Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39668171›Full record

Reviewnpj biodiversity2024

Mapping the patriarchy in conservation.

Leonie Bossert, Tom Crompton, Anwesha Dutta, Joni Seager

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in npj biodiversity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

4 authors.

Leonie BossertUniversity of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Tom CromptonCommon Cause Foundation, Surrey, UK.
Anwesha DuttaChr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway. anwesha.dutta@cmi.no.
Joni SeagerBentley University, Waltham, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is essential to ensure the effectiveness of current conservation efforts to meet the interconnected crises of biodiversity loss, habitat degradation, and climate change. In this article, we discuss one aspect that undermines conservation's effectiveness while at the same time being underexplored in the academic and political discourse on conservation: patriarchal norms and structures. We argue that these norms and structures, which promote male supremacy and inequality, are central to driving environmental destruction. Many conservation programs unintentionally reinforce patriarchal thinking, thereby undermining their effectiveness. We provide examples of how patriarchy influences conservation, such as the precarious position of women (Working Conditions for Women in Conservation), the treatment of animals (Violence against animals), the suppression of particular forms of knowledge (Science and knowledge production), militarization trends in conservation (Securitization and militarization of conservation enforcement), and the financialization of nature (The monetary valuation of nature). We conclude that patriarchal norms and structures within conservation must be questioned and dismantled to make conservation more effective and just.

Identifiers

PMID39668171
PMCPMC11638249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.