ArticlePDF Available


It is time to acknowledge and overcome conservation's deep-seated systemic racism, which has historically marginalized Black, Indigenous and people of colour (BIPOC) communities and continues to do so. We describe how the mutually reinforcing ‘twin spheres’ of conservation science and conservation practice perpetuate this systemic racism. We trace how institutional structures in conservation science (e.g. degree programmes, support and advancement opportunities, course syllabuses) can systematically produce conservation graduates with partial and problematic conceptions of conservation's history and contemporary purposes. Many of these graduates go on to work in conservation practice, reproducing conservation's colonial history by contributing to programmes based on outmoded conservation models that disproportionately harm rural BIPOC communities and further restrict access and inclusion for BIPOC conservationists. We provide practical, actionable proposals for breaking vicious cycles of racism in the system of conservation we have with virtuous cycles of inclusion, equality, equity and participation in the system of conservation we want.
Biological science
Cite this article: Rudd LF et al. 2021
Overcoming racism in the twin spheres of
conservation science and practice. Proc. R. Soc.
B288: 20211871.
Received: 23 August 2021
Accepted: 7 October 2021
Subject Category:
Global change and conservation
Subject Areas:
ecology, environmental science
anti-racism, BIPOC, colonialism, equity,
diversity, inclusion
Author for correspondence:
Lauren F. Rudd
Present address: Green Templeton College,
43 Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6HG, UK.
Overcoming racism in the twin spheres of
conservation science and practice
Lauren F. Rudd
, Shorna Allred
, Julius G. Bright Ross
Darragh Hare
, Merlyn Nomusa Nkomo
, Kartik Shanker
, Tanesha Allen
Duan Biggs
, Amy Dickman
, Michael Dunaway
, Ritwick Ghosh
Nicole Thompson González
, Thembela Kepe
, Moreangels
M. Mbizah
, Sara L. Middleton
, Meera Anna Oommen
Kumar Paudel
, Claudio Sillero-Zubiri
and Andrea Dávalos
Department of Zoology,
Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, and
Department of Plant Sciences,
Oxford University, UK
Center for Conservation Social Sciences, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, and
Department of Global Development, Cornell University, USA
Fitzpatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, India
Dakshin Foundation, India
Environmental Futures Research Institute, Griffith University, Australia
Lion Landscapes, Tanzania
Department of Sociology, Syracuse University, USA
Global Futures Laboratory, Arizona State University, USA
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, USA
Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Canada
Geography Department, Rhodes University, South Africa
Wildlife Conservation Action, Zimbabwe
Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Sustainability Research Unit, Nelson Mandela University, George, South Africa
Greenhood Nepal, Nepal
Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, UK
Born Free Foundation, Ethiopia and UK
Biological Sciences Department, SUNY Cortland, USA
LFR, 0000-0002-5925-9514; SA, 0000-0001-6237-0638; JGBR, 0000-0003-2454-1592;
DH, 0000-0003-4418-9637; MNN, 0000-0002-0609-0153; KS, 0000-0003-4856-0093;
NTG, 0000-0002-3195-1277; TK, 0000-0002-1807-0387; MMM, 0000-0002-6868-052X;
SLM, 0000-0001-5307-8029; AD, 0000-0002-3590-4152
It is time to acknowledge and overcome conservations deep-seated systemic
racism, which has historically marginalized Black, Indigenous and people of
colour (BIPOC) communities and continues to do so. We describe how the
mutually reinforcing twin spheresof conservation science and conservation
practice perpetuate this systemic racism. We trace how institutional struc-
tures in conservation science (e.g. degree programmes, support and
advancement opportunities, course syllabuses) can systematically produce
conservation graduates with partial and problematic conceptions of conser-
vations history and contemporary purposes. Many of these graduates go on
to work in conservation practice, reproducing conservations colonial history
by contributing to programmes based on outmoded conservation models
that disproportionately harm rural BIPOC communities and further restrict
access and inclusion for BIPOC conservationists. We provide practical,
actionable proposals for breaking vicious cycles of racism in the system of
conservation we have with virtuous cycles of inclusion, equality, equity
and participation in the system of conservation we want.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Downloaded from on 03 November 2021
1. Introduction
It is time to acknowledge and overcome conservations deep-
seated systemic racism, which has historically marginalized
Black, Indigenous and people of colour (BIPOC) communities,
and continues to do so [15]. Given conservations history of
racism, exclusion and oppression [1,6], and the fundamental
role that BIPOC communities must play in biodiversity conser-
vation, conservation researchers and practitioners must lead
the way in committing to anti-racism [7]. Failing to examine,
acknowledge and act on persistent oppression in our field pro-
vides tacit support to racism, tarnishing the conservation
successes we achieve, and causing real harm to some of the
worlds most vulnerable people [8].
In this paper, we critique contemporary mainstream
conservation: formalized, evidence-based efforts to conserve
biodiversity. Despite its relatively brief history, this form of con-
servation globally dominates indigenous knowledge systems
through which people have actively and adaptively conserved
ecosystems for millennia [9]. In many places, mainstream con-
servation has replaced indigenous knowledge systems, often
to the detriment of local people and biodiversity [10].
We draw on existing literature and our interdisciplinary,
cross-sectoral, professional experiences to identify issues of
and propose solutions to systemic racism in what we term the
twin spheresof conservation: (i) conservation science: aca-
demic teaching and research, which typically takes place on
college and university campuses and (ii) conservation prac-
tice: applied conservation policies and programmes, which
typically take place outside the campus gates. We argue that
systemic racism mars our activities in these twin spheres of con-
servation science and practice, and that what we do in each
sphere affects what happens in the other (figure 1). Conserva-
tion practices colonial origins and racist history influence
how academia conceptualizes conservation problems and sol-
utions, what is taught, and the nature of interactions between
students, colleagues and the local people on whose land
research is conducted [1]. The racism that permeates the aca-
demic sphere is reproduced in conservation activities outside
academia, in the biases and preconceptions that conservation
graduates carry with them and apply to on-the-ground
decision making in the organizations for which they work. In
turn, these on-the-ground decisions affect conservation practice
by influencing which conservation problems are addressed,
how they are addressed and how colleagues and collaborators
are treated. Conservationistsformal and informal practices
can, often implicitly or unintentionally, impart racist and neo-
colonialist undertones onto academic work (e.g. publications,
conference presentations, teaching) which underpins many of
the conservation programmes and policies that are studied
and taught to subsequent cohorts of students (figure 1).
This vicious cycle in the twin spheres of conservation
science and practice characterizes the conservation we have
created and inherited, but it does not characterize the conser-
vation we want. We urge fellow members of the conservation
communityacademics and practitionersto take stock of
the manner in which much of what we do in conservation
science and practice perpetuates, reinforces and deepens
racial divisions [1], and reflect honestly on how we can
change our behaviours and institutions for the better. We
are morally obliged to demolish racist structures, reform
our individual and collective actions, and construct a more
equal, inclusive and socially just field. We owe this to the
people whom conservation has harmed and continues to
harm, the communities on whose land we are privileged to
work, the students we mentor and the broader societies we
serve. We recognize and strongly welcome many recent
steps in the right direction, but we have a long way to go.
We, the authors, are a diverse team representing, other than
race, different ethnicities, levels in academia, years of experi-
ence in both conservation research and practice, primary
fields of study and specializations in conservation, organiz-
ational affiliations and regions of the world. While we do not
purport to speak for all conservationists in our different com-
munities, the varied perspectives we discuss here represent
our lived experiences and are not appropriated knowledge.
We acknowledge that the experiences of BIPOC individ-
uals in conservation will depend on political, social and
economic factors such as nationality, native language and
socio-economic status. While the extent of racism faced by
individuals and the obstacles they encounter may vary,
BIPOC individuals are, on the whole, a minority within the
conservation space. We also acknowledge that the state of
conservation varies around the world. In some previously
colonized countries, white western organizations, indivi-
dualism and ideals still largely dominate conservation, but
in other countries, local and regional efforts predominate.
Even where BIPOC individuals currently lead conservation
research and practice, these individuals often seem to come
from positions of relative privilege within society, regardless
of whether the society is BIPOC majority or BIPOC minority.
To truly reconcile the historic racial injustices within the
field of conservation, this type of privilege needs to be
acknowledged and addressed.
Without recognizing barriers to individuals such as
socio-economic background, language, access to training
and networking opportunities, simply increasing the rep-
resentation of BIPOC people in conservation will not solve
the problem, as being a BIPOC individual does not guarantee
either cultural literacy or an anti-racist outlook. Racist
hierarchies and processes operate within every society and
at multiple levels, not simply at the global scale of colonial
legacy. While much of this conversation is outwith the
scope of this paper, what we advocate for above all is foster-
ing greater inclusivity within conservation, which should go
some way towards addressing all the problems outlined.
2. Conservation practices deep-seated racist
Many dominant conservation tools, such as protected areas and
quotas for sustainable use, are rooted in colonial strategies for
optimizing resource extraction and recreational opportunities
on colonized land [11,12]. These practices came at great cost to
local people, including through forced removal, abuse, loss of
livelihoods, cultural assimilation, human rights abuses and
death [1315]. For example, Native American people were
killed or forcibly removed from their ancestral lands to create
national parks that appealed to settler colonistswilderness
ideals [13,16]. Long-standing indigenousand local cultural prac-
tices, norms and taboos were replaced by extractive or
preservationist values of European colonists [9,17,18]. Contem-
porary conservation can perpetuate these values, often in spite
of strenuous opposition from Indigenous and local people [19]. Proc. R. Soc. B 288: 20211871
Downloaded from on 03 November 2021
While extractive approaches can be clearly neo-colonial
and racist, preservationism can be less obviously so. The
preservationist approach seeks to preserve Eden-like environ-
ments, often via protected areas [12,18]. Recognizing the extent
of ecological degradation across much of the Global North,
advocates of this approach appear to believe that conservation
can only happen elsewhere in pristine environments, typically
in the Global South. Preservationist efforts may be well-
intentioned (e.g. by seeking to protect critically endangered
populations or areas of high biodiversity) but are often blind
to the environmental injustices they impose on local people
through fortress conservation (conservation through formal,
exclusionary protected areas, that displace and marginalize
local people and prioritize the interests of wealthy, often dis-
tant, elites) [20]. In our experience, conservationists from the
Global North often lack local cultural literacy and come
equipped with the privileged legacy of colonial power, perpe-
tuating a white saviourmentality [21]. Related tensions are
evident in parachute science, in which external conservation-
ists suddenly arrive in a new place to conduct research, using
local scientists only as field staff or data collectors under the
pretext that local capacity or expertise is lacking [22,23].
Some of the best-known examples of conservation practice,
as well as many academic conservation scientistsfield
experiences, are enmeshed in such unjust paradigms. When
academics bring these examples and experiences uncritically
into formal and informal teaching, conservation students
may internalize them as normal or desirable.
Conservations colonial underpinnings continue to permit
practices that subjugate local people by portraying them as
responsible for conservation problems, forcibly removing
them from their land in the name of conservation and
preventing them from accessing wildlife and protected
areas [6,8,24], often by militarized means [25,26]. Some influ-
ential researchers and advocacy groups based in the Global
North advocate for extending their preferred conservation
ideologies to vastly different socioecological and cultural
contexts, with apparently little regard for traditional practices
or ethics in those locations [15]. Such prescriptions can
endorse social hierarchies (e.g. caste in India) by privileging
certain practices (e.g. vegetarianism) without understanding
the historical and social inequities associated with them
[27]. More broadly, these practices disempower people in
the Global South by demanding they change their beha-
viours, many of which they have been practising for
millennia, to suit the preferences of distant interest groups.
Such demands are particularly distasteful when couched, see-
mingly without irony, in anti-colonial and pro-equality
rhetoric [28]. High-profile proposals to increase the amount
of land and seascapes designated as exclusionary protected
areas (e.g. [29]) show little consideration for social and cul-
tural consequences [30]. Western interests claiming or
maintaining de facto control over many conservation spaces
in the Global South is straightforward neo-colonialism [31],
a contemporary form of land grabbing permitted in the
name of environmental protection [32].
3. Exclusion from engaging with nature
The high degree of exclusion of BIPOC people across levels of
conservation science and practice reproduces conservation
practices colonial history. Many BIPOC people have been
excluded from environmental policymaking. The ability for
indigenous communities to effectively participate in policies
that affect them has been removed through colonial processes
in many parts of the world. For example, the Marshall Trilogy
of Supreme Court decisions (Johnson v. MIntosh 1823, Cher-
okee Nation v. Georgia 1831, and Worcester v. Georgia 1832)
in the United States, the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) in New
Zealand, and the policy of Terra Nullius in Australia (1835),
all placed Indigenous sovereignty over land and resources
within the dominion of colonial governments.
In BIPOC minority countries, people of colour are further
excluded from conservation because they are less likely to
framing of conservation problems and
objectives based on outdated ideals
teaching of biased curricula which influences
how students perceive history, philosophy, and
objectives of conservation
prejudice in values and outlooks, particularly
regarding IPLC, which are adopted by scholars
and instilled in students
promotion and reward structures that do not
recognise or encourage EDI work
structural barriers to entry and progression,
affecting the people we attract, nurture,
retain, and promote
colonial origins of conservation influence
how problems are perceived by practitioners
local communities, knowledge and values
viewed as challenges to achieving conservation
goals rather than integral to success
definitions of conservation success which
focus solely on outcomes for nature with no
consideration for local people
policies and programmes founded in western
ideals with little consideration for local context
structural barriers prevent diverse people
from participating, perpetuating the white
western image of conservation
conservation science conservation practice
Figure 1. The mutually reinforcing twin spheres of conservation science and conservation practice. Although each sphere can operate largely independently ofthe
other, they each perpetuate neo-colonial and racist ideologies that reinforce the other in subtle but important ways. Escaping this vicious cycle will require con-
servation scientists and practitioners to change our individual and collective behaviours (boxes 13). Definitions: Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs);
equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). (Online version in colour.) Proc. R. Soc. B 288: 20211871
Downloaded from on 03 November 2021
have access to and use outdoor spaces for recreational pur-
poses than people from predominantly white communities
[33,34]. Recent high-profile cases in the United States and
United Kingdom demonstrate that people of colour, and
particularly Black people, are often unsafe and unwelcome in
outdoor spaces [35,36].
Exclusion is also evident in financial hurdles to entering
conservation, particularly for many from BIPOC communities
Figure 2. The conservation we have (a) and the conservation we want (b). Current pathways to success systematically favour some groups over others. Each step in
the academic process represents a successive impediment to aspiring BIPOC conservationists, from the resources to pursue such a career, to the attentiveness of
supervision received, to the degree of welcome that recent graduates of different skin colours receive in the industry. Consequently, conservation practice is designed
and communicated to local people by outsiders who may fail to understand local context or are beholden to predominant western approaches to conservation. We
must strive to bring about a system that is more attractive and more accessible to BIPOC aspirants. The academic system should only represent one valid entry point
to conservation. By enabling the sharing of expertise from local conservationists and increasing career mobility between field conservation, academia and the non-
profit sector, multiple stakeholder viewpoints can be prioritized in the process of moving towards more holistic, novel models of conservation. Illustration by Barkha
Lohia. (Online version in colour.) Proc. R. Soc. B 288: 20211871
Downloaded from on 03 November 2021
with a long history of economic exclusion. As examples, activi-
ties such as birding, diving and hiking to name a few require
equipment that is often costly [37]. This financial barrier can
be further amplified in some areas of the Global South if
such equipment is not locally available or affordable, making
it difficult to source. Because experience builds passion for
the outdoors, inspiring people to pursue careers in conserva-
tion, socio-economic barriers block many BIPOC peoples
routes into conservation science and practice. Exclusion can
be concentrated in certain sub-communities: individuals of
different genders, migration experience and wealth within a
recognized ethnic minority group may vary widely in their
motivations and ability to use and interact with outdoor
spaces [38]. BIPOC members of other minority communities
may face additional barriers to safely using outdoor spaces
[39,40]experiences which can be compounded by racism.
Further, colourism exacerbates the threat to dark-skinned
BIPOC individuals, and the discrimination they face [41].
These converging forms of discrimination illustrate the magni-
tude and diversity of obstacles that systematically divert
BIPOC people away from conservation (figure 2).
