Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38488313›Full record

ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

The scope of empowerment for conservation and communities.

Michael A Petriello, Lauren Redmore, Aby L Sène, Dhananjaya Katju, Lilian Barraclough, Sara Boyd, Carly Madge, Anastasia Papadopoulos, Reddi S Yalamala

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Five principles to enhance conversations about conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. The scope of empowerment for conservation and communities.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Michael A PetrielloThe Center for Science and Society, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3893-2642
Lauren RedmoreAldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Montana, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7116-1467
Aby L SèneParks and Conservation Area Management, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.
Dhananjaya KatjuDepartment of Environmental Science, American University, Washington, DC, USA.
Lilian BarracloughCommunity-Engaged CoLab, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Sara BoydCommunity-Engaged CoLab, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Carly MadgeCommunity-Engaged CoLab, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Anastasia PapadopoulosCommunity-Engaged CoLab, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7588-0995
Reddi S YalamalaCommunity-Engaged CoLab, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4791-4147
Dalhousie University · CAAmerican University · USClemson University · USRocky Mountain Research Station · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conservationists increasingly position conservation that is mutually beneficial to people and biodiversity on the promise of empowerment of people through participatory discourse, metrics, processes, and outcomes. Empowerment represents multidimensional concepts and theories that permeate the interlinking levels of power, from the psychological to the political, and social scales in which conservation operates. The multifaceted nature of empowerment makes it challenging to understand, pursue, and evaluate as a central philosophical commitment and goal-oriented practice in conservation. Moreover, definitional and methodological uncertainty may disempower interested and affected groups because they can foster conceptual assumptions that reinforce institutionalized barriers to systemic changes. Despite these complexities, there are no targeted reviews of empowerment in conservation. We conducted a scoping review of the conservation literature to synthesize the meanings and uses of empowerment in the field. We reviewed 121 of the most cited conservation articles that invoked or assessed empowerment from 1992 to 2017 to document geographic, conceptual, and methodological trends in the scales and theories of empowerment deployed by conservationists. Research claiming or assessing empowerment through conservation often focused on communities in the Global South. Most studies relied on qualitative and mixed methods (78%) collected largely from male or non-Indigenous participants. Few studies (30%) defined the 20 types of empowerment they referenced. Fewer studies (3%) applied empowerment theories in their work. Our findings show that empowerment discourse of local and Indigenous communities permeates the discourse of people-centered conservation. Yet, overreliance on empowerment's rhetorical promise and minimal engagement with theory (e.g., postcolonial theory) risks disempowering people by obscuring empowerment's foundational value to conservation and communities and oversimplifying the complex realities of people-centered conservation. Lasting change could come from more meaningful engagement with empowerment, including coproducing definitions and measures with and for disempowered social groups to tackle widespread power disparities in conservation today.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationConservation of Natural ResourcesEmpowermentPower, PsychologicalBiodiversityHumansciencias sociales de la conservacióncolaboracióncollaborationcommunity‐based conservationconservation social sciencedisempowermentempoderamientoempowermentGlobal Southparticipaciónparticipationpérdida de autoridadposicionamientopositionalitySur Global

Identifiers

PMID38488313
PMCPMC11780202
OpenAlexW4392883715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.