ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Frontiers of conservation.
Article 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Frontiers of conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Action-oriented conservation sciences are crippled by 3 false assumptions. First, although it is recognized in theory that natural and anthropic components of ecosystems are tightly intertwined, in practice, many conservation policies and actions are still based on the assumption that human and nonhuman stakes should be dealt with in deeply different ways. Second, although the anchorage of environmental sciences in values is amply demonstrated, many conservation scientists still assume they will lose their scientific credentials if they actively participate in decision-making. Finally, although there is much scientific evidence of the permeability-to both protected entities and threats-of static geographic frontiers delimiting protected areas, many conservation policies are still based on the assumption that these frontiers in themselves produce relevant protections. To overcome these false assumptions, it is useful to articulate them in terms of frontiers based on 2 ideas associated with the term. As a synonym of border, frontier materializes a limit whose crossing can have high stakes. As used in phrases such as frontiers of knowledge, the term also refers to the ever-moving horizon of what should be overcome. These 2 ideas capture the reasons current attempts at overcoming the 3 assumptions remain unsatisfactory. They are also useful for elaborating a new vision of conservation to simultaneously break from the 3 assumptions. Instead of taking fixed geographic frontiers of protected areas for granted, conservation scientists should participate, along with stakeholders and Indigenous peoples, in the collective identification of the conservation problems that need to be addressed. For these problems, decision committees that include representatives of concerned humans and representatives of concerned nonhumans should be formed to determine the temporal and spatial scope of relevant conservation actions. The result would be multidimensional protected areas dynamically fine-tuned to the conservation issues they address and to changing environmental conditions.
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.