ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Prospects and perils in the geospatial turn 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.
- Centering geospatial data uncertainty and the potential for injustice in pastoralist rangeland conservation prioritization.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Prospects and perils in the geospatial turn 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
Conservation has embraced advances in big data and related digital technologies as key to preventing biodiversity loss, especially in the identification of areas of conservation priority based on spatial data, which we call the big geospatial data turn. This turn has led to the proliferation of useful methods and tools, including global geospatial maps. But these methods may also undermine moves toward rights-based and inclusive conservation approaches that consider plural values and perspectives. We built on the burgeoning literature to call for greater attention to be paid to the datasets, methodological choices, and the assumptions global mapping for biodiversity conservation is based on. In increasingly prioritizing the use of big geospatial data, conservation professionals risk forgetting that maps show only partial information and limit the diversity of ways of seeing and representing the world. Big geospatial data collected through remotely sensed technologies must still be situated in time and place and provided with appropriate political-economic and sociocultural contexts. Further, global mapping efforts remain primarily the purview of Global North researchers, even given the push to make data open access. Instead of uncritically calling for more data, we urge conservationists to contextualize and situate big geospatial data carefully so as to build a field that achieves socially just and ecologically effective conservation outcomes.
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.