Recognizing reflexivity among conservation practitioners.

adaptive management bienestar biodiversity conservation cambio transformador conservación de la biodiversidad conservation practice manejo adaptativo posicionalidad positionality práctica de la conservación reflexividad reflexivity transformative change valores values well-being 价值观 保护实践 反身性 生物多样性保护 福祉 立场 转型变革

Journal

Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
ISSN: 1523-1739
Titre abrégé: Conserv Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9882301

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2023
Historique:
revised: 03 10 2022
received: 07 07 2022
accepted: 06 10 2022
medline: 30 3 2023
pubmed: 27 10 2022
entrez: 26 10 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

When deciding how to conserve biodiversity, practitioners navigate diverse missions, sometimes conflicting approaches, and uncertain trade-offs. These choices are based not only on evidence, funders' priorities, stakeholders' interests, and policies, but also on practitioners' personal experiences, backgrounds, and values. Calls for greater reflexivity-an individual or group's ability to examine themselves in relation to their actions and interactions with others-have appeared in the conservation science literature. But what role does reflexivity play in conservation practice? We explored how self-reflection can shape how individuals and groups conserve nature. To provide examples of reflexivity in conservation practice, we conducted a year-long series of workshop discussions and online exchanges. During these, we examined cases from the peer-reviewed and gray literature, our own experiences, and conversations with 10 experts. Reflexivity among practitioners spanned individual and collective levels and informal and formal settings. Reflexivity also encompassed diverse themes, including practitioners' values, emotional struggles, social identities, training, cultural backgrounds, and experiences of success and failure. Reflexive processes also have limitations, dangers, and costs. Informal and institutionalized reflexivity requires allocation of limited time and resources, can be hard to put into practice, and alone cannot solve conservation challenges. Yet, when intentionally undertaken, reflexive processes might be integrated into adaptive management cycles at multiple points, helping conservation practitioners better reach their goals. Reflexivity could also play a more transformative role in conservation by motivating practitioners to reevaluate their goals and methods entirely. Reflexivity might help the conservation movement imagine and thus work toward a better world for wildlife, people, and the conservation sector itself. Reconocimiento de la reflexividad entre los practicantes de la conservación Resumen Cuando se decide cómo conservar la biodiversidad, quienes