4. Racism in conservation science and
practice today
Power in conservation typically resides in governments,
corporations, large NGOs and universities [42]. Universities
are central because they provide the qualifications required
for a degree in conservation. However, BIPOC students are
disproportionately underrepresented in degree subjects that
lead to conservation careers [5,43,44], partly due to high
upfront degree costs and lack of scholarships, expensive
field trips, unpaid summer field experiences, low job security
and the predominance of low-paid or voluntary entry-level
positions [45]. Once enrolled, students are expected to
undertake conservation work during summers and academic
holidays to boost their credentials. However, field-based
educational experiences may not always be designed with
inclusivity in mind [46] and can perpetuate neo-colonial atti-
tudes when being run by institutions outside the host country
[47], making the experiences unsafe and uncomfortable for
BIPOC students. Internship opportunities in universities,
NGOs, governmental and intergovernmental agencies often
target students from wealthier countries and are typically
both expensive to enrol in and unpaid, thus carrying substan-
tial transaction and opportunity costs [48,49]. Many BIPOC
students cannot participate for financial or cultural reasons,
missing out on valuable work experience, networks and job
opportunities. Expectations that students hoping to work in
conservation should go above and beyond and not expect a
financial reward for their efforts, excludes many.
The predominant narrative of conservation taught in
academia uncritically emphasizes the Western paradigmof pris-
tine wilderness and fortress conservation, what Shanker &
Oomen [31] term pristianitynamed for the religious zeal in
which preservation of wild spaces is pursued. Students in con-
servation degrees typically do not learn the colonial and deeply
racist intentions and consequences of fortress conservation.
Local knowledge is often referred to in passing as indigenous
knowledge systems, relegating it to superstition and alternative
thought while western ideas are imposed as the only way of
understanding or engaging with ecosystems. Teaching this sani-
tized history of conservation perpetuates deep inequalities in
the field and can alienate BIPOC students [50].
Advanced degrees are essential for many high-level con-
servation jobs, but funding for postgraduate study is scarce
and predominantly flows to white students. For example, in
Box 1. How to recognize and address the unjust history of conservation science.
1. Educate oneself on the history of racism in conservation through reading, reflecting on ones own experiences and engaging
in dialogue with others. Recommended reading [6,1113,16,20,31].
2. Diversify and broaden the curriculum; teach a more comprehensive representation of past and present conservation
practice, including the work and perspectives of BIPOC scholars, and ultimately produce new standardtextbooks that
encompass this history. Recommended reading [2,5963].
3. Prioritize inclusive teaching practices in conservation courses by embracing the tenets of inclusive course design, active
learning modalities and service learning techniques, to encourage broader participation and interest in conservation sciences.
Recommended reading [6467].
4. Conduct outreach in predominantly BIPOC schools and areas within predominantly white countries to promote
conservation careers at an early age. Potential outreach activities could include hands-on activities, meet a conservation
scientistQ&A session, talks at school career days and hosting research events tailored for high school students.
5. Encourage professional associations to fully integrate equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) into their policies and standards,
(for example, the Society for Conservation Biology should update their guidelines for conservation literacy to include a
section on EDI).
6. Question dominant narratives about what works in conservation, including how success is measured, and track the history
of power relations shaping such narratives.
7. Recognize that injustice is not only historic or organizational, but occurs today within each of our lives. Challenging
conversations, personal reflection and honesty are required for each of us to take personal, immediate steps to ensure we are
not perpetuating unjust actions.
8. Understand that facing past wrongs is not just about rehashing the past, but to be honest about the present and to create a
solid foundation for future action. Proc. R. Soc. B 288: 20211871
Downloaded from on 03 November 2021
the 20182019 application cycle for postgraduate study fund-
ing in the UK, only 6% of Natural Environment Research
Council (NERC) studentships were awarded to ethnic
minorities [51]. In the UK, success for white principal investi-
gators applying to NERC for funding awards was 13%
higher than for individuals from ethnic minorities [51].
Senior positions in environmental organizations are typically
held by white people: as of 2014, people from minoritized
ethnic groups occupied less than 12% of these leadership pos-
itions in the US [52]. Insular hiring practices such as advertising
positions internally and developing unpaid internships into
paid positions or degree scholarships exacerbate the problem.
Postgraduate study can be daunting, particularly to first-
generation students, and BIPOC students disproportionately
fall into this category [53]. In the light of this, respectful, sup-
portive relationships between postgraduate students and
Box 2. How to construct better ways to conduct research and practice conservation.
1. Develop qualifying assessments for individuals to demonstrate cultural literacyin relation to fieldwork sites (deliverables
could be to incorporate local history, expected socio-economic impact, plans for local collaboration and plans for preventing
neo-colonial relations in project proposals).
2. Ensure fair dissemination of funds and grants to BIPOC academics, conservation practitioners and BIPOC led
3. Develop new models to ensure that BIPOC voices are heard: e.g. balancing expensive, in-person networking events with
opportunities for online networking (while being considerate of any technological barriers), to enable more participation
from diverse conservationists.
4. Avoid parachute science; meaningfully include local partners in conservation from question formulation and applied
practice all the way through to publication and beyond (this applies to academic research and work done by NGOs and
government agencies). For example, journals and funding bodies could require inclusion of local partners as co-authors or
require a report of actions implemented to ensure inclusivity and equity when conducting research abroad [68].
5. Create opportunities for community members to have real agency in conservation projects and promote conservation
management solutions that align with the communitiesculture and values, even when those might conflict with the views of
NGOs or other external stakeholders.
6. Respect the rights of Indigenous People and local communities to manage, benefit from, and sustainably use their
resources, embracingnot suppressingdiverse conservation ethics and resource management systems.
7. Recognize that BIPOC communities are diverse and heterogeneous and have different values and cultures.
8. Promote bottom-up conservation practices that decentralize management practices and decision making. To do this,
practitioners should embrace the core concepts from participatory action research, community-based research and
indigenous methodologies, all of which focus on rebalancing power dynamics [6975].
9. Collaborate with colleagues in history, political ecology, geography and other cognate disciplines to ensure inclusion of a
broader perspective within conservation curricula, and that we consider critical perspectives throughout research design and
Box 3. How to create an inclusive, safe conservation that welcomes BIPOC individuals and allows them to thrive in conservation science and practice.
1. Ensure that essentialwork experience is incorporated into undergraduate and graduate conservation degree programmes,
is fully funded at this stage and is not used as a metric to judge candidates during admissions processes to these
programmes, as they do not represent candidatesabilities but rather their opportunities.
2. Evaluate current harassment reporting and risk assessment procedures to ensure they protect anonymity and allow for
reporting of issues specific to BIPOC individuals.
3. Recognize and reward EDI work in the same way we would traditional academic achievements.
4. Advocate for and actively create opportunities for your BIPOC colleagues, even when this means personally stepping
aside/turning down opportunities.
5. Extend current EDI initiatives (e.g. for gender equality) to be inclusive of BIPOC individuals who also fall within the remit
6. Protect BIPOC people in your teamlearn through independent research and training programmes how, where and why
they may be vulnerable. Listen with humility and compassion to their expressed concerns. Further, prevent their possible
harm by, for example, creating a risk management plan for fieldwork, including mitigating strategies [39].
7. Learn the cultural histories, norms and values of the communities on whose land you conduct research, and incorporate
them into your conservation. Include local people as partners to help define, measure and evaluate success. Proc. R. Soc. B 288: 20211871
Downloaded from on 03 November 2021
their supervisors are pivotal to success. People generally
prefer to work with those that they can relate to and have a
common culture witha concept known as affinity bias
[54], which can be compounded by colourism [55], and
further disadvantage BIPOC students in a field dominated
by white people. Costs of attending international conferences
and publishing scientific articles, which are both crucial for
career advancement, can pose prohibitive financial barriers.
Such factors are compounded by additional barriers such
as visa processes and expenses to exclude people from
BIPOC-majority countries from studying overseas [56].
This series of obstacles (figure 2) to success means BIPOC
researchers are woefully underrepresented in conservation
science and practice, and those who remain have few opportu-
nities for advancement. Lack of high-level representation
means little consideration is given to the specific problems
that BIPOC people encounter in trying to succeed within con-
servation. We have personally witnessed or experienced many
of these problems in our own workplaces. We have observed
how the uniquewelfare and safety challenges to BIPOC conser-
vationists, both in the field and in the workplace [39], can be
invisible to senior colleagues who are unaffected by them
and cannot relate. Racial stereotypes and derogatory language
are used too often when discussing local communities and field
staff, which alongside relentless assumptions about where one
is really fromwhen referring to colleagues of colour, further
alienates BIPOC people. Further, old-boynetworks and low
turnover of individuals in senior positions mean that encoun-
tering racism and discrimination remains common [50]. The
burden of calling out and reporting such incidents often falls
on BIPOC people, which is especially daunting to those in
junior positions because harassment reporting procedures in
organizations with few possible BIPOC complainants cannot
guarantee anonymity.
Academia is not the only route into conservation, but it cur-
rently acts as the main gatekeeper. Other entry forms (such as
on-the-ground experience, often held by local conservation
workers) may actually equip people with many more useful
skills and fewer harmful biases. However, broadly speaking
from our collective experience, a lack of academic qualifications
(sometimes compounded by language barriers) prevents
people from being able to progress to higher level positions
in organizations where decision-making power resides.
Among development fields, conservation appears to have an
almost Brahminicalreverence for academic qualifications.
As such, and despite a greater emphasis on BIPOC people
and communities in the last two decades, conservation
narratives remain dominated by western and/or privileged
biologists and elite international and local NGOs [31,42].
5. Building inclusive conservation science and
Diversifying conservation has both ethical and practical conse-
quences; it is socially just and can improve the success of
conservation initiatives. It is important for conservation
scientists and practitioners to acknowledge that, historically,
BIPOC communities most impacted by environmental issues
have been the least included in decision making [10]. Continu-
ing to perpetuate these unjust power dynamics will wreak
havoc on some of the worlds most vulnerable communities
[8]. Legitimate participation of local people produces better
conservation outcomes because it builds community capacity
and provides the opportunity for members to be involved in
the definition of the problem, the development of policies
and the implementation of measures and evaluation, ultimately
increasing project sustainability [57]. Diversifying conservation
teams increases the breadth of perspectives, driving innovation
[58]innovations that are sorely needed for developing ecologi-
cally and socio-culturally sustainable conservation strategies.
Most importantly, respecting the rights of Indigenous People
and local communities is required by international law, and as
such is an imperative, not an optional luxury [8].
It is incumbent on all members of the conservation com-
munity to recognize and address the unjust history of
conservation (box 1). For example, we must recognize that
some of the earliest proponents of environmental protection
in the Global North and South were also ardent proponents
of colonial expansion, eugenics and white supremacy. We
must acknowledge this context while dismantling it and seek-
ing solutions rooted in a system of inclusivity and equality. It
is essential that we reflect on the ways in which we have per-
sonally harmed or disadvantaged people from BIPOC
communities in our professional lives. Holding ourselves
accountable and taking steps to rectify these wrongs is a
vital first step towards creating a more inclusive and just con-
servation. This sense of individual responsibility should be
the basis for building future conservation solutions.
Many people from BIPOC communities are interested in
conservation but are often excluded and alienated from it
due to historic, unequal power and privilege structures.
These structures must fall. It is therefore essential that all
members of the conservation community play an active role
in replacing the conservation we have with the conservation
we want (figure 2). This means rethinking our individual
and collective behaviours to create more inclusive institutions
and organizations (box 2) and making conservation a field in
which BIPOC communities can be safe and thrive (box 3).
6. Conclusion
Achieving excellence in conservation practice and promoting
equity, diversity, inclusion and justice in conservation science
are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they are all crucial to creating
effective conservation practices that empower BIPOC commu-
nities by reforming our conservation institutions in both
spheres. Conservation scientists who are also conservation prac-
titioners are at the nexus of the twin spheres, and as such have
both the greatest potential and responsibility to create positive
change. We recognize that many individuals, organizations
and groups are taking meaningful steps towards modes of con-
servation that empower BIPOC communities [14,59,60,77,78].
Nevertheless, there is still more to be done, and we must acceler-
ate away from the exclusive and harmful institutions we have
inherited, towards more inclusive and innovative institutions
that promote conservation spaces in which people and nature
thrive (figure 2). While some individuals have more power
than others to affect change, every person can play a role in build-
ing conservation spaces that empower BIPOC communities.
We challenge all members of the conservation community,
including ourselves, to use whatever privilege we have to make
progress, however, small. We need to speak out against injus-
tices, small or large, recruit those who are less privileged,
promote them, give them a platform or step aside so they can Proc. R. Soc. B 288: 20211871
Downloaded from on 03 November 2021
have ours. We need to change our syllabus and teach the diffi-
cult, shameful, aspects of conservation. We must acknowledge
that some purported conservation successes come at an enor-
mous and unconscionable cost to BIPOC communities and
help prevent conservationists from committing similar errors
in future. We need to strive to find that one inch of progress
and then leverage it for systemic change. We must work
within our spheres of influence to foster institutional change
in research, practice, curricula, community partnerships,
recruitment and retention, mentoring, and beyond.
Data accessibility. This article has no additional data.
Authorscontributions. L.F.R., T.A., J.G.B., A.Di., D.H., M.M. and M.N.N.
conceived of the idea. L.F.R., S.A., J.G.B., A.Da., M.N.N., K.S. and
D.H. drafted the manuscript. All authors revised manuscript drafts.
All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be
held accountable for the work performed therein.
Competing interests. We declare we have no competing interests.
Funding. This work was supported by the Natural Environmental
Research Council (grant code: NE/L002612/1).
Acknowledgements. We thank Barkha Lohia for elegantly and skillfully
transforming our words into beautiful illustrations.
1. Chaudhury A, Colla S. 2021 Next steps in
dismantling discrimination: lessons from ecology
and conservation science. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12774.
2. Miriti MN, Bailey K, Halsey SJ, Harris NC. 2020
Hidden figures in ecology and evolution.
Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1282. (doi:10.1038/s41559-
3. Schell CJ, Guy C, Shelton DS, Campbell-Staton SC,
Sealey BA, Lee DN, Harris NC. 2020 Recreating
Wakanda by promoting Black excellence in ecology
and evolution. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 12851287.
4. Tseng M, El-Sabaawi RW, Kantar MB, Pantel JH,
Srivastava DS, Ware JL. 2020 Strategies and support
for Black, Indigenous, and people of colour in
ecology and evolutionary biology. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4,
12881290. (doi:10.1038/s41559-020-1252-0)
5. Cronin MR et al. 2021 Anti-racist interventions to
transform ecology, evolution and conservation
biology departments. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021,
12131223. (doi:10.1038/s41559-021-01522-z)
6. Mbaria J, Ogada M. 2016 The big conservation lie:
the untold story of wildlife conservation in Kenya.
Auburn, WA: Lens & Pens Publishing.
7. King L. 2016 Black history as anti-racist and non-
racist: an examination of two high school Black
history textbooks. In But I dont see color: the perils,
practices, and possibilities of antiracist education,
pp. 6379. Sense Publishers.
8. Mbizah M et al. Submitted. Do black lives matter in
conservation? Nature.
9. Berkes F. 2017 Sacred ecology, 4th edn. London, UK:
Taylor and Francis Inc.
10. Consortium ICCA. 2021 Territories of Life: 2021
Report. See
11. Grove RH. 1995 Green imperialism: colonial
expansion, tropical island edens and the origins of
environmentalism, 16001860. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
12. Jepson P, Whittaker RJ. 2002 Histories of
protected areas: internationalisation of conservationist
values and their adoption in the Netherlands Indies
(Indonesia). Environ. Hist. Camb. 8, 129172. (doi:10.
3197/0967340 02129342620)
13. Kantor I. 2007 Ethnic cleansing and Americas
creation of national parks. Public L. Resour. Law Rev.
14. Kashwan P, V. Duffy R, Massé F, Asiyanbi AP,
Marijnen E. 2021 From racialized neocolonial global
conservation to an inclusive and regenerative
conservation. Environment 63,419. (doi:10.1080/
15. Madzwamuse M, Rihoy E, Louis M. 2020 Contested
conservation: implications for rights,
democratization, and citizenship in southern Africa.
Development 63,6773. (doi:10.1057/s41301-020-
16. Dowie M. 2009 Conservation refugees: the hundred-
year conflict between global conservation and native
peoples. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17. Hare D, Blossey B, Reeve HK. 2018 Value of species
and the evolution of conservation ethics. R. Soc.
Open Sci. 5, 181038. (doi:10.1098/rsos.181038)
18. Fletcher MS, Hamilton R, Dressler W, Palmer L. 2021
Indigenous knowledge and the shackles of
wilderness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118,
e2022218118. (doi:10.1073/pnas.2022218118)
19. Peluso NL. 1993 Coercing conservation? The politics
of state resource control. Glob. Environ. Chang. 3,
199217. (doi:10.1016/0959-3780(93)90006-7)
20. Robbins P. 2007 Fortress conservation. In
Encyclopedia of environment and society,
pp. 704705. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
21. Tan KC. 2021 Just conservation: the question of
justice in global wildlife conservation. Phil. Compass
16, ePHC312720. (doi:10.1111/phc3.12720)
22. Barber PH et al. 2014 Advancing biodiversity
research in developing countries: the need for
changing paradigms. Bull. Mar. Sci. 90, 187210.
