Abstract
AbstractThis article identifies, and offers several ways to address, a serious, persistent issue in conservation: low levels of diversity in thought and action. We first describe the lack of diversity and highlight the continued separation of the environmental conservation and environmental justice movements. We then offer—based on previous research and our collective experience—two suggestions for how to increase inclusivity (a step farther than increasing diversity) in holistic ways. We suggest that embracing narrative, including historical narrative that can be profound and painful, may be essential to addressing this deeply rooted issue. We also suggest the need to redefine “environment” to more closely align with the diversity of perspectives that different people and disciplines bring to the topic. We support our suggestions with selected data from empirical research and provide examples of initiatives that embody them.
Highlights
The conservation movement has a problem in addition to the biodiversity “crisis” that undergirds the field (Soule, 1985)
The conservation movement needs to address this lack of commonality in concern and purpose; one of the most powerful ways to do so is to address the inclusion of individuals from diverse backgrounds
Scholars have explored conservation's colonialist roots for decades (Igoe, 2006); critiques focus on international projects, traditional knowledge (Sutherland, Gardner, Haider, & Dicks, 2014), and, in the United States, Native American issues (Spence, 1999)
Summary
The conservation movement has a problem in addition to the biodiversity “crisis” that undergirds the field (Soule, 1985). The conservation movement needs to address this lack of commonality in concern and purpose; one of the most powerful ways to do so is to address the inclusion of individuals from diverse backgrounds. Our examples primarily address ethnicity, the principles apply to scores of other dimensions (e.g., socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, political orientation) This lack of diversity is problematic for several reasons It is unethical: environmental action in its current and historical manifestations can be exclusionary, which is inappropriate because communities that are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation are often less included in environmental decision-making. We explain our focus for this piece, describe potential causes of the lack of diversity, and suggest several paths toward more inclusive, and more effective, environmental policymaking
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