la practican sortean varias misiones, algunas veces con enfoques contrastantes y compensaciones inciertas. Estas elecciones no se basan solamente en las evidencias, prioridades de los financiadores, los intereses de los actores y las políticas, sino también en las experiencias personales, formación y valores de los practicantes. En la literatura sobre las ciencias de la conservación han surgido llamados para una mayor reflexividad - la habilidad individual o grupal para examinarse a sí mismo en relación con sus acciones e interacciones con otros. Pero ¿cuál es el papel de la reflexividad en la práctica de la conservación? Para responder esto, exploramos cómo la autorreflexión puede determinar cómo ocurre la conservación individual y grupal de la naturaleza. Realizamos una serie de talleres de discusión e intercambios virtuales durante un año para ejemplificar la reflexividad en la práctica de la conservación. Durante estas sesiones examinamos casos de la literatura gris y revisada por pares, nuestras propias experiencias y conversaciones con diez expertos. La reflexividad de los practicantes abarcó niveles individuales y colectivos y escenarios formales e informales. La reflexividad también comprendió diferentes aspectos de los practicantes, como los valores, conflictos emocionales, identidad social, preparación, contexto cultural y experiencias exitosas y fallidas. Los procesos reflexivos también tienen limitaciones, riesgos y costos. La reflexividad informal e institucionalizada requiere la distribución de tiempo y recursos limitados, puede ser difícil de poner en práctica y no puede resolver los retos de conservación por sí sola. Aun así, cuando se realizan intencionalmente, los procesos reflexivos pueden integrarse a los ciclos de manejo adaptativo en varios puntos, lo que ayuda a quienes practican la conservación a lograr sus metas de mejor manera. La reflexividad también podría tener un papel transformador en la conservación al motivar a los practicantes a reevaluar completamente sus metas y métodos. La reflexividad podría ayudar al movimiento de conservación a imaginar, y por lo tanto trabajar para tener, un mundo mejor para la vida silvestre, las personas y el propio sector de la conservación. 当决定如何保护生物多样性时, 保护实践者需要处理不同的任务, 有时要采用相互冲突的方法, 或面临不确定的利弊权衡。这些选择不仅基于证据、资助者的优先排序、利益相关者的利益及政策, 而且也基于保护实践者的个人经验、背景和价值观。保护科学文献中出现了对更多反身性的呼吁, 也就是个人或团体根据他们的行动和与他人的互动来反思自己的能力。然而, 反身性在保护实践中发挥了什么作用?本研究探讨了自我反思如何塑造个人和团体保护自然的方式。为了提供保护实践中反身性的例子, 我们进行了为期一年的一系列研讨会和在线交流。在这些活动中, 我们讨论了同行评议和灰色文献中的案例、我们自身的经验, 以及与十位专家的会谈。保护实践者之间的反身性跨越了个人和集体的层面以及非正式和正式的环境。反身性也包含了不同的主题, 包括保护实践者的价值观、情感挣扎、社会身份、训练、文化背景, 以及成功和失败的经验。反思的过程存在局限性、危险性和成本。非正式和制度化的反身性需要分配有限的时间和资源, 可能很难付诸实践, 而且不能独自解决保护挑战。然而, 如果有意进行反思, 该过程可以被整合到适应性管理周期的多个节点中, 帮助保护实践者更好地实现目标。反身性还可以通过激励保护实践者完全地重新评估其目标和方法, 在保护中发挥更大的变革作用。此外, 反身性可以帮助保护运动的构想, 从而为野生动物、人类和保护部门自身争取建立一个更好的世界。【翻译:胡怡思;审校:聂永刚】.

