Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T19:47:26.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transdisciplinary science for improved conservation outcomes

Part of: Multi-dimensionality of the biodiversity crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2020

Chris Margules ,
Agni K Boedhihartono ,
James D Langston ,
Rebecca A Riggs Open the ORCID record for Rebecca A Riggs [Opens in a new window] ,
Dwi Amalia Sari ,
Sahotra Sarkar ,
Jeffrey A Sayer ,
Jatna Supriatna  and
Nurul L Winarni
Chris Margules
Affiliation:
Institute for Sustainable Earth & Resources, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Indonesia, Kampus UI Depok, Java Barat 16424, Indonesia College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland4870, Australia Tanah Air Beta, TingTingYeh, Wongaya Gede, Bali 82152, Indonesia
Agni K Boedhihartono
Affiliation:
Tanah Air Beta, TingTingYeh, Wongaya Gede, Bali 82152, Indonesia Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BCV6T 1Z4, Canada
James D Langston
Affiliation:
Tanah Air Beta, TingTingYeh, Wongaya Gede, Bali 82152, Indonesia Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BCV6T 1Z4, Canada
Rebecca A Riggs*
Affiliation:
College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland4870, Australia Tanah Air Beta, TingTingYeh, Wongaya Gede, Bali 82152, Indonesia Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BCV6T 1Z4, Canada
Dwi Amalia Sari
Affiliation:
College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland4870, Australia The Supreme Audit Board of Indonesia, Jln Jend, Gatot Subroto No. 31, Jakarta Pusat 10210, Indonesia
Sahotra Sarkar
Affiliation:
Departments of Integrative Biology and Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
Jeffrey A Sayer
Affiliation:
Tanah Air Beta, TingTingYeh, Wongaya Gede, Bali 82152, Indonesia Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BCV6T 1Z4, Canada
Jatna Supriatna
Affiliation:
Institute for Sustainable Earth & Resources, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Indonesia, Kampus UI Depok, Java Barat 16424, Indonesia Research Center for Climate Change, University of Indonesia, Kampus UI Depok, West Java, 16424, Indonesia
Nurul L Winarni
Affiliation:
Institute for Sustainable Earth & Resources, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Indonesia, Kampus UI Depok, Java Barat 16424, Indonesia Research Center for Climate Change, University of Indonesia, Kampus UI Depok, West Java, 16424, Indonesia
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Rebecca A Riggs, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Major advances in biology and ecology have sharpened our understanding of what the goals of biodiversity conservation might be, but less progress has been made on how to achieve conservation in the complex, multi-sectoral world of human affairs. The failure to deliver conservation outcomes is especially severe in the rapidly changing landscapes of tropical low-income countries. We describe five techniques we have used to complement and strengthen long-term attempts to achieve conservation outcomes in the landscapes and seascapes of such regions; these are complex social-ecological systems shaped by interactions between biological, ecological and physical features mediated by the actions of people. Conservation outcomes occur as a result of human decisions and the governance arrangements that guide change. However, much conservation science in these countries is not rooted in a deep understanding of how these social-ecological systems work and what really determines the behaviour of the people whose decisions shape the future of landscapes. We describe five scientific practices that we have found to be effective in building relationships with actors in landscapes and influencing their behaviour in ways that reconcile conservation and development. We have used open-ended inductive enquiry, theories of change, simulation models, network analysis and multi-criteria analysis. These techniques are all widely known and well tested, but seldom figure in externally funded conservation projects. We have used these techniques to complement and strengthen existing interventions of international conservation agencies. These five techniques have proven effective in achieving deeper understanding of context, engagement with all stakeholders, negotiation of shared goals and continuous learning and adaptation.

Keywords

inductive researchlandscapemulti-criteria analysisnetwork analysissimulation modelstheories of changetransdisciplinary
Type
Subject Review
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 224 - 233
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, A (1997) The politics of development and conservation: legacies of colonialism. Peace & Change 22: 463–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A (2001) Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development 29: 1649–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amaruzaman, S, Leimona, B, van Noordwijk, M, Lusiana, B (2017) Discourses on the performance gap of agriculture in a green economy: a Q-methodology study in Indonesia. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 13: 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belcher, BM, Davel, R, Claus, R (2020) A refined method for theory-based evaluation of the societal impacts of research. MethodsX 7: 100788 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, S, Morse, S (2013) Rich pictures: a means to explore the ‘sustainable mind’? Sustainable Development 21: 30–47.Google Scholar
Bennett, NJ, Roth, R, Klain, SC, Chan, K, Christie, P, Clark, DA et al. (2017) Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205: 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1692–1702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernard, HR (2017) Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Biggs, D, Cooney, R, Roe, D, Dublin, HT, Allan, JR, Challender, DW, Skinner, D (2016) Developing a theory of change for a community-based response to illegal wildlife trade. Conservation Biology 31: 5–12 Google ScholarPubMed
Bodin, Ö, Prell, C (2011) Social network analysis in natural resource governance: summary and outlook. In: Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance, eds Bodin, Ö, Prell, C, pp. 347–373. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boedhihartono, A (2004) Dilemme à Malinau, Borneo: être ou ne pas être un chasseur-cueilleur Punan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Paris, France: Université Paris VII.Google Scholar
Boedhihartono, AK (2012) Visualizing Sustainable Landscapes: Understanding and Negotiating Conservation and Development Trade-offs Using Visual Techniques. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
Boedhihartono, AK, Bongers, F, Boot, RGA, van Dijk, J, Jeans, H, van Kuijk, M et al. (2018) Conservation science and practice must engage with the realities of complex tropical landscapes. Tropical Conservation Science 11: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boedhihartono, AK, Gunarso, P, Levang, P, Sayer, J (2007) The principles of conservation and development: do they apply in Malinau? Ecology and Society 12: 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boedhihartono, AK, Sayer, J (2012) Forest landscape restoration: restoring what and for whom? In: Forest Landscape Restoration, eds Stanturf, J, Lamb, D, Madsen, P, pp. 309–323. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
Bonney, R, Cooper, CB, Dickinson, J, Kelling, S, Phillips, T, Rosenberg, KV, Shirk, J (2009) Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59: 977–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brondizio, ES (2017) Interdisciplinarity as Collaborative Problem Framing. ITEMS: Insights from the Social Sciences (Social Science Research Council) [www document]. URL https://items.ssrc.org/interdisciplinarity/interdisciplinarity-as-collaborative-problem-framing/ Google Scholar
Brondizio, ES, O’Brien, K, Bai, X, Biermann, F, Steffen, W, Berkhout, F et al. (2016) Re-conceptualizing the Anthropocene: a call for collaboration. Global Environmental Change 39: 318–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosius, JP (2006) Common ground between anthropology and conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20: 683–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, K (2002) Innovations for conservation and development. Geographical Journal 168: 6–17.Google Scholar
Byerly, H, Balmford, A, Ferraro, PJ, Hammond Wagner, C, Palchak, E, Polasky, S et al. (2018) Nudging pro-environmental behavior: evidence and opportunities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16: 159–168.Google Scholar
Campbell, BM, Sayer, JA (2003) Integrated Natural Resource Management: Linking Productivity, the Environment and Development. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, BM, Sayer, JA, Walker, B (2010) Navigating trade-offs: working for conservation and development outcomes. Ecology and Society 15: 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmenta, R, Zabala, A, Daeli, W, Phelps, J (2017) Perceptions across scales of governance and the Indonesian peatland fires. Global Environmental Change 46: 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 1737–1738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, WC, Tomich, TP, van Noordwijk, M, Guston, D, Catacutan, D, Dickson, NM, McNie, E (2011) Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1113: 4615–4612Google Scholar
Colfer, CJP (2011) Marginalized forest peoples’ perceptions of the legitimacy of governance: an exploration. World Development 39: 2147–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, N, Campbell, BM, Sandker, M, Garnett, ST, Sayer, J, Boedhihartono, AK (2011) Science for action: the use of scoping models in conservation and development. Environmental Science & Policy 14: 628–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooperrider, DL, Srivastva, S (1987) Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Research in Organizational Change and Development 1: 129–169.Google Scholar
Dyer, JS (2005) MAUT – multiattribute utility theory. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 265–292. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
Endamana, D, Boedhihartono, A, Bokoto, B, Defo, L, Eyebe, A, Ndikumagenge, C et al. (2010) A framework for assessing conservation and development in a Congo Basin forest landscape. Tropical Conservation Science 3: 262–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, MC, Davila, F, Toomey, A, Wyborn, C (2017) Embrace complexity to improve conservation decision making. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1: 1588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feintrenie, L, Chong, WK, Levang, P (2010) Why do farmers prefer oil palm? Lessons learnt from Bungo District, Indonesia. Small-Scale Forestry 9: 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueira, J, Greco, S, Ehrgott, M (2005) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science+Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filer, C (2011) Interdisciplinary perspectives on historical ecology and environmental policy in Papua New Guinea. Environmental Conservation 38: 256–269.Google Scholar
Forsyth, T (2018) Is resilience to climate change socially inclusive? Investigating theories of change processes in Myanmar. World Development 111: 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallemore, C, Di Gregorio, M, Moeliono, M, Brockhaus, M, Prasti, HRD (2015) Transaction costs, power, and multi-level forest governance in Indonesia. Ecological Economics 114: 168–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghazoul, J (2007) Placing humans at the heart of conservation. Biotropica 39: 565–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, W, Melville, S (2004) Research Methodology: An Introduction. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta and Company Ltd.Google Scholar
Hadorn, GH, Biber-Klemm, S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W, Hoffmann-Riem, H, Joye, D, Pohl, C et al. (2008) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science+Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, LJ, Hentati-Sundberg, J, Giusti, M, Goodness, J, Hamann, M, Masterson, VA et al. (2018) The undisciplinary journey: early-career perspectives in sustainability science. Sustainability Science 13: 191–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hicks, CC, Fitzsimmons, C, Polunin, NVC (2010) Interdisciplinarity in the environmental sciences: barriers and frontiers. Environmental Conservation 37: 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, B, Carrasco, JA, Wellman, B (2007) Visualizing personal networks: working with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods 19: 116–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huitema, D, Turnhout, E (2009) Working at the science–policy interface: a discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Environmental Politics 18: 576–594.Google Scholar
IUCN (2008) Learning from landscapes. Arborvitae Special Edition [www document]. URL https://www.iucn.org/content/arborvitae-special-issue-learning-landscapes Google Scholar
IUCN, WWF (1980) World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
Kamoto, J, Clarkson, G, Dorward, P, Shepherd, D (2013) Doing more harm than good? Community based natural resource management and the neglect of local institutions in policy development. Land Use Policy 35: 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kareiva, P, Marvier, M (2012) What is conservation science? BioScience 62: 962–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kates, RW, Clark, WC, Corell, R, Hall, JM, Jaeger, CC, Lowe, I et al. (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292: 641–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeney, RL (1996) Value-Focused Thinking. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kidd, LR, Garrard, GE, Bekessy, SA, Mills, M, Camilleri, AR, Fidler, F et al. (2019) Messaging matters: a systematic review of the conservation messaging literature. Biological Conservation 236: 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloor, K (2015) The battle for the soul of conservation science. Issues in Science and Technology 31: 74–79.Google Scholar
Knight, AT, Cowling, RM, Rouget, M, Balmford, A, Lombard, AT, Campbell, BM (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research–implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22: 610–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, AA, Jenkins, LD (2015) The role of bridging organizations in environmental management: examining social networks in working groups. Ecology and Society 20: 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, S-K, Hopkins, LD (1989) The meanings of trade-offs in multiattribute evaluation methods: a comparison. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 16: 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, DJ, Wiek, A, Bergmann, M, Stauffacher, M, Martens, P, Moll, P et al. (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7: 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langston, JD, Riggs, RA, Boedhihartono, AK, Kastanya, A, Sayer, J (2020) An island in transition: governing conservation and development in Seram, Indonesia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography doi: 10.1111/sjtg.12336.Google Scholar
Langston, JD, Riggs, RA, Kastanya, A, Sayer, J, Margules, C, Boedhihartono, AK (2019) Science embedded in local forest landscape management improves benefit flows to society. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 2: 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langston, JD, Riggs, RA, Sururi, Y, Sunderland, T, Munawir, M (2017) Estate crops more attractive than community forests in west Kalimantan, Indonesia. Land 6: 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B (1996) On actor-network theory: a few clarifications. Soziale Welt 47: 369–381.Google Scholar
Levang, P, Riva, WF, Orth, MG (2016) Oil palm plantations and conflict in Indonesia: Evidence from West Kalimantan. In: The Oil Palm Complex: Smallholders, Agribusiness and the State in Indonesia and Malaysia, eds Cramb, R, McCarthy, JF, pp. 283–300. Singapore: NUS Press.Google Scholar
Lynam, T, De Jong, W, Sheil, D, Kusumanto, T, Evans, K (2007) A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society 12: 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malczewski, J (2006) GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 20: 703–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marin, B, Mayntz, R (1991) Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations . Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
McNie, EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy 10: 17–38.Google Scholar
Miller, CA, Wyborn, C (in press) Co-production in global sustainability: histories and theories. Environmental Science & Policy.Google Scholar
Milner-Gulland, E (2012) Interactions between human behaviour and ecological systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367: 270–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moffett, A, Sarkar, S (2006) Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations. Diversity and Distributions 12: 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nel, JL, Roux, DJ, Driver, A, Hill, L, Maherry, AC, Snaddon, K et al. (2016) Knowledge co-production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans. Conservation Biology 30: 176–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norström, AV, Cvitanovic, C, Löf, MF, West, S, Wyborn, C, Balvanera, P et al. (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3: 182–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, BG (1991) Thoreau’s insect analogies: or why environmentalists hate mainstream economists. Environmental Ethics 13: 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opdam, P, Luque, S, Nassauer, J, Verburg, PH, Wu, J. (2018) How can landscape ecology contribute to sustainability science? Landscape Ecology 33: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlove, BS, Brush, SB (1996) Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity. Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 329–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osbaldiston, R, Schott, JP (2012) Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior 44: 257–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325: 419–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popa, F, Guillermin, M, Dedeurwaerdere, T (2015) A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65: 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prell, C, Hubacek, K, Reed, M (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 22: 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressey, RL, Weeks, R, Gurney, GG (2017) From displacement activities to evidence-informed decisions in conservation. Biological Conservation 212: 337–348.Google Scholar
Prinsen, G, Nijhof, S (2015) Between logframes and theory of change: reviewing debates and a practical experience. Development in Practice 25: 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyers, B, Roux, DJ, Cowling, RM, Ginsburg, AE, Nel, JL, Farrell, PO (2010) Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. Conservation Biology 24: 957–965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riggs, RA, Langston, JD, Margules, C, Boedhihartono, AK, Lim, HS, Sari, DA et al. (2018) Governance challenges in an eastern Indonesian forest landscape. Sustainability 10: 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandker, M, Campbell, BM, Ruiz-Perez, M, Sayer, JA, Cowling, R, Kassa, H, Knight, AT (2010) The role of participatory modeling in landscape approaches to reconcile conservation and development. Ecology and Society 15: 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandker, M, Suwarno, A, Campbell, BM (2007) Will forests remain in the face of oil palm expansion? Simulating change in Malinau, Indonesia. Ecology and Society 12: 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sari, DA, Sayer, J, Margules, C, Boedhihartono, AK (2019) Determining the effectiveness of forest landscape governance: a case study from the Sendang landscape, south Sumatra. Forest Policy and Economics 102: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, S (1998) Restoring wilderness or reclaiming forests. Terra Nova 3: 35–52.