Call for Book Chapter Proposals: “The interrelation of social concepts and biodiversity conservation: Breaking down disciplinary silos to create a better planet.”

One of the horrors of the Anthropocene is its impact on biodiversity conservation, specifically as biodiversity is undergoing a sixth mass extinction event. Just as clear, however, is that the field of biodiversity conservation does not simply fall within the realm of the natural sciences, but has strong social components. These can range from the social sciences to the fine arts. Exploring these components is key to developing a robust approach to biodiversity loss. In fact, the notion that any discipline can remain on the sidelines in the Anthropocene is misguided, as all must play a role. This is particularly true when it comes to biodiversity conservation, as all disciplines impact, or can impact, that field of study.

Unfortunately, disciplines remain stubbornly siloed. For instance, even in fundamental, and ostensibly universal, approaches such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there is criticism that some disciplines, such as those of scientists studying biodiversity, are not included enough in discussions and that they can find it difficult to “engage [with] the SDG community” (Watanabe, 2020).

Broad efforts to bring together a great slew of disciplines, such as the Consilience approach, can be criticized as it could lead to one discipline overtaking another. Perhaps only the natural sciences would be deemed valuable, with all other disciplines having to fit that mold. While approaches like Consilience may be too sweeping, silos must be brought down or, at least, made more porous. Certainly, this would aid in exploring social components as they relate to biodiversity conservation, which could be a great benefit.

To that end, this edited volume will seek to explore this topic, allowing several key approaches, from the micro to the macro level. On the micro level of the researcher, one can explore which social components, including biases, may impact where, what, and with which methods they do their work. This can require direct research to understand what these social components are, as well as, deeper explorations of where these social components come from. This can apply to various stakeholders, from biologists, to policymakers, to artists. How do they choose what to study and explore?

On the macro level of the disciplines themselves, one can ask whether scholars can bring out its underlying assumptions and potential biases to create a better system for biodiversity conservation. This can be approached in several ways, including disciplinary ethnographies. Relatedly, on this level, an exploration of “combined” disciplines can be conducted, to determine whether this is possible while simultaneously maintaining their intrinsic components, and being a benefit to biodiversity conservation. Certainly, combinatory efforts have been made, but these are often at their infancies and require deep interrogation. For instance, can Compassion Conservation truly balance the individual’s rights with the species focus of biology? Similarly, can standard economic theory escape its Newtonian underlying core to emerge as a new discipline and a force for biodiversity conservation, as advocated by Ecological Economics? Taking it a step further, does modern Ecological Economics have its own biases, such as power differentials, to overcome? Even efforts similar to Consilience, like the Cosmic Story, can be explored, to see whether the fears some have of such efforts can be allayed, while working towards biodiversity protection.

Furthermore, how entire worldviews interact must be considered. For instance, in terms of Indigenous knowledge, which is rarely free of influence from Western worldviews as it is, one can interrogate whether there are ways to create a bridge that brings the best of both views, while simultaneously ensuring the protection of Indigenous knowledge and lifeways, which should be a key goal in any such interactions. Efforts like Ethnobiology and Human-Wildlife Interactions would be potential examples to explore this topic. 

This volume seeks to not be restrictive, which means a broad range of explorations into social aspects of and interactions with biodiversity conservation are welcome. A few fields of interest would be:

-Ecology, environmentalism, and general biology

-Ethnobiology

-Ecological Economics

-Compassionate Conservation

-Social sciences and their methodologies

-Environmental Ethics

-Humanities, including religion and arts

-Sustainability Science

A few topics which can be considered are listed below. This is not an exhaustive list of topics:

-The Epic of Evolution or Cosmic Story and what it means for biodiversity conservation

-Social factors impacting how biodