1 Introduction
Academia, including academic conservation science, is making historic strides on diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ). In recent years, there have been powerful calls for promoting diversity and inclusivity in conservation science (e.g. ; ). These calls have been accompanied by concrete signs of progress through reimagined postures and decolonial actions (): decolonizing the mind (e.g. through frameworks for ethical community research partnerships; ), knowing histories (e.g. recognizing Indigenous attachments to lands; ), increasing access to scientific resources (e.g. by publishing open access; ), amplifying diverse expertise (e.g. through prioritizing DEIJ in faculty hires; ), and working in diverse teams (e.g. by including social science in conservation; ). These and other efforts have helped generate momentum for an increasingly expanded view of DEIJ in conservation. In the U.S. context, rural attitudes and values—broadly speaking—have received relatively little research attention in the conservation literature, presenting an opportunity for more intentional inclusion of rural communities in conservation (). In this paper, we propose that more fully including rural U.S. constituents and engaging with rural values can improve conservation outcomes while also adding new dimensions to ongoing DEIJ efforts in academic conservation science.
What is — and who are — considered “rural”? Characterizing rurality is elusive (). Defining rurality in the United States might include definitions based on “metro” or “non-metro” counties (), as well as factors spanning economic status, demographics, social networks, and acquaintanceship factors (Donnermeyer et al., 2015). In this paper, our intention is not to isolate a particular definition of rurality, but to broadly consider the people in non-metropolitan areas () in the United States who have been, in many cases, disenfranchised from the science and process of conservation decision-making (e.g. ; ; ).
Why is rurality important to consider in conservation DEIJ discussions? A major reason is that rural communities in the United States have long experienced social and environmental injustices (e.g. ; ). For Black and Indigenous communities in the United States, rural experiences in fields, reservations, wilderness, or other rural areas have been linked to murders, brutality, cultural genocide, forced removal from homelands, reduced access to natural resources, rights and legal violations, slavery, and a number of other injustices (; ; ; ). For rural communities of color, historical legacies of racial injustice are compounded by injustices tied to rurality more generally, such as poverty and isolation (). In considering issues of justice, then, it is important to remember that distinct Rural Americas descend from distinct rural histories.
Additionally, rural communities in the U.S. experience disparities in health, education, and income (; ; ). For example, many students in Rural America experience limited funding, limited access to technology, histories of racial segregation, and barriers to opportunity and cultural resources (). Rural students are less likely than non-rural students to attend college, four-year institutions, selective schools, and universities that confer graduate degrees (). An important antidote to these injustices is representation, e.g. Black school teachers in rural areas helping guide Black students (). In conservation, increased rural representation and inclusion could also help ease tensions between rural constituents and conservation entities in the United States that have existed for decades (; ; ).
While there have been many conservation victories and fruitful collaborations between conservation and local stakeholders in the U.S. West (e.g. ; ), the West has also been a famous arena of decades-old contestations of values between them. For example, for some private landowners in the Western U.S., the Endangered Species Act of 1973 became a mechanism limiting agency over their own lands (), and a salient symbol of federal government overreach. Differing values have led to strain over environmental issues between rural, place-based ranchers and conservation advocates (), e.g. as seen recently in controversy over a public ballot on the reintroduction of wolves to Colorado (). In coalition-building that has been attempted in the U.S. West, some coalitions have bridged differences in environmental values, while others—strikingly—have not, despite highly similar views on environmental policy ().
In addition to arguments based on justice, rural inclusion in academic conservation science also provides fresh values and perspectives. For example, Indigenous land stewardship is deeply tied to rural areas and is critical for equitable energy transitions () and wildlife management (). Inclusion of rural values also offers potential for reframing intractable policy conversations. For example, reported that 78% of rural midwestern respondents found a climate policy argument convincing when it was framed in terms of benefits to farmer livelihoods. Inclusion of rural values also offers new opportunities for diverse conservation teams. Diverse teams are important for creativity, both generally () and in conservation specifically ().
A more intentional inclusion of rural U.S. communities in academic conservation science can help, alongside other values, promote justice for excluded rural communities and diversify perspectives in conservation (). Toward this goal, we highlight three pathways for rural inclusivity in academic conservation science: (i) emphasizing knowledge co-production through partnerships that resonate with rural lifestyles and values; (ii) proactively recruiting and training rural students in conservation science degree programs; and (iii) reshaping academic advancement criteria to incentivize rural engagement.
2 Emphasizing knowledge co-production and partnerships that resonate with rural lifestyles and values
As has been shown again and again, trust-building between scientists and local communities is facilitated by genuine academic-community partnerships (e.g. ; ). Face-to-face engagement allows an irreplaceable cultural cache to be built between researchers and stakeholders, and helps researchers develop a more intimate knowledge of the socio-cultural realities of a study context or constituency (; ). For example, the Western Landowners Alliance provides structure and facilitates networks for ecologically and economically sustainable conservation solutions across the U.S. West; the alliance hosts in-person and virtual events that bring together landowners, government representatives, and university scientists (). At present, much of the bridging work between conservation and rural partners is carried out very capably by NGOs, government agencies, extension professionals, and individual academics. Existing workshops, Tribal partnerships, demonstrations, stakeholder meetings, capacity building, and many other forms of outreach by these entities are critical and should not be replaced. However, there is a powerful opportunity for academics to more fully complement these efforts by working with locals to collaboratively identify, research, and implement locally-relevant conservation solutions (Figure 1). Indeed, found that, for a pool of rural voter respondents, university scientists and biologists were among the most trusted sources of information on conservation and environmental issues.
Figure 1
Collaborations between academics and local communities provide opportunities for researchers to learn about the priorities of rural communities while supporting local initiatives and leadership (; ). Rural stakeholders are important partners who tend to bear disproportionate burdens on the front lines of environmental issues, such as climate change-related natural disasters () and large carnivore reintroductions (). Rural community members are also critically important stewards of U.S. landscapes, as Tribal representatives, farmers, ranchers, hunters, and conservation managers. Over time, academic-rural partnerships may extend beyond pragmatic partnerships to reform the value orientations, skills, and knowledge sets of all parties. Moreover, environmental policy ideas that incorporate local values and livelihoods can find support among rural stakeholders (). Other possible avenues for renewed academic-public partnerships could include building trust with religious communities, something for which religious scientists are well-positioned (). As part of this effort, thoughtful alignment of climate communication with religious language and values can help foster a bipartisan agenda ().
3 Recruiting and training rural students in conservation science degree programs
Recruiting rural students is a promising pathway for strengthened relationships between rural and university communities (Figure 1). Rural students are not as likely as non-rural students to attend college, selective schools, and universities that confer graduate degrees (). More intentional recruitment of rural students could broaden conservation engagement at the undergraduate, graduate, and faculty levels. In so doing, rural students could gain access to opportunities and resources in academic conservation that may not otherwise be accessible to them ().
Greater inclusion of rural students in graduate and undergraduate conservation programs could offer several benefits for advancing conservation. First, rural students could help create new links between conservation and local issues in rural communities, e.g., agricultural interests. Moreover, rural students could be new messengers for climate policies in their communities, situating climate science within socio-culturally contextualized ethics that can help inspire lasting support for conservation issues (). Rural voters often have sophisticated environmental views, but may disagree with some environmental policies due to low trust of the federal government () or an absence of place-based values relevant to their lives and livelihoods (; ). Additionally, academic engagement with rural stakeholders, which could be facilitated or accelerated with greater inclusion of rural students, can help undergraduate and graduate students confront assumptions and expand ways of knowing in the scientific process, e.g. by working with rural Indigenous communities (). Rural students, then, could be a critical link between academic and rural communities, helping build trust, increasing attention to local issues, embodying rural values, and communicating conservation science in locally relevant ways.
4 Reshaping academic advancement criteria to promote rural engagement
Another major step forward for academic-rural ties would be a reorientation of the incentive structures and norms of academia to more fully include and value public engagement (). To help the academic conservation science community be more available for creative forms of public engagement, the value of service could be grounded in tangible structures and incentives, especially through greater weight in academic advancement review processes (Figure 1).
A new faculty model in service of these goals will see increased effectiveness when it reframes the standards of scholarship and advancement. For example, Creativity Contracts are an approach to help encourage faculty pursuit of a wider variety of academic activities through custom-designed, malleable roles (). One study showed that 75% of governing boards, 70% of Deans, 67% of provosts, 71% of full-time non-tenure track faculty, and 50% of tenure-track faculty found this idea attractive (). Through Creativity Contracts, participation at a rural stakeholder workshop could carry similar weight as a presentation at an academic conference. Outreach efforts, rather than being devalued, could hold weight in evaluation and advancement (). To help bring about this change, increased institutional support could help align the importance of outreach with tangible practice (; ). Indeed, some universities—including some land-grant institutions—have strayed from earlier roles as reliable partners for local stakeholders such as farmers and union workers (). While this important work continues through extension offices, NGOs, government agencies, and individual academics, academia as a whole could more fully embrace its public outreach imperative ().
What can outreach by conservation academics to rural publics look like, and why is it important? A few ideas, some of which we have implemented ourselves, include workshops, public lectures and town halls, novel conference structures, op-eds in newspapers, podcasts, museum exhibits, collaborations with religious groups, participation on local or regional boards, and art shows. Experiential engagement and demonstration of conservation actions has been shown to help achieve conservation project outcomes, according to rural and urban respondents (). Moreover, rural engagement by academics specifically is integral to pursuing ethical research in rural areas on topics that may intersect with rural cultures, identities, and values (e.g. ). Academic-rural engagement also helps include stakeholder perspectives and needs in research design (e.g. ), fulfilling responsibilities of universities to local stakeholders. Furthermore, academic-rural partnerships could help reconceptualize and reframe discussions about conservation in the literature through inclusion of Indigenous thinking (e.g. ; ) and other rural values (e.g. ; ). Additionally, there is a growing track record of projects by academics and rural communities, illustrating the effectiveness of these partnerships for social-ecological sustainability (e.g. ; ). These types of collaborations could also include partnerships with government agencies, NGOs, or others (e.g. ). For example, academics studying threatened species could partner on field studies with stakeholders enrolled in the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, through which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service helps a range of landholders to restore wildlife habitat (). Despite these numerous benefits, language on public engagement can vary widely in academic advancement policies ().
At present, the conventions of our discipline can be self-defeating and pull us away from the very constituents we seek to serve, learn from, and engage. As criteria by which academic careers are judged, advancement standards serve a powerful role in reflecting priorities and values in conservation science.
5 Discussion
As part of the movement for advancing diversity, equity, inclusion and justice, academic conservation science is seeking to increase accessibility for underrepresented groups. However, DEIJ efforts in academia have, by and large, not prioritized rurality, despite evidence of barriers to rural individuals in STEM (; ). Alongside concerns about rural representation, ongoing conservation challenges—including 30x30, state and federal climate policy, and renewable energy—need fresh approaches and ideas from constituents of different backgrounds and geographies. As part of a 'boundary science' (), conservation academics could leverage these new perspectives to help promote conservation science and decision-making that benefits Rural America. We suggest that greater inclusivity of Rural America in academic conservation science would advance justice goals, broaden perspectives, and support pragmatic opportunities for conservation.
As conservation scientists in academia, we have a powerful opportunity to build bridges between rural communities and academia in the United States. Most of the U.S. public wants action on the environment (), including climate change (), and rural communities are important stakeholders in conservation solutions. However, some rural constituents feel a sense of exclusion from environmental decision making, showing that we can do more to build solutions that emphasize shared values (; ). Through co-producing knowledge, training rural students in conservation science programs, and increasing the flexibility of academic advancement standards, conservation academics can help promote justice and inclusion for rural communities and enrich conservation partnerships.