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S (2012) Environmental Philosophy: From Theory to Practice. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S (2019) What should ‘biodiversity’ be? In: From Assessing to Conserving Biodiversity, pp. 375–399. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S, Dyer, JS, Margules, C, Ciarleglio, M, Kemp, N, Wong, G et al. (2016) Developing an objectives hierarchy for multicriteria decisions on land use options, with a case study of biodiversity conservation and forestry production from Papua, Indonesia. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 44: 464–485.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S, Illoldi-Rangel, P (2010) Systematic conservation planning: an updated protocol. Natureza & Conservação 8: 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayer, J, Campbell, BM (2004) The Science of Sustainable Development: Local Livelihoods and the Global Environment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sayer, J, Endamana, D, Boedhihartono, A, Ruiz Pérez, M, Breuer, T (2016a) Learning from change in the Sangha Tri-national landscape. International Forestry Review Special Issue: Valuing the Cameroonian Forest 18: 130–139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayer, J, Margules, C (2017) Biodiversity in locally managed lands. Land 6: 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayer, JA, Margules, C, Boedhihartono, AK, Sunderland, T, Langston, JD, Reed, J et al. (2016b) Measuring the effectiveness of landscape approaches to conservation and development. Sustainability Science 12: 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayer, J, Margules, C, Bohnet, I, Boedhihartono, AK, Pierce, R, Dale, A, Andrews, K (2015) The role of citizen science in landscape and seascape approaches to integrating conservation and development. Land 4: 1200–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayer, J, Wells, MP (2004) The pathology of projects. In: Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development, eds To McShane, MP Wells, pp. 35–48. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffer, E, Hauck, J (2010) Net-Map: collecting social network data and facilitating network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field Methods 22: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J, Carrington, PJ (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Serrat, O (2017) Knowledge Solutions. Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheil, D (2017) Exploring local perspectives and preferences in forest landscapes: towards democratic conservation. In: Tropical Forest Conservation: Long-Term Processes of Human Evolution, Cultural Adaptations and Consumption Patterns, eds Sanz, N, Lewis, RC, Mata, JP, Connaughton, C, pp. 262–283. Mexico City, Mexico: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Soulé, ME (1985) What is conservation biology? BioScience 35: 727–734.Google Scholar
Steffen, W, Broadgate, W, Deutsch, L, Gaffney, O, Ludwig, C (2015) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2: 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokols, D (2006) Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. American Journal of Community Psychology 38: 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderland, TC, Ehringhaus, C, Campbell, B (2007) Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: a time to face the trade-offs? Environmental Conservation 34: 276–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taleb, NN (2018) Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life. New York, NY, USA: Random House.Google Scholar
Thaler, RH, Sunstein, CR (2003) Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review 93: 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, RH, Sunstein, CR (2009) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Thornton, PK, Schuetz, T, Förch, W, Cramer, L, Abreu, D, Vermeulen, S, Campbell, BM (2017) Responding to global change: a theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based. Agricultural Systems 152: 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnhout, E, Metze, T, Wyborn, C, Klenk, N, Louder, E (2020) The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42: 15–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Noordwijk, M, Minang, PA, Freeman, OE, Mbow, C, de Leeuw, J (2015) The future of landscape approaches: interacting theories of place and change. In: Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice, eds Minang, PA, van Noordwijk, M, Freeman, OE, Mbow, C, de Leeuw, J, Catacutan, D, pp. 375–386. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF.Google Scholar
Veríssimo, D (2013) Influencing human behaviour: an underutilised tool for biodiversity management. Conservation Evidence 10: 29–31.Google Scholar
Vogel, I (2012) Review of the Use of ‘Theory of Change’ in International Development. London, UK: Department for International Development (DFID).Google Scholar
Walker, B, Salt, D (2006) Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Williams, DR, Balmford, A, Wilcove, DS (2020) The past and future role of conservation science in saving biodiversity. Conservation Letters doi: 10.1111/conl.12720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar