, economic, social and ethnic relations, and required a similar annexation and control of natural resources and nature itself. Colonial ideologies were expressed not only in the progressive exploitation of nature but also in the emerging discourses of conservation. At the start of the 21st century, the conservation of nature is of undiminished importance in post-colonial societies, yet the legacy of colonial thinking endures. What should conservation look like today, and what (indeed, whose) ideas should it be based upon? Decolonizing Nature explores the influence of the colonial legacy on contemporary conservation and on ideas about the relationships between people, polities and nature in countries and cultures that were once part of the British Empire. It locates the historical development of the theory and practice of conservation - at both the periphery and the centre - firmly within the context of this legacy, and considers its significance today. It highlights the present and future challenges to conservationists of contemporary global neo-colonialism The contributors to this volume include both academics and conservation practitioners. They provide wide-ranging and in…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Drawing upon adjacent developments in the conservation social sciences will likely enable the identification of new objectives and parameters for models to fit better with the realities of conservation practice.
“Doing so will likely enable the identification of new objectives and parameters for models to fit better with the realities of conservation practice58–63.”
From Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [63]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Adams, W. (., & Mulligan, M.
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2012-04-27
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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