ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Centering geospatial data uncertainty and the potential for injustice in pastoralist rangeland conservation prioritization.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Procedural, distributional, recognitional, and epistemic justice aspects of conservation interventions are well documented in contexts where pastoralism is a key livelihood and way of life. Geospatial analyses and representations of wildlife conservation and restoration that are increasingly applied in pastoralist rangeland socioecological systems create the potential to make these injustices invisible. Current global-extent publicly-available data and analysis methods cannot be used to accurately characterize or produce generalizations about diverse, variable pastoralist practices or their relations with rangeland ecosystems. In particular, these geospatial data do not adequately represent complex livestock mobility practices or pastoralists' diverse ways of relating to land and wildlife. When they are used to provide evidence for conservation interventions, the inherent uncertainties and limitations of geospatial data and analyses, coupled with ongoing political marginalization of pastoralists, creates a high risk of perpetuating historical injustices and extending new injustices. Epistemic injustices will likely remain a concern even with technological advancement because conservation science itself lacks a sufficient conceptual basis to adequately recognize pastoralists' land use, ecological relations, decision-making processes, and knowledges. When geospatial analysis is used to inform conservation policy and practical applications in pastoralist rangelands, its use should be critically examined with respect to: whether it can technically account for ecological and social variability; how compound uncertainties arise when multiple data layers are used to produce knowledge about socioecological interactions; and how uncertainties become masked by epistemic biases, creating a deceptive sense of certainty and generalizability.
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.