ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2022
Framing co-productive conservation in partnership with Arctic Indigenous peoples.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Indigenous Knowledge as a sole data source in habitat selection functions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Advancing social impact assessments for more effective and equitable conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Review
- Framing co-productive conservation in partnership with Arctic Indigenous peoples.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Indigenous communities at the front lines of climate change and biodiversity loss are increasingly shaping the conservation of lands, waters, and species. The Arctic is a hotbed for emerging local, national, and international conservation efforts, and researchers, managers, and communities alike will benefit from a framework that improves approaches to Indigenous partnerships. Co-productive conservation is a framework that encompasses both the co-production of knowledge and the co-production of public services to pursue ethically conscious, culturally relevant, and fully knowledge-based approaches to biodiversity concerns. Co-productive conservation recognizes that conservation can be practiced in a way that embodies Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, rights, priorities, and livelihoods. Six iterative and reflexive co-production processes (i.e., co-planning, co-prioritizing, co-learning, co-managing, co-delivering, and co-assessing) focus on the human dimensions that allow research, management, and conservation to affect change. By opening discussions on how to structure conservation efforts in partnership with Indigenous communities, the conservation community can move away from narratives that perceive Indigenous participation as an obligation or part of an ethical narrative and instead embrace a process that broadens the evidence base and situates conservation within Indigenous contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.