88 V. Schreer et al.
not least because conservation professionals and social scientists working with conservation may be restricted in their critique by their relationships with NGOs, govern- ments and donors (cf. Staddon, 2021; Fair et al., 2023). Additionally, social science for conservation must continue to evolve to advise policymakers and practitioners on the so- cial dimensions of conservation (Miller et al., 2023), al- though conservation social scientists are not exempt from the need to promote critical awareness of problematic as- pects of conservation. Rather than supplanting these areas of engagement, we propose that the co-production of cri- tique by doing social science with conservation represents an additional step towards more effective and equitable forms of both conservation and social science.
Author contributions VS and PT contributed equally and led the writing. Conceptualization: all authors; fieldwork: VS, PT, SF; analysis: all authors;writing:VS, PT, SF,NBA,GC-S, SS; revision:VS, PT, SF, CE.
Acknowledgements We thank the editor and anonymous re- viewers for their helpful suggestions; our colleagues at Brunel University London and the University of Cambridge for their input and our university counterparts (Universitas Indonesia and Universitas Muhammadiyah Palangkaraya) in Indonesia for hosting our research; our conservation partners in Indonesia for their support (Borneo Nature Foundation, the General Director of the Biodiversity Conservation Agency of the Natural Resources and Ecosystem Conservation (KSDAE), the General Director of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, the Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National Park authorities, the Gunung Palung National Park authorities and the Forestry Management Unit–South Ketapang (Dinas Kehutanan Provinsi KalBar)); and those who shared their stories and perspectives during the course of our research and work. VS’s research was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 758494). PT received funding from the Arcus Foundation’s Great Apes Program (G-PGM-1607-1886) and Brunel University London. GC-S received support from Arcus Founda- tion, theU.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Oak Foundation, TheOrangutan Project and Orangutan Outreach. SF’s research was supported by funding from the Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict, and Complexity at the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the School of International Service at American University. SS received funding from The Leakey Foundation and Nacey Maggioncalda Foundation. The opinions expressed here are those of the authors, not their institutions.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical Standards Our research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards. Prior to fieldwork, ethical approval from our respec- tive universities and relevant government authorities was obtained. Research in Indonesia was carried out under RISTEK permit numbers 5/SIP/FRP/E5/
Dit.KI/I/2019 (VS) and 1/E5/E5.4/SIP.EXT/2020 (PT).
Data availability The data presented in the manuscript are not accessible because of privacy restrictions.
References
ADAMS,W.M., HODGE, I.D.,MACGREGOR, N.A. & SANDBROOK, L.C. (2016) Creating restoration landscapes: partnerships in large-scale conservation in the UK. Ecology and Society, 21, 1.
BEAR,L.(2014) Doubt, conflict, mediation: the anthropology of modern time. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 20, 3–30.
BECK, J.M., ELLIOTT, K.C., BOOHER, C.R., RENN, K.A. & MONTGOMERY, R.A. (2021) The application of reflexivity for conservation science. Biological Conservation, 262, 109322.
BENNETT, N.J., ROTH, R., KLAIN, S.C., CHAN, K., CHRISTIE,P., CLARK, D.A. et al. (2017) Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93–108.
BLACKWATTERS, J.E., BETSILL, M., ENRICI, A., LE CORNU, E., BASURTO,X.& GRUBY, R.L. (2023) More than funders: the roles of philanthropic foundations in marine conservation governance. Conservation Science and Practice, 5,e12829.
BORIE, M., GUSTAFSSON, K.M., OBERMEISTER, N., TURNHOUT,E.& BRIDGEWATER,P.(2020) Institutionalising reflexivity? Transformative learning and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environmental Science & Policy, 110, 71–76.
BOYCE, P., BHATTACHARYYA,J.&LINKLATER,W. (2022) The need for formal reflexivity in conservation science. Conservation Biology, 36,e13840.
BROCKINGTON,D.(2004) Community conservation, inequality and injustice: myths of power in protected area management. Conservation and Society, 2, 411–432.
BROCKINGTON, D., DUFFY,R.&IGOE,J.(2008) Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas. Earthscan, London, UK.
BÜSCHER,B.(2014) Selling success: constructing value in conservation and development. World Development, 57, 79–90.
BÜSCHER,B.&FLETCHER,R. (2020) The Conservation Revolution: Radical Ideas for Saving Nature Beyond the Anthropocene. Verso, London, UK.
CARRUTH,L.&FREEMAN,S.(2021) Aid or exploitation? Food-for- work, cash-for-work, and the production of ‘beneficiary-workers’ in Ethiopia and Haiti. World Development, 140, 105283.
CATALANO, A.S., LYONS-WHITE, J., MILLS, M.M. & KNIGHT, A.T. (2019) Learning from published project failures in conservation. Biological Conservation, 238, 108223.
CAUDRON, A., VIGIER,L.&CHAMPIGNEULLE,A.(2012) Developing collaborative research to improve effectiveness in biodiversity conservation practice. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 753–757.
CEPEK, M.L. (2011) Foucault in the forest: questioning environmentality in Amazonia. American Ethnologist, 38, 501–515.
CHUA, L., FAIR, H., SCHREER, V., STĘPIEŃ,A. & THUNG, P.H. (2021) ‘Only the orangutans get a life jacket’: uncommoning responsibility in a global conservation nexus. American Ethnologist, 48, 370–385.
CHUA, L.,HARRISON, M.E., FAIR, H.,MILNE, S., PALMER, A., RUBIS,J. et al. (2020) Conservation and the social sciences: beyond critique and co-optation. A case study from orangutan conservation. People and Nature, 2, 42–60.
CLAUS, A.C. (2022) Conservation social scientists in transnational institutions. Conservation & Society, 20, 268–277.
EGHENTER,C.(2008) What kind of anthropology for successful conservation management and development? In Against the Grain: The Vayda Tradition in Human Ecology and Ecological Anthropology (eds
B.B.Walters, B.J. McCay&P. West), pp. 195–205. AltaMira Press, Lanham, USA.
FAIR,H. & MCMULLEN,M. (2023) Toward a theory of nonhuman species-being. Environmental Humanities, 15, 195–214.
FAIR, H., SCHREER, V., KEIL, P., KIIK,L.&RUST,N. (2023) Dodo dilemmas: conflicting ethical loyalties in conservation social science research. Area, 55, 245–253.
Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 81–90 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000747
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