Statements
Author contributions
DK, MC, CW, LW, and JB contributed to early discussions that helped shape the paper. All authors contributed ideas and insights that strengthened the paper. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
The authors acknowledge the following funding sources who helped support the research: the SJ Hall Fellowship, the Hannah M. and Frank Schwabacher Memorial Scholarship Fund, the Howard William Siggins Fellowship, Boston College, The Mustard Seed Foundation, the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, the Philomathia Graduate Student Fellowship in the Environmental Sciences, the Thomas McKenna Meredith ‘48 Postdoctoral Fellowship in Environmental Science at Trinity College, and the UC Berkeley Rausser College of Natural Resources. CW was supported by a Schmidt Science Fellowship, in partnership with the Rhodes Trust.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to Claire Kremen for encouraging an early version of this work and to Matthew Potts for supporting ideas connected to this work. Thank you to the Brashares Group for comments on an early version of this work. Thank you to Matthew Williamson, Mark Schwartz, and two reviewers for helping improve an earlier version of this piece. The authors thank David Fulton and Fikirte Gebresenbet for comments that helped improve the manuscript, and Raquel De La Cruz Modino for editorial oversight. Thank you to Evelyne St-Louis for assistance with the figure and for support for this work. Thank you to Peter J. Kurz and Corriene Kurz for their support. Parts of this article were previously included in a preprint, accessible at https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/4255/.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AdamsM. S.CarpenterJ.HoustyJ. A.NeaslossD.PaquetP. C.ServiceC.et al. (2014). Toward increased engagement between academic and indigenous community partners in ecological research. Ecol. Soc19, 5. doi: 10.5751/ES-06569-190305
2
AlperinJ. P.NievesC. M.SchimanskiL. A.FischmanG. E.NilesM. T.McKiernanE. C. (2019). Meta-Research. How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents? eLife8, e42254. doi: 10.7554/eLife.42254
3
BennettK. J.BordersT. F.HolmesG. M.KozhimannilK. B.ZillerE. (2019). What is rural? Challenges and implications of definitions that inadequately encompass rural people and places. Health Aff.38, 1985–1992. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00910
4
BennettN. J.RothR.KlainS. C.ChanK. M. A.ClarkD. A.CullmanG.et al. (2016). Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conserv. Biol.31, 56–66. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12788
5
BonnieR.DiamondE. P.RoweE. (2020) Understanding rural attitudes toward the environment and conservation in America. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Available at: https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/understanding-rural-attitudes-toward-environment-conservation-america.pdf.
6
BoyerE. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate (Lawrenceville: Princeton University Press).
7
BrayL. A. (2020). Settler colonialism and rural environmental injustice: water inequality on the Navajo nation. Rural Sociol.86, 586–610. doi: 10.1111/ruso.12366
8
Burdick-WillJ.LoganJ. R. (2017). Schools at the rural-urban boundary: blurring the divide? An. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc Sci.672, 185–201. doi: 10.1177/0002716217707176
9
CookC. N.MasciaM. B.SchwartzM. W.PossinghamH. P.FullerR. A. (2013). Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge - action boundary. Conserv. Biol.27, 669–678. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12050
10
CroninM. R.AlonzoS. H.AdamczakS. K.BakerD. N.BeltranR. S.BorkerA. L.et al. (2021). Anti-racist interventions to transform ecology, evolution, and conservation biology departments. Nat. Ecol. Evol.5, 1213–1223. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01522-z
11
DavisJ. L.FordD. Y.MooreJ. L.IIIFloydE. F. (2020a). Black and gifted in Rural America: barriers and facilitators to accessing gifts and talented education programs. TPRE10, 85–100. doi: 10.3776/tpre.2002.v10n2p85-100
12
DavisJ. L.FordD. Y.MooreJ. L.FloydE. F. (2020b). “Black, gifted and living in the ‘country’: searching for equity and excellence in rural gifted education programs,” in African-American rural education: college transitions and postsecondary experiences. Eds. CambersC. R.CrumbL. (Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing), 39–52.
13
DiamondE. P.BonnieR.RoweE. (2021) Rural attitudes on climate change. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and The University of Rhode Island [Report]. Available at: https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Rural-Attitudes-on-Climate-Change-Midwest_1.pdf.
14
DoberneckD. M. (2016). Are we there yet?: Outreach and engagement in the consortium for institutional cooperation promotion and tenure policies. JCES9, 8–18. doi: 10.54656/RNQD4308
15
EisenbergA. M.WarnerE. K. (2021). The precipice of justice: equity, energy, and the environment in Indian Country and rural communities. Energy Law J.42, 281–298. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/energy42&i=359.
16
GabeT. M.ColbyK.BellK. P. (2007). Creative occupations, county-level earnings and the U.S. rural-urban wage gap. CJRS3, 393–410. Available at: https://idjs.ca/images/rcsr/archives/V30N3-GABE.pdf.
17
GatesH. L. (2011). Life upon these shores: looking at African American history, 1513-2008 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
18
Gilio-WhitakerD. (2019). As long as grass grows: the Indigenous fight for environmental justice (Boston: Beacon Press).
19
GouldR. K.PhukanI.MendozaM. E.ArdoinN. M.PanikkarB. (2017). Seizing opportunities to diversify conservation. Conserv. Lett.11, e12431. doi: 10.1111/conl.12431
20
HanesJ. M. (2014). Science and religion: think local. Science346, 309. doi: 10.1126/science.346.6207.309
21
HartleyD. (2004). Rural health disparities, population health, and rural culture. Am. J. Public Health94, 1675–1678. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.94.10.1675
22
HessamiM. A.BowlesE.PoppJ. N.FordA. T. (2021). Indigenizing the north american model of wildlife conservation. FACETS6, 1285–1306. doi: 10.1139/facets-2020-0088
23
HuntingtonH. P. (2021). What do land acknowledgments acknowledge? Environ.: Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev.63, 31–35. doi: 10.1080/00139157.2021.1924579
24
JamiesonK. H. (2020). Reconceptualizing public engagement by land-grant university scientists. PNAS117, 2734–2736. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1922395117
25
JohnsonC. Y. (1998). A consideration of collective memory in African American attachment to wildland recreation places. Hum. Ecol. Rev.5, 5–15. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/247071.
26
KezarA. (2018). A new vision for the professoriate. Change: Magazine Higher Learn.50, 84–87. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2018.1509616
27
KezarA.MaxeyD.HolcombeE. (2015) The professoriate reconsidered. University of southern california [Report]. Available at: https://pullias.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Professoriate-Reconsidered-final.pdf.
28
KoricichA.ChenX.HughesR. P. (2018). Understanding the effects of rurality and socioeconomic status on college attendance and institutional choice in the United States. Rev. High. Ed.41, 281–305. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2018.0004
29
LalP.AlavalapatiJ. R. R.MercerE. D. (2011). Socio-economic impacts of climate change on rural United States. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change16, 819–844. doi: 10.1007/s11027-011-9295-9
30
MadleyB. (2017). An american genocide: the United States and the californian Indian catastrophe 1846-1873 (New Haven: Yale University Press).
31
MartinezD. J.CannonC. E. B.McInturffA.AlagonaP. S.PellowD. N. (2023). Back to the future: Indigenous relationality, kincentricity and the North American Model of wildlife management. Environ. Sci. Policy140, 202–207. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.12.010
32
McInturffA.CannonC. E. B.AlagonaP. S.PellowD. N. (2021). Meeting at the crossroads: an environmental justice framework for large carnivore reintroductions and recoveries. Elementa9, 172. doi: 10.1525/elementa.2020.00172
33
MeltzR. (1994). Where the wild things are: the Endangered Species Act and private property. Endangered Species Act at Twenty-One: ESA & Private Property. Envtl. L.24, 369–418. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/envlnw24&i=397.
34
MerchantC. (2003). Shades of darkness: race and environmental history. Environ. Hist.8, 380–394. doi: 10.2307/3986200
35
MessickJ. A.SerenariC.RubinoE. C. (2021). Determinants of private landowner participation in endangered species conservation: a comprehensive review and analytical framework. Soc Nat. Resour.34, 980–998. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2020.1865495
36
MishraC.YoungJ. C.FiechterM.RutherfordB.RedpathS. M. (2017). Building partnerships with communities for biodiversity conservation: lessons from Asian mountains. J. Appl. Ecol.54, 1583–1591. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12918
37
MorganA. C.LaBergeN.LarremoreD. B.GalesicM.BrandJ. E.ClausetA. (2022). Socioeconomic roots of academic faculty. Nat. Hum. Behav.6, 1625–1633. doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01425-4
38
MulrennanM. E.MarkR.ScottC. H. (2012). Revamping community-based conservation through participatory research. Can. Geogr.56, 243–259. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00415.x
39
NiemiecR.BerlR. E. W.GonzalezM.TeelT.SalernoJ.BreckS.et al. (2022). Rapid changes in public perception toward a conservation initiative. Conserv. Sci. Pract.4, e12632. doi: 10.1111/csp2.12632
40
O’NealL.PerkinsA. (2021). Rural exclusion from science and academia. Trends Microbiol.29, 953–955. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2021.06.012
41
O’NeillJ.HollandA.LightA. (2007). Environmental values (London: Routledge).
42
PaulusP. B.van der ZeeK. I.KenworthyJ. (2017). “Cultural diversity and team creativity,” in The palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research. Ed. GlăveanuV. P. (London: Springer Nature).
43
Pew Research Center (2016) Most Americans favor stricter environmental laws and regulations [Poll]. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/12/14/most-americans-favor-stricter-environmental-laws-and-regulations/.
44
Pew Research Center (2020) Two-thirds of Americans think government should do more on climate. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/.
45
RobbinsP. (2006). The politics of barstool biology: environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum37, 185–199. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.011
46
RodriguesR. R.ShepherdT. G. (2022). Small is beautiful: climate-change science as if people mattered. PNAS Nexus1, 1–9. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac009
47
RoseK. M.MarkowitzE. M.BrossardD. (2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. PNAS117, 1274–1276. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1916740117
48
RouxD. J.RogersK. H.BiggsH. C.AshtonP. J.SergeantA. (2006). Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol. Soc11, 4. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267817.
49
RuddL. F.AllredS.RossJ. G. B.HareD.NkomoM. N.ShankerK.et al. (2021). Overcoming racism in the twin spheres of conservation science and practice. Proc. R. Soc B288, 1962. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1871
50
RussellK. J.HossfieldL.Rico MendezG. (2021). “Not a new pattern”: Black farmers’ perspectives on barriers to participating in federal farm programs. JAFSCD10, 195–209. doi: 10.5304/jafscd.2021
51
SchellC. J.GuyC.SheltonD. S.Campbell-StatonS. C.SealeyB. A.LeeD. N.et al. (2020). Recreating Wakanda by promoting Black excellence in ecology and evolution. Nat. Ecol. Evol.4, 1285–1287. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-1266-7
52
SmithR. J.VeríssimoD.Leader-WilliamsN.CowlingR. M.KnightA. T. (2009). Let the locals lead. Nature462, 280–281. doi: 10.1038/462280a
53
SternM. J.ArdoinN. M.PowellR. B. (2017). Exploring the effectiveness of outreach strategies in conservation projects: the case of the Audubon Toyota TogetherGreen Program. Soc Nat. Resour.30, 95–111. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2016.1164266
54
TrisosC. H.AuerbachJ.KattiM. (2021). Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nat. Ecol. Evol.5, 1205–1212. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01460-w
55
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2013) 2013 rural-urban continuum codes. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/documentation/.
56
US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (2023) Programs & Initiatives. Available at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives.
57
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (2023) Partners for fish & Wildlife. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/program/partners-fish-and-wildlife.
58
Van HoutanK. S. (2006). Conservation as virtue: a scientific and social process for conservation ethics. Conserv. Biol.20, 1367–1372. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00447.x
59
VeríssimoD.PienkowskiT.AriasM.CugnièreL.DoughtyH.HazenboschM.et al. (2020). Ethical publishing in biodiversity conservation science. Conserv. Soc18, 220–225. doi: 10.4103/cs.cs_19_56
60
VolskiL.McInturffA.GaynorK. M.YovovichV.BrasharesJ. S. (2021). Social effectiveness and human-wildlife conflict: linking the ecological effectiveness and social acceptability of livestock protection tools. Front. Conserv. Sci.2. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.682210
61
WardekkerJ. A.PetersenA. C.van der SluijsJ. P. (2009). Ethics and public perception of climate change: exploring the Christian voices in the US public debate. Global Environ. Change19, 512–521. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.008
62
Western Landowners Alliance (2023) Western landowners alliance. Available at: https://westernlandowners.org/.
63
WilmerH.MeadowA. M.BrymerA. B.CarrollS. R.FergusonD. B.GarbaI.et al. (2021). Expanded ethical principles for research partnership and transdisciplinary natural resource management science. Environ. Manage.68, 453–467. doi: 10.1007/s00267-021-01508-4
64
YungL.FreimundW. A.BelskyJ. M. (2003). The politics of place: understanding meaning, common ground, and political difference on the Rocky Mountain Front. For. Sci.49, 855–866. doi: 10.1093/forestscience/49.6.855
Summary
Keywords
advancement criteria, community engagement, DEIJ, diversity, local stakeholders, public outreach, rural partnerships, rural-urban divide
Citation
Kurz DJ, Middleton AD, Chapman M, Huber BR, McInturff A, Sorgen J, Van Houtan KS, Wilkinson CE, Withey L and Brashares JS (2023) Including Rural America in academic conservation science. Front. Conserv. Sci. 4:1227227. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1227227
Received
22 May 2023
Accepted
05 September 2023
Published
20 October 2023
Volume
4 - 2023
Edited by
Raquel De La Cruz Modino, University of La Laguna, Spain
Reviewed by
Fikirte Gebresenbet, University of New Hampshire, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Kurz, Middleton, Chapman, Huber, McInturff, Sorgen, Van Houtan, Wilkinson, Withey and Brashares.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: David J. Kurz, david.kurz@berkeley.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.