23. Haelewaters D, Hofmann TA, Romero-Olivares AL.
2021 Ten simple rules for Global North researchers
to stop perpetuating helicopter research in the
Global South. PLoS Comput. Biol. 17, e1009277.
24. Igoe J, Brockington D. 2020 Neoliberal conservation:
a brief introduction. Conserv. Soc. 5, 432439.
25. Duffy R et al. 2019 Why we must question the
militarisation of conservation. Biol. Conserv. 232,
6673. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.013)
26. Lunstrum E. 2014 Green militarization: anti-
poaching efforts and the spatial contours of Kruger
National Park. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 104,
816832. (doi:10.1080/00045608.2014.912545)
27. Oommen MA et al. 2019 The fatal flaws of
compassionate conservation. Conserv. Biol. 33,
784787. (doi:10.1111/cobi.13329)
28. Wallach AD, Bekoff M, Batavia C, Nelson MP, Ramp
D. 2018 Summoning compassion to address the
challenges of conservation. Conserv. Biol. 32,
12551265. (doi:10.1111/cobi.13126)
29. Wilson, EO. 2016 Half-Earth: our planets fight for
life. London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
30. Büscher B et al. 2017 Half-Earth or whole Earth?
Radical ideas for conservation, and their
implications. Oryx 51, 407410. (doi:10.1017/
31. Shanker K, Oommen MA. 2021 The authoritarian
biologist reloaded and deep ecology redux:
conservation imperialism and the control of
knowledge, money and space. In A functioning
anarchy? Essays for Ramachandra Guha (eds S
Raghavan, N Sundar), pp. 3754. New Delhi, India:
Penguin Random House.
32. Fairhead J, Leach M, Scoones I. 2012 Green
grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? J. Peasant
Stud. 39, 237261. (doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.
33. Flores D, Falco G, Roberts NS, Valenzuela FP. 2018
Recreation equity: is the Forest Service serving its
diverse publics? J. For. 116, 266272. (doi:10.1093/
34. Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs -
UK. 2019 Landscapes review: national parks and AONBs.
2018-review (accessed 23 November 2020).
35. Thompson A. 2020 Black birders call out racism, say
nature should be for everyone. Sci. Am. See https://
(accessed 17 August 2021).
36. Davis J. 2018 Black faces, black spaces: rethinking
African American underrepresentation in wildland
spaces and outdoor recreation. Environ. Plan. E Nat.
Sp. 2,89109. (doi:10.1177/2514848618817480)
37. Buckley R. 2007 Adventure tourism products: price,
duration, size, skill, remoteness. Tour. Manag. 28,
14281433. (doi:10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2006.12.003)
38. Stodolska M, Shinew KJ, Li MZ. 2010 Recreation
participation patterns and physical activity among
Latino visitors to three urban outdoor recreation Proc. R. Soc. B 288: 20211871
Downloaded from on 03 November 2021
environments. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 28,3656.
39. Demery AJC, Pipkin MA. 2021 Safe fieldwork
strategies for at-risk individuals, their supervisors
and institutions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5,59. (doi:10.
40. Jones B. 2018 For the LGBTQ community, birding
can be a reliefand a source of anxiety. Natl.
Audobon Soc. See
source-anxiety (accessed 17 August 2021).
41. Hunter M. 2007 The persistent problem of colorism:
skin tone, status, and inequality. Sociol. Compass 1,
237254. (doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00006.x)
42. Holmes G. 2011 Conservations friends in high
places: neoliberalism, networks, and the
transnational conservation elite. Glob. Environ. Polit.
11,121. (doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00081)
43. OBrien LT, Bart HL, Garcia DM. 2020 Why are
there so few ethnic minorities in ecology and
evolutionary biology? Challenges to inclusion
and the role of sense of belonging. Soc. Psychol.
Educ. 23, 449477. (doi:10.1007/s11218-019-
44. National Science Foundation - National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics. 2019 Women,
minorities, and persons with disabilities in science
and engineering. Special Report NSF 13-304. See See https:// (accessed 17 August
45. Fournier AMV, Bond AL. 2015 Volunteer field
technicians are bad for wildlife ecology. Wildl. Soc.
Bull. 39, 819821. (doi:10.1002/wsb.603)
46. Morales N, Bisbee OConnell K, McNulty S, Berkowitz
A, Bowser G, Giamellaro M, Miriti MN. 2020
Promoting inclusion in ecological field experiences:
examining and overcoming barriers to a professional
rite of passage. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 101, e01742.
47. Hart AG, Leather SR, Sharma MV. 2020 Overseas
conservation education and research: the new
colonialism? J. Biol. Educ. 54,16. (doi:10.1080/
48. Cousins JA, Evans J, Sadler JP. 2009 Ive paid to
observe lions, not map roads!’—An emotional
journey with conservation volunteers in South
Africa. Geoforum 40, 10691080. (doi:10.1016/j.
49. Klein M, Weiss F. 2011 Is forcing them worth the
effort? Benefits of mandatory internships for
graduates from diverse family backgrounds at
labour market entry. Stud. High. Educ. 36, 969987.
50. Schusler TM, Espedido CB, Rivera BK, Hernandez M,
Howerton AM, Sepp K, Engel MD, Marcos J,
Chaudhary B. 2020 Students of color speak on racial
equity in environmental sustainability. EcoEvoRxiv
December 1. (doi:10.32942/OSF.IO/NTEZC)
51. UK Research and Innovation. 2020 Diversity results
for UKRI funding data. See
(accessed 23 November 2020).
52. Taylor DE. 2014 The state of diversity in
environmental organizations: mainstream NGOs,
Foundations & Government Agencies. July, 2831.
53. Atherton MC. 2014 Academic preparedness of first-
generation college students: different perspectives.
J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 55, 824829. (doi:10.1353/csd.
54. Frieze C, Marculescu D, Quesenberry J, Katilius G,
Reynolds J. 2018 Where are you really from?:
mitigating unconscious bias on campus. In 2018
Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in
Engineering, Computing, and Technology, RESPECT
2018, 21 February, Baltimore, MD. Piscataway, NY:
55. Sims C, Hirudayaraj M. 2016 The impact of colorism
on the career aspirations and career opportunities of
women in India. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 18,3853.
56. Wilson JW, Biggs D. 2016 Passport power:
entrenching inequality. Science 353, 1216.
57. Mcdonald C, Raderschall L. 2019 Indigenous
community capacity and multi-level governance.
Paris: OECD regional development working papers,
No. 2019/04. OECD Publishing. (doi:10.1787/
58. Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Galvez SMN, He B, Jurafsky
D, McFarland DA. 2020 The diversityinnovation
paradox in science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117,
92849291. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1915378117)
59. Brondízio ES et al. 2021 Locally based, regionally
manifested, and globally relevant: indigenous and
local knowledge, values, and practices for nature.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 481509. (doi:10.
60. McElwee P et al. 2020 Working with indigenous and
local knowledge (ILK) in large-scale ecological
assessments: reviewing the experience of the IPBES
Global Assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 16661676.
61. Cech EA, Metz A, Smith JL, deVries K. 2017
Epistemological dominance and social inequality:
experiences of Native American science,
engineering, and health students. Sci. Technol.
Hum. Values 42, 743774. (doi:10.1177/
62. Kimmerer RW. 2021 Braiding sweetgrass.
Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.
63. Cajete G, Bear LL. 2000 Native science: natural laws
of interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light
64. Race AI, Beltran RS, Zavaleta ES. 2021 How an
early, inclusive field course can build persistence
in ecology and evolutionary biology. Integr. Comp. Biol.
61,957968. (doi:10.1093/icb/icab121)
65. Cheng SJ, Mourad T, Goldberg DE, Middendorf G,
Prevost LB, McKay TA. 2021 Harnessing data
for inclusive ecology education: building
programs to move the discipline toward systemic
change. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 102, e01842. (doi:10.
66. Sheffield SL, Cook ML, Ricchezza VJ, Rocabado GA,
Akiwumi FA. 2021 Perceptions of scientists held by
US students can be broadened through inclusive
classroom interventions. Commun. Earth Environ. 2,
83. (doi:10.1038/s43247-021-00156-0)
67. Arif S et al. 2021 Ten simple rules for supporting
historically underrepresented students in science.