Autres résumés

Type: Publisher (spa)
Reconocimiento de la reflexividad entre los practicantes de la conservación Resumen Cuando se decide cómo conservar la biodiversidad, quienes la practican sortean varias misiones, algunas veces con enfoques contrastantes y compensaciones inciertas. Estas elecciones no se basan solamente en las evidencias, prioridades de los financiadores, los intereses de los actores y las políticas, sino también en las experiencias personales, formación y valores de los practicantes. En la literatura sobre las ciencias de la conservación han surgido llamados para una mayor reflexividad - la habilidad individual o grupal para examinarse a sí mismo en relación con sus acciones e interacciones con otros. Pero ¿cuál es el papel de la reflexividad en la práctica de la conservación? Para responder esto, exploramos cómo la autorreflexión puede determinar cómo ocurre la conservación individual y grupal de la naturaleza. Realizamos una serie de talleres de discusión e intercambios virtuales durante un año para ejemplificar la reflexividad en la práctica de la conservación. Durante estas sesiones examinamos casos de la literatura gris y revisada por pares, nuestras propias experiencias y conversaciones con diez expertos. La reflexividad de los practicantes abarcó niveles individuales y colectivos y escenarios formales e informales. La reflexividad también comprendió diferentes aspectos de los practicantes, como los valores, conflictos emocionales, identidad social, preparación, contexto cultural y experiencias exitosas y fallidas. Los procesos reflexivos también tienen limitaciones, riesgos y costos. La reflexividad informal e institucionalizada requiere la distribución de tiempo y recursos limitados, puede ser difícil de poner en práctica y no puede resolver los retos de conservación por sí sola. Aun así, cuando se realizan intencionalmente, los procesos reflexivos pueden integrarse a los ciclos de manejo adaptativo en varios puntos, lo que ayuda a quienes practican la conservación a lograr sus metas de mejor manera. La reflexividad también podría tener un papel transformador en la conservación al motivar a los practicantes a reevaluar completamente sus metas y métodos. La reflexividad podría ayudar al movimiento de conservación a imaginar, y por lo tanto trabajar para tener, un mundo mejor para la vida silvestre, las personas y el propio sector de la conservación.
Type: Publisher (chi)
当决定如何保护生物多样性时, 保护实践者需要处理不同的任务, 有时要采用相互冲突的方法, 或面临不确定的利弊权衡。这些选择不仅基于证据、资助者的优先排序、利益相关者的利益及政策, 而且也基于保护实践者的个人经验、背景和价值观。保护科学文献中出现了对更多反身性的呼吁, 也就是个人或团体根据他们的行动和与他人的互动来反思自己的能力。然而, 反身性在保护实践中发挥了什么作用?本研究探讨了自我反思如何塑造个人和团体保护自然的方式。为了提供保护实践中反身性的例子, 我们进行了为期一年的一系列研讨会和在线交流。在这些活动中, 我们讨论了同行评议和灰色文献中的案例、我们自身的经验, 以及与十位专家的会谈。保护实践者之间的反身性跨越了个人和集体的层面以及非正式和正式的环境。反身性也包含了不同的主题, 包括保护实践者的价值观、情感挣扎、社会身份、训练、文化背景, 以及成功和失败的经验。反思的过程存在局限性、危险性和成本。非正式和制度化的反身性需要分配有限的时间和资源, 可能很难付诸实践, 而且不能独自解决保护挑战。然而, 如果有意进行反思, 该过程可以被整合到适应性管理周期的多个节点中, 帮助保护实践者更好地实现目标。反身性还可以通过激励保护实践者完全地重新评估其目标和方法, 在保护中发挥更大的变革作用。此外, 反身性可以帮助保护运动的构想, 从而为野生动物、人类和保护部门自身争取建立一个更好的世界。【翻译:胡怡思;审校:聂永刚】.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36285608
doi: 10.1111/cobi.14022
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e14022

