Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40165687›Full record

ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Advancing social impact assessments for more effective and equitable conservation.

Neil M Dawson, Helen Suich

Abstract 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Advancing social impact assessments for more effective and equitable conservation.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

2 authors.

Neil M DawsonGlobal Environmental Justice Research Group, School of Global Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7312-9230
Helen SuichIndependent Researcher, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

IUCN CEESP
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social objectives for conservation have expanded beyond consideration of material costs and benefits to recognize Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' rights, the importance of their full and effective participation, and the contribution of customary institutions and plural knowledge systems. Social impact assessment can help conservation professionals understand how social principles are reflected in practice and inform governance improvements. We reviewed the peer-reviewed and gray literature describing methodological approaches and their application to social impact assessments in conservation. We investigated whether the methodologies used empirically are advancing to reflect contemporary social objectives, in particular around rights, procedural justice, and recognition of identities and knowledge. In our initial review of methodological papers, we identified two interrelated themes that can drive high-quality social impact assessment: incorporation of the perspectives, knowledge systems and participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and the completeness and appropriateness of methodological approaches adopted. We categorized these themes into principles of good practice (e.g., local participation and disaggregated social analyses) and used them to analyze empirical social impact assessments and explore the extent to which they were applied. Empirical studies tended not to reflect expanded social objectives or methodological advancements. Few studies covered multiple domains of social impact, disaggregated results by social group, involved Indigenous Peoples and local communities, or presented a clear and informed methodological approach and strategy for use of mixed methods. To improve the quality of social impact assessments commensurate with the needs and social standards associated with conservation in the time of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the equitable involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in any assessment; the establishment of clear, appropriate, and complete methodological approaches; and the integration of social impact assessments into governance processes are essential.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesHumanscomunidades locales y pueblos indígenascustomary institutionsenvironmental justicegobernanzagovernanceIndigenous Peoples and local communitiesinstituciones tradicionalesjusticia ambientalmethodologymetodologíamétodos mixtosmixed methodsmonitoreo y evaluaciónmonitoring and evaluationparticipaciónparticipation

Identifiers

PMID40165687
PMCPMC11959317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.