PLoS Comput. Biol. 17, e1009313. (doi:10.1371/
68. PLOS One. 2021 Inclusivity in global research. Best
practices in research reporting. See https://journals.
(accessed 5 October 2021).
69. Athayde S, Silva-Lugo J, Schmink M, Kaiabi A,
Heckenberger M. 2017 Reconnecting art and sciencefor
sustainability: learning from indigenous knowledge
through participatory action-research in the Amazon.
Ecol. Soc. 22. (doi:10.5751/ES-09323-220236)
70. Milich KM, Sorbello K, Kolinski L, Busobozi R,
Kugonza M. 2021 Case study of participatory action
research for wildlife conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract.
3, e347. (doi:10.1111/csp2.347)
71. Wedemeyer-Strombel KR et al. 2019 Engaging
fishersecological knowledge for endangered
species conservation: four advantages to
emphasizing voice in participatory action research.
Front. Commun. 4, 30. (doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.
72. Galvin KA, Beeton TA, Luizza MW. 2018 African
community-based conservation: a systematic review
of social and ecological outcomes. Ecol. Soc. 23, 29.
73. Rivera Lopez F, Wickson F, Hausner VH. 2018
Finding CreativeVoice: applying arts-based research
in the context of biodiversity conservation.
Sustainability 10, 1778. (doi:10.3390/su10061778)
74. Andrachuk M, Marschke M, Hings C, Armitage D.
2019 Smartphone technologies supporting
community-based environmental monitoring and
implementation: a systematic scoping review. Biol.
Conserv. 237, 430442. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.
75. Johnson JT, Howitt R, Cajete G, Berkes F, Louis RP,
Kliskey A. 2016 Weaving indigenous and
sustainability sciences to diversify our methods.
Sustain. Sci. 11,111. (doi:10.1007/s11625-015-
76. Valenzuela-Toro AM, Viglino M. 2021 How
Latin American researchers suffer in science.
Nature 598, 374375. (doi:10.1038/D41586-021-
77. Massey MDB, Arif S, Albury C, Cluney VA. 2021
Ecology and evolutionary biology must elevate
BIPOC scholars. Ecol. Lett. 24, 913919. (doi:10.
78. Gewin V. 2021 How to include Indigenous
researchers and their knowledge. Nature 589,
315317. (doi:10.1038/D41586-021-00022-1) Proc. R. Soc. B 288: 20211871
Downloaded from on 03 November 2021
... Conservation has an enduring racism problem (Kashwan et al., 2021;Rudd et al., 2021) that dates back to its origins in colonialism (Hendlin, 2014;Murdock, 2021). While calls for conservationists and natural scientists more broadly to address this racism have existed for as long as the field itself (Godet and Devictor, 2018), these calls have remained largely siloed within the social sciences and humanities (Baker, Eichhorn and Griffiths, 2019). ...
... conservationists must also reckon with the ways that enduring racism within our ranks has not only hindered efforts to enhance diversity among biologists and conservation practitioners, but has also impeded our ability to fulfil conservation's mandate to protect biodiversity (Kashwan et al., 2021;Rudd et al., 2021;Fidler et al., 2022). ...
... Understanding the history of the field helps to contextualize the persistence of racism and discrimination in conservation today. Conservation consists of two 'twin spheres': the first, conservation practice, includes applied conservation policy and programs (Rudd et al., 2021), while the second, conservation biology, is branch of ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) that applies science-based decision-making to conservation problems (Soulé, 1985;Rudd et al., 2021). What we today call conservation practice is a set of conservation principles put in place in the United States to halt the rapid overexploitation of wildlife during colonial expansion in the 19 th and 20 th centuries (Hessami et al., 2021). ...
Full-text available
Both local and global stressors threaten coral reefs, putting the food security, cultural continuity, and livelihoods of millions of reef-dependent people at risk. Still, scientists lack an understanding of how climate-driven heat stress interacts with local stressors such as fishing and pollution to influence reef health. Coral reef communities in the Marshall Islands and Kiribati, both low-lying atoll nations in the central Pacific, offer an opportunity to examine these interactions. The Gilbert Islands of Kiribati, which straddle the equator, experience highly variable sea surface temperatures (SSTs) inter-annually due to El Niño / Southern Oscillation, driving coral bleaching events in 2004/2005 and 2009/2010, while the Marshall Islands further north of the equator experience more stable SSTs. Both nations are home to degraded reefs near their capitol atolls, which host over half of each country’s populations. I first analyzed the benthic trajectories of coral reefs in the Gilbert Islands from 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018, across a gradient of local human disturbance after multiple stressors, including two heat stress events and an outbreak of the corallivorous Crown-of-Thorns (CoTs) starfish, finding that locally degraded reefs were more resistant to heat stress than less trafficked reefs because the former were home to hardier taxa. Next, comparing locally disturbed and undisturbed reefs in Kiribati to those in the Marshalls demonstrated that the interactions between local and global stressors were context-dependent; the taxa that were present dictated the interactions. Then, via a meta-analysis of 1,205 sites in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, I demonstrated that a proxy often used to assess the effects of local human disturbance on reef health, the percent cover of macroalgae, does not correlate with local human disturbance. Instead, different genera of macroalgae exhibited diverse and often opposing responses to various sources of local human disturbance. Finally, I used public archives from an email listserv popular among the coral conservation community to analyze the policy narratives used by participants when discussing local threats to reefs, the actors involved in the local threat, their distal drivers, and the proposed solutions, revealing underlying assumptions about reefs and local people, which could inadvertently undermine conservation.
... progress has been slow. Calls are growing to integrate conversations about race and justice into urban conservation by moving beyond nominal equity efforts and adopting antiracist, anticolonial practices (Rudd et al., 2021;Schell et al., 2020). We define "antiracist" as efforts that eliminate the processes and institutions that perpetuate racism (Paradies, 2016). ...
... From private forest reserves to national parks and wilderness areas, fortress conservation purports to "save" forest ecosystems by holding people and nature apart (Montgomery et al., 2020). Apart from a handful of acceptable activities (e.g., scientific research, tourism), fortress conservation assumes human presence degrades ecosystems through overexploitation of resources and that legal action and physical violence are warranted (Rudd et al., 2021). While some management approaches have successfully integrated human use with conservation, the connection between "saving" nature and spatial exclusion nevertheless dominates US conservation practice (Tozer et al., 2020). ...
... Procedural justice means equitable access to the decision-making process, with priority participation reserved for those most vulnerable and most likely to be impacted by decisions (Bell & Carrick, 2018). Cocreation of both knowledge and urban conservation spaces with communities is an important part of both recognition and procedural justice (Ruano-Chamorro et al., 2022;Rudd et al., 2021). ...
Full-text available
Productive discourse regarding the role of racism and colonialism in conservation is growing but still limited. Inadequate recognition of these powerful forces has significantly impeded socially just conservation efforts. This paper integrates multiple disciplinary perspectives to discuss historical conservation practices in the United States and abroad to reveal challenges with moving beyond traditional approaches to conservation that perpetuate systemic racism and colonialism. Using urban greening (e.g., tree planting) in the United States as an example, we show how these challenges manifest as White ideals of nature, power disparities, and displacement and exclusion. We then put forth an agenda for antiracist, anticolonial urban conservation and urban greening. This agenda uses the tripartite environmental justice framework (i.e., distributional, recognition, and procedural justice) as a starting point, integrating and adapting more critical views of contemporary environmental justice to highlight specific policies and practices that can be applied to many conservation problems.
... This has ethical implications, can led to conflicts of interest between local and international stakeholders, and may overshadow research efforts lead by local scientists (Passos et al., 2020;Haelewaters et al., 2021). The potential for parachute science may be particularly high within the sea turtle community considering that most sea turtle habitats are found in the "global South" (Wallace et al., 2010), while sea turtle projects are primarily funded and managed via volunteer-based ecotourism efforts that traditionally cater to individuals from the "global North" (Rudd et al., 2021). ...
Full-text available
Sea turtles are a circumglobal taxon that receive considerable research and conservation attention; however, there is little published information about patterns of representation for people working with these species. To assess long-term trends in gender, geographic, and institutional representation within the sea turtle community, we quantified information from 7041 abstracts presented at the International Sea Turtle Symposium (ISTS) between 1988–2018. We report several key findings. (1) The number of authors per abstract doubled over the study period, suggesting greater acknowledgment of contributing individuals. (2) The proportion of female first and last authors has increased over time and at the end of the study period female first authors were in a slight majority (53%) even though last authors remained predominantly (64%) male. (3) Most researchers were from North America (45%) but representation from other continents has increased over time. (4) It was common for authors from North America (34%) and Europe (42%) to conducted research in other continents. This was far less common (<6%) for authors in Africa, Asia, Central America and the Caribbean, and South America. (5) Most authors (48%) were affiliated with academic institutions. Overall, our results reveal a slow trend toward gender equity and globalization in the sea turtle community. Increasing opportunities for underrepresented groups should therefore remain a key priority. To facilitate this process, we suggest hosting symposiums in underrepresented regions, providing grants for underrepresented individuals, developing opportunities to present abstracts remotely via hybrid events, and promoting gender equity in senior researcher positions.
... The fact that continent of nationality was the second strongest predictor of conservationists' values adds to ongoing discussions around the need for diversity in the conservation sector, particularly in moving beyond the domination of a small and privileged subset of Western conservationists and worldviews (e.g. Adams & Mulligan, 2003;Rudd et al., 2021). Some respondents expressed this opinion in the open-text responses, including one who said simply that 'race and ethnicity' had been important in shaping their values. ...
Full-text available
1) There exists a wealth of philosophical, sociological and anthropological literature on environmental values; yet, few studies have investigated the values held by conservationists themselves, and how these shape the conservation movement. 2) Here, we present the first global analysis of the relationships between conservationists' values and a broad range of conservationists' characteristics, categorised into their educational and professional background, geographical context and personal experiences in childhood and adulthood. We draw on survey responses from 9264 conservationists from 149 countries to conduct the broadest analysis to date of what factors are associated with the values of conservationists. 3) Our results demonstrate that 13 characteristics of conservationists' personal and professional backgrounds are statistically related to their values regarding the place of people, science, capitalism and nonhuman entities in conservation. Of these characteristics, educational specialism and continent of nationality had the highest predictive power. We also draw on open-text responses to uncover other factors that conservationists identify as having been important in shaping their values; travel and religion were the most commonly reported. 4) Our findings have important implications for current debates on diversity and inclusion within the conservation community. In particular, we provide broad empirical evidence that increasing personal and professional diversity in conservation organisations is likely to also increase the range of values represented. We also discuss the implications of our results for interdisciplinarity, the management of disagreement and conflict in conservation, and the training of future generations of conservationists.
... Relationships should be reciprocal, respectful, responsible, and engage enthusiastically with non-dominant knowledge systems [94]. Practitioners should reflect on trust, identity, and power dynamics among individuals when developing relationships for conservation [95], with specific attention given to systematic biases and historical exclusion [96][97]. Identifying the relationships between people and land is an important step for removing the separation between nature and human actions. ...
Full-text available
Early definitions of conservation focused largely on the end goals of protection or restoration of nature, and the various disciplinary domains that contribute to these ends. Conservation science and practice has evolved beyond being focused on just issues of scarcity and biodiversity decline. To better recognize the inherent links between human behaviour and conservation, “success” in conservation is now being defined in terms that include human rights and needs. We also know that who engages in conservation, and how, dictates the likelihood that conservation science will be embraced and applied to yield conservation gains. Here we present ideas for reconceptualizing conservation. We emphasize the HOW in an attempt to reorient and repurpose the term in ways that better reflect what contemporary conservation is or might aspire to be. To do so, we developed an acrostic using the letters in the term “CONSERVATION” with each serving as an adjective where C = co-produced, O = open, N = nimble, S = solutions-oriented, E = empowering, R = relational, V = values-based, A = actionable, T = transdisciplinary, I = inclusive, O = optimistic, and N = nurturing. For each adjective, we briefly describe our reasoning for its selection and describe how it contributes to our vision of conservation. By reconceptualizing conservation we have the potential to center how we do conservation in ways that are more likely to result in outcomes that benefit biodiversity while also being just, equitable, inclusive, and respectful of diverse rights holders, knowledge holders, and other actors. We hope that this acrostic will be widely adopted in training to help the next generation of conservation researchers and practitioners keep in mind what it will take to make their contributions effective and salient.
... Recent work in the field of conservation science and STEM at large has identified a bias in citation practices such that papers from women and other minorities are relatively under-cited (see Rudd et al. 2021, Larivière et al. 2013 and others). While we did not proactively choose references that reflect the diversity of the field in thought, form or contribution, gender, and other factors for this work, we recognize the biases that may have been unintentionally introduced. ...
Full-text available
Achieving ambitious goals to conserve at least 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030 ("30 × 30") will require a multiscale baseline understanding of current protections, key decisionmakers, and policy tools for moving forward. To help conservationists and decisionmakers support the science-based call to address the biodiversity and climate crises, we analyze the current spatial patterns of biodiversity and carbon in the United States relative to protected areas and present a typology for classifying land contributions toward the 30 × 30 goals. Analyses demonstrate that 30% is achievable nationally, but spatial heterogeneity highlights the need for tailored approaches from a mix of authorities at federal , regional, and state scales. Current land protections rarely overlap with areas essential for conserving imperiled species biodiversity and mitigating climate change. One-fifth of unprotected biodiversity hotspots and over 8% carbon-rich areas face a higher risk of land conversion by 2050. In contrast, 3.6% of key biodiversity areas and 15.6% of carbon-rich areas may experience higher climate exposure. Policy considerations for making practical, substantive progress toward ecologically meaningful achievement of 30 × 30 goal include the need for significant investments in public and private lands conservation.
Full-text available
Indigenous Peoples have stewarded marine environments since time immemorial. Due to colonialism, Indigenous Peoples suffered impacts to their rights and abilities to holistically manage ocean systems. We situate the value systems embedded within manifest destiny and colonialism as the root systems that generated a plague of conservation issues that impact Indigenous Peoples today (e.g., fortress and green militarized conservation praxes). This paper is written by Indigenous scholars using Two-Eyed Seeing, reflexivity, and decolonizing methods (e.g., symbology, storytelling, and Indigenous beading) to unsettle the ways that marine conservation should be facilitated. Our framework operationalizes Indigenous value systems embedded within “the seven R’s”: respect, relevancy, reciprocity, responsibility, rights, reconciliation through redistribution, and relationships. This framework underlines the need for marine conservation efforts to center Indigenous voices and futures and Tribal management of marine systems. Marine system managers can use this paper as a guide for decolonizing marine conservation approaches, operationalizing Indigenous value systems in marine management, and building decolonial relationships with Indigenous Peoples and waters.
Full-text available
Protecting areas for climate adaptation will be essential to ensuring greater opportunity for species conservation well into the future. However, many proposals for protected areas expansion focus on our understanding of current spatial patterns, which may be ineffective surrogates for future needs. A science-driven call to address the biodiversity and climate crises by conserving at least 30% of lands and waters by 2030, 30x30, presents new opportunities to inform the siting of new protections globally and in the U.S. Here we identify climate refugia and corridors based on a weighted combination of currently available models; compare them to current biodiversity hotspots and carbon-rich areas to understand how 30x30 protections siting may be biased by data omission; and compare identified refugia and corridors to the Protected Areas Database to assess current levels of protection. Available data indicate that 20.5% and 27.5% of identified climate adaptation areas (refugia and/or corridor) coincides with current imperiled species hotspots and carbon-rich areas, respectively. With only 12.5% of climate refugia and corridors protected, a continued focus on current spatial patterns in species and carbon richness will not inherently conserve places critical for climate adaptation. However, there is ample opportunity for establishing future-minded protections: 52% of the contiguous U.S. falls into the top quartile of values for at least one class of climate refugia. Nearly 27% is already part of the protected areas network but managed for multiple uses that may limit their ability to contribute to the goals of 30x30. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of nationally identified refugia coincide with ecoregion-specific refugia suggesting representation of nearly all ecoregions in national efforts focused on conserving climate refugia. Based on these results, we recommend that land planners and managers make more explicit policy priorities and strategic decisions for future-minded protections and climate adaptation.