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Références

Agnoletti, M., & Rotherham, I. D. (2015). Landscape and biocultural diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24, 3155-3165.
Anagnostou, M., Gunn, V., Nibbs, O., Muntaner, C., & Doberstein, B. (2022). An international scoping review of rangers’ precarious employment conditions. Environment Systems and Decisions, 42, 1-25.
Appleton, M. R. (2016). A global register of competences for protected area practitioners. IUCN.
Archer, M. (2007). Introduction: Reflexivity as the unacknowledged condition of social life. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility (pp. 1-22). Cambridge University Press.
Ausden, M., & Walsh, J. C. (2020). The use of evidence in decision-making by practitioners. In J. A. Vickery, N. Ockendon, N. Pettorelli, P. N. M. Brotherton, W. J. Sutherland, & Z. G. Davies (Eds.), Conservation research, policy and practice (pp. 145-161). Cambridge University Press.
Barbier, E. B., Burgess, J. C., & Dean, T. J. (2018). How to pay for saving biodiversity. Science, 360, 486-488.
Batavia, C., Nelson, M. P., Bruskotter, J. T., Jones, M. S., Yanco, E., Ramp, D., Bekoff, M., & Wallach, A. D. (2021). Emotion as a source of moral understanding in conservation. Conservation Biology, 35, 1380-1387.
Beck, J. M., Elliott, K. C., Booher, C. R., Renn, K. A., & Montgomery, R. A. (2021). The application of reflexivity for conservation science. Biological Conservation, 262, 109322.
Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., Cullman, G., Curran, D., Durbin, T. J., Epstein, G., Greenberg, A., Nelson, M. P., Sandlos, J., Stedman, R., Teel, T. L., Thomas, R., Veríssimo, D., & Wyborn, C. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93-108.
Borie, M., Gustafsson, K. M., Obermeister, N., Turnhout, E., & Bridgewater, P. (2020). Institutionalising reflexivity? Transformative learning and the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environmental Science & Policy, 110, 71-76.
Boyce, P., Bhattacharyya, J., & Linklater, W. (2022). The need for formal reflexivity in conservation science. Conservation Biology, 36, e13840.
Brittain, S., Ibbett, H., Lange, E. D., Dorward, L., Hoyte, S., Marino, A., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Newth, J., Rakotonarivo, S., Veríssimo, D., & Lewis, J. (2020). Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people. Conservation Biology, 34, 925-933.
Büscher, B. (2014). Selling success: Constructing value in conservation and development. World Development, 57, 79-90.
Cambridge Dictionary. (2021). Reflexivity. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reflexivity
Campos-Arceiz, A., Koh, L. P., & Primack, R. B. (2013). Are conservation biologists working too hard? Biological Conservation, 166, 186-190.
Catalano, A. S., Lyons-White, J., Mills, M. M., & Knight, A. T. (2019). Learning from published project failures in conservation. Biological Conservation, 238, 108223.
Catalano, A. S., Redford, K., Margoluis, R., & Knight, A. T. (2018). Black swans, cognition, and the power of learning from failure. Conservation Biology, 32, 584-596.
Cleary, D. (2018). What are the grounds needed for dialogue? In P. B. Larsen & D. Brockington (Eds.), The anthropology of conservation NGOs: Rethinking the boundaries (pp. 251-257). Palgrave Macmillan.
Coetzee, B. W. T., Ferriera, S. M., & Smit, I. P. J. (2022). Reimagining the wilderness ethic to include “people and nature”. Biodiversity and Conservation, 31, 2893-2898.
Conservation Measures Partnership. (2021). Open standards for the practice of conservation: Version 4.0. https://conservationstandards.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/10/CMP-Open-Standards-for-the-Practice-of-Conservation-v4.0.pdf
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2021). First draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Author.
Cundill, G., & Fabricius, C. (2009). Monitoring in adaptive co-management: Toward a learning based approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 3205-3211.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J. R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I. A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K. M., Figueroa, V. E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., … Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework-Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1-16.
Duff, R. K. (2020). Building a road to recovery for subtle racism in conservation (commentary). https://news.mongabay.com/2020/11/building-a-road-to-recovery-for-subtle-racism-in-conservation-commentary/
Dutta, A. (2020). The conservation-corruption conundrum: Understanding everyday relationships between rangers and communities. Chr. Michelsen Institute.
Elliott, L., Ryan, M., & Wyborn, C. (2018). Global patterns in conservation capacity development. Biological Conservation, 221, 261-269.
Fischer, J., & Riechers, M. (2021). From grief to hope in conservation. Conservation Biology, 35, 1698-1700.
Gardner, C. J. (2021). Not teaching what we practice: Undergraduate conservation training at UK universities lacks interdisciplinarity. Environmental Conservation, 48, 65-70.
ICCA Consortium. (2021). Territories of Life: 2021 report. https://report.territoriesoflife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ICCA-Territories-of-Life-2021-Report-FULL-150dpi-ENG.pdf
Idahosa, G. E.-o, & Bradbury, V. (2020). Challenging the way we know the world: Overcoming paralysis and utilising discomfort through critical reflexive thought. Acta Academica, 52, 31-53.
International Ranger Federation (IRF). (2019). Chitwan Declaration, (2019). Author.
Jones, M. S., & Solomon, J. (2019). Challenges and supports for women conservation leaders. Conservation Science and Practice, 1, e36.
Kashwan, P., Duffy, R. V., Massé, F., Asiyanbi, A. P., & Marijnen, E. (2021). From racialized neocolonial global conservation to an inclusive and regenerative conservation. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 63, 4-19.
Kiik, L. (2018). Conservationland: Toward the anthropology of professionals in global nature conservation. Critique of Anthropology, 39, 391-419.
Kothari, A. (2021). Half-Earth or Whole-Earth? Green or transformative recovery? Where are the voices from the Global South? Oryx, 55, 161-162.
Lonely Conservationists. (2020). Lonely conservationists. Blog. https://lonelyconservationists.com/
Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society, 17, 26-54.
Mace, G. M. (2014). Whose conservation? Science, 345, 1558-1560.
Matulis, B. S., & Moyer, J. R. (2017). Beyond inclusive conservation: The value of pluralism, the need for agonism, and the case for social instrumentalism. Conservation Letters, 10, 279-287.
McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Mutekanga, D., Thang, H. V., Dammert, J. L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Peter Brosius, J., Coppolillo, P., & O'Connor, S. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144, 966-972.
Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M.-Y., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G., & Muhamad, M. (2001). Power and positionality: Negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20, 405-416.
Montana, J., Elliott, L., Ryan, M., & Wyborn, C. (2020). The need for improved reflexivity in conservation science. Environmental Conservation, 47, 217-219.
Moon, K., Blackman, D. A., Adams, V. M., Colvin, R. M., Davila, F., Evans, M. C., Januchowski-Hartley, S. R., Bennett, N. J., Dickinson, H., Sandbrook, C., Sherren, K., St John, F. A. V., van Kerkhoff, L., & Wyborn, C. (2019). Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 294-302.
Moreto, W. D. (2016). Occupational stress among law enforcement rangers: Insights from Uganda. Oryx, 50, 646-654.
Papworth, S., Thomas, R. L., & Turvey, S. T. (2018). Increased dispositional optimism in conservation professionals. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28, 401-414.
Pascual, U., Adams, W. M., Díaz, S., Lele, S., Mace, G. M., & Turnhout, E. (2021). Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nature Sustainability, 4, 567-572.
Peluso, N. L. (1993). Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control. Global Environmental Change, 3, 199-217.
Pienkowski, T., Keane, A., Castelló y Tickell, S., Hazenbosch, M., Arlidge, W. N. S., Baranyi, G., Brittain, S., de Lange, E., Khanyari, M., Papworth, S., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2022). Balancing making a difference with making a living in the conservation sector. Conservation Biology, 36, e13846.
Pienkowski, T., Keane, A., Castelló y Tickell, S., de Lange, E., Hazenbosch, M., Khanyari, M., Arlidge, W. N. S., Baranyi, G., Brittain, S., Kapoor, V., Mohan, V., Papworth, S., Ravi, R., Smit, I., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2022). Protecting those who protect nature by supporting conservationists’ mental health. Preprint. Research Square, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1804473/v1
Pienkowski, T., Keane, A., de Lange, E., Khanyari, M., Arlidge, W. N. S., Baranyi, G., Brittain, S., Castelló y Tickell, S., Hazenbosch, M., Papworth, S., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2022). Personal traits predict conservationists’ optimism about outcomes for nature. Conservation Letters, 15, e12873.
Ramesh, M. (2020). A call to redefine ‘the field’ in nature conservation studies in India. Ecology, Economy and Society, 03, 303980.
Rudd, L. F., Allred, S., Bright Ross, J. G., Hare, D., Nkomo, M. N., Shanker, K., Allen, T., Biggs, D., Dickman, A., Dunaway, M., Ghosh, R., González, N. T., Kepe, T., Mbizah, M. M., Middleton, S. L., Oommen, M. A., Paudel, K., Sillero-Zubiri, C., & Dávalos, A. (2021). Overcoming racism in the twin spheres of conservation science and practice. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 288, 20211871.
