ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Gap analysis of social science resources for conservation practice.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of theories of human action in recent conservation research.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Review
- Conservation and the social sciences revisited.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Gap analysis of social science resources for conservation practice.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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conservation is an inherently social process-people collectively endeavor to enact conservation. Yet, in conservation social science, research methodologies, training, and competency are less common than in natural sciences. Globally, formal education and training in the social sciences are often unavailable or inaccessible to conservation practitioners, and nonformal education may help fill this gap. To identify potential opportunities, we implemented a global survey of practitioners to identify their knowledge gaps and social science training needs and conducted a gap analysis of available social science training resources. We compiled 449 resources, including 266 English-language and 183 non-English-languages resources into an open-access online database hosted by the Conservation Social Science Partnership. Resources were categorized as communication, data collection, ethics and human rights, intervention, impact evaluation, or analysis. Most resources were open access (90%) and half were specific to conservation practice. Survey responses (n = 90) revealed demand for help with data analyses, research ethics, and human rights considerations. We found a need for organization leaders to prioritize social sciences in conservation, greater diversity of accessible training resources in alternate mediums and languages, resources tailored to conservation contexts, and additional ethics and human rights and data analysis resources.
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.