Full-text available
The environmental crises currently gripping the Earth have been codified in a new proposed geological epoch: the Anthropocene. This epoch, according to the Anthropocene Working Group, began in the mid-20th century and reflects the “great acceleration” that began with industrialization in Europe [J. Zalasiewicz et al., Anthropocene 19, 55–60 (2017)]. Ironically, European ideals of protecting a pristine “wilderness,” free from the damaging role of humans, is still often heralded as the antidote to this human-induced crisis [J. E. M. Watson et al., Nature , 563, 27–30 (2018)]. Despite decades of critical engagement by Indigenous and non-Indigenous observers, large international nongovernmental organizations, philanthropists, global institutions, and nation-states continue to uphold the notion of pristine landscapes as wilderness in conservation ideals and practices. In doing so, dominant global conservation policy and public perceptions still fail to recognize that Indigenous and local peoples have long valued, used, and shaped “high-value” biodiverse landscapes. Moreover, the exclusion of people from many of these places under the guise of wilderness protection has degraded their ecological condition and is hastening the demise of a number of highly valued systems. Rather than denying Indigenous and local peoples’ agency, access rights, and knowledge in conserving their territories, we draw upon a series of case studies to argue that wilderness is an inappropriate and dehumanizing construct, and that Indigenous and community conservation areas must be legally recognized and supported to enable socially just, empowering, and sustainable conservation across scale.
Full-text available
The practice of Global North (i.e., “richer” globalized countries located in the northern hemisphere, except for Australia and New Zealand) researchers making roundtrips to the Global South (i.e., “poorer” developing countries located around the tropics and in the Southern hemisphere) to collect materials and then process, analyze, and publish results with little to no involvement from local collaborators is referred to as “helicopter research” or “parachute research”. At best, local scientists provide logistical help and knowledge of the local community, such as field site guiding, identification of local organisms, translation from and to local languages, and facilitating resources to foreign scientists. However, often, these necessary actors in the scientific process receive little to no retribution for their work and knowledge. For example, a systematic problem in academia is that local scientists and graduate and undergraduate students are often not offered coauthorship in manuscripts for which their contributions were essential (e.g., project planning, logistics, and knowledge of local biodiversity). Even worse is that research remains unavailable for them and others who contributed substantially, since in most cases, peer-review publications are available behind a paywall, and they are written in English, which is the second or third language for many Global South researchers. Furthermore, local communities where Global North scientists come to conduct helicopter research are usually left out of broader impacts and outreach efforts, as these tend to happen in Global North communities. Helicopter research is a way to perpetuate colonization practices, and power imbalances are critical in perpetuating helicopter research. For example, Global North researchers often set the research agenda based on priorities of their funding agencies, which, in many cases, are decided upon by those same researchers sitting in decision-making committees of those very agencies. All too often, proposals are developed without a deep understanding of problems and priorities of Global South countries where the anticipated research will take place. Global South collaborators are rarely invited to brainstorm and set the research agenda for their needs. This opens the door for unequal partnership with research objectives that may be irrelevant for Global South collaborators, who then, are forced to accept an already funded proposal due to lack of research funding within their own countries or institutions. Thus, power and politics behind science are interconnected and are a driving force behind helicopter research. Helicopter research is a problem that also happens within Global North and within Global South countries, where dominating cultures perpetuate abuse on historically marginalized communities, including those of indigenous people, people of color, people from lower socioeconomic status, etc. This is an increasingly complex problem that has been intensely discussed in other papers and for which extensive guidelines exist. Here, we address the problem that exists specifically between researchers from the Global North—often members of the dominating culture—toward people of the Global South who may or may not be members of the dominating culture. We propose 10 simple rules for avoiding helicopter research for better, collaborative, and non-colonial science between the Global North and the Global South.
Full-text available
Racial and ethnic discrimination persist in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields, including ecology, evolution and conservation biology (EECB) and related disciplines. Marginalization and oppression as a result of institutional and structural racism continue to create barriers to inclusion for Black people, Indigenous people and people of colour (BIPOC), and remnants of historic racist policies and pseudoscientific theories continue to plague these fields. Many academic EECB departments seek concrete ways to improve the climate and implement anti-racist policies in their teaching, training and research activities. We present a toolkit of evidence-based interventions for academic EECB departments to foster anti-racism in three areas: in the classroom; within research laboratories; and department wide. To spark restorative discussion and action in these areas, we summarize EECB’s racist and ethnocentric histories, as well as current systemic problems that marginalize non-white groups. Finally, we present ways that EECB departments can collectively address shortcomings in equity and inclusion by implementing anti-racism, and provide a positive model for other departments and disciplines. This Perspective presents a toolkit of evidence-based interventions to foster anti-racism in ecology, evolution and conservation biology in the classroom, within research laboratories and department wide.
Full-text available
The knowledge, values, and practices of Indigenous peoples and local communities offer ways to understand and better address social-environmental problems. The article reviews the state of the literature on this topic by focusing on six pathways by which Indigenous peoples and local communities engage with management of and relationships to nature. These are ( a) undertaking territorial management practices and customary governance, ( b) contributing to nature conservation and restoration efforts with regional to global implications, ( c) co-constructing knowledge for assessments and monitoring, ( d) countering the drivers of unsustainable resource use and resisting environmental injustices, ( e) playing key roles in environmental governance across scales, and ( f ) offering alternative conceptualizations of the interrelations between people and nature. The review shows that through these pathways Indigenous peoples and local communities are making significant contributions to managing the health of local and regional ecosystems, to producing knowledge based in diverse values of nature, confronting societal pressures and environmental burdens, and leading and partnering in environmental governance. These contributions have local to global implications but have yet to be fully recognized in conservation and development polices, and by society at large. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Volume 46 is October 2021. Please see for revised estimates.
Full-text available
More diverse representation in undergraduate classrooms may be an important step towards turning science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines into more inclusive communities. In the United States of America, the individuals whose work is discussed in typical introductory science courses collectively do not represent the diversity of students’ identities in the classroom and further reinforce existing stereotypes of scientists as male, white, and aged. Here we report on the implementation of a semester-long intervention in an introductory-level geoscience course at the University of South Florida, USA. We introduced students to individuals with marginalized identities who are either scientists or have had a major influence on science and conducted semi-structured interviews with students from the course’s previous semesters. Analyses of these interviews indicate that participants with marginalized and non-marginalized identities broadened their preconceptions of who belongs in science and the range of identities among scientists. We suggest that interventions like these could foster feelings of belonging in the STEM community and, with repeated efforts, reduce harmful stereotyping and microaggressions against underrepresented scientists.
Full-text available
Black, Indigenous and people of colour (BIPOC) individuals are disproportionately impacted by the negative consequences of our ongoing environmental and climate crises, yet their valuable scientific voices are shockingly underrepresented within the fields of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB). As early‐career BIPOC EEB researchers, we recognise the key role that our fields play in understanding and mitigating the effects of our ongoing global crises, and are concerned about the lack of diversity we see among our own EEB cohorts and mentors. We present this piece as a call to action for the EEB Academy, drawing on our own experiences and the literature to suggest steps the Academy must take to increase representation of and equity for BIPOC graduate scholars in EEB. We synthesise these steps into four actionable ideas: anti‐racism education and practice, increased funding opportunities, integration of diverse cultural perspectives and a community‐minded shift in PhDs. Importantly, this advice is specifically directed at those who wield power in the Academy (e.g. funding agencies, societies, institutions, departments and faculty), rather than BIPOC scholars already struggling against inequitable frameworks in EEB.
It’s time to tackle the cumulative barriers and biases faced by scientists who aren’t from wealthy countries. It’s time to tackle the cumulative barriers and biases faced by scientists who aren’t from wealthy countries.
Synopsis Field courses have been identified as powerful tools for student success in science, but the potential for field courses to address demographic disparities and the mechanisms behind these benefits are not well understood. To address these knowledge gaps, we studied students in a nonmajors Ecology and Evolutionary Biology course, Introduction to Field Research and Conservation, at the University of California Santa Cruz, a large Hispanic-Serving Institution. We examined (a) the effects of participation on students’ perception of their scientific competencies and (b) how the field course shaped student experiences and built their sense of community, confidence and belonging in science. Our mixed-methods approach included the Persistence in the Sciences (PITS) survey with field course students and a control group; interviews, focus groups, and prompted student journal entries with a subset of field course students; and participant-observation. We found that field course participants scored higher on all science identity items of the PITS instrument than students in the control (lecture course) group. Field course students from underrepresented minority groups also scored similarly to or higher than their well-represented peers on each of the six PITS survey components. From our qualitative data, themes of growth in peer community, relationships with mentors, confidence living and working outdoors, team-based science experiences, and a sense of contributing to knowledge and discovery interacted throughout the course—especially from the initial overnight field trip to the final one—to assist these gains and strengthen interest in science and support persistence. These findings highlight the importance of holistic support and community building as necessary driving factors in inclusive course design, especially as a way to begin to dismantle structures of exclusion in the sciences.