Sandbrook, C. (2015). What is conservation? Oryx, 49, 565-566.
Sandbrook, C. (2017). Weak yet strong: The uneven power relations of conservation. Oryx, 51, 379-380.
Sandbrook, C. (2019). From passion to professionalism and back again: The battle for the soul of conservation. In C. Wyborn, N. Kalas, & N. Rust (Eds.). Seeds of change: Provocations for a new research agenda (pp. 150-151). Luc Hoffmann Institute. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22170.59848/3
Sandbrook, C., Fisher, J. A., Holmes, G., Luque-Lora, R., & Keane, A. (2019). The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nature Sustainability, 2, 316-323.
Singh, R., Gan, M., Barlow, C., Long, B., McVey, D., Kock, R., Gajardo, O., Spina Avino, F., & Belecky, M. (2020). What do rangers feel? Perceptions from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Parks, 26.1, 63-76.
Staddon, S. (2021). Recognising and resisting injustice: Knowledge practices and politics amongst Nepal's community forestry professionals. Rural Landscapes: Society, Environment, History, 8, 5.
Staddon, S., Byg, A., Chapman, M., Fish, R., Hague, A., & Horgan, K. (2021). The value of listening and listening for values in conservation. People and Nature, https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10232
Staddon, S., Saif, O., Nash, F., & Jack-Kadioglu, T. (2022). CfP POLLEN22: Cultivating critical reflexivity in conservation. POLLEN22.
Suarez, D. C. (2017). Mainstreaming natural capital: The rise of ecosystem services in biodiversity conservation (PhD dissertation). University of California.
Sudha, V. (2002). Ethnography of the forest guard: Contrasting discourses, conflicting roles and policy implementation. Economic and Political Weekly, 37, 4125-4133.
Swaisgood, R. R., & Sheppard, J. K. (2010). The culture of conservation biologists: Show me the hope! Bioscience, 60, 626-630.
Tallis, H., & Lubchenco, J. (2014). Working together: A call for inclusive conservation. Nature News, 515, 27-28.
Trisos, C. H., Auerbach, J., & Katti, M. (2021). Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5, 1205-1212.
Universal Ranger Support Alliance (URSA). (2021). Action plan for supporting implementation of the International Ranger Federation's Chitwan Declaration and furthering the professionalisation of rangers (2021-2025). Author.
Wahlén, C. B. (2014). Constructing conservation impact: Understanding monitoring and evaluation in conservation NGOs. Conservation and Society, 12, 77-88.
Whitaker, E. M., & Atkinson, P. A. (2019). Reflexivity. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, & R. A. Williams (Eds.), SAGE encyclopaedia of social research methods (pp. 1-11). SAGE.
Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half-Earth: Our planet's fight for life. WW Norton & Company.
World Wide Fund for Nature Inc. (WWF). (2020). Embedding human rights in nature conservation: From intent to action. Report of the Independent Panel of Experts of the Independent Review of allegations raised in the media regarding human rights violations in the context of WWF's conservation work. Author.
Wyborn, C., Montana, J., Kalas, N., Clement, S., Davila, F., Knowles, N., Louder, E., Balan, M., Chambers, J., Christel, L., Forsyth, T., Henderson, G., Izquierdo Tort, S., Lim, M., Martinez-Harms, M. J., Merçon, J., Nuesiri, E., Pereira, L., Pilbeam, V., … Ryan, M. (2021). An agenda for research and action toward diverse and just futures for life on Earth. Conservation Biology, 35, 1086-1097.

Auteurs

Thomas Pienkowski (T)

Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Laur Kiik (L)

Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tokyo College, The University of Tokyo Institutes for Advanced Study, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
School of Anthropology & Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Allison Catalano (A)

Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot, UK.

Mirjam Hazenbosch (M)

Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Santiago Izquierdo-Tort (S)

Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.

Munib Khanyari (M)

Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, India.
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Roshni Kutty (R)

Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore, India.
Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Manipal, India.

Claudia Martins (C)

Institute for the Conservation of Neotropical Carnivores, São Paulo, Brazil.

Fleur Nash (F)

Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Omar Saif (O)

School of GeoSciences, Institute of Geography, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Chris Sandbrook (C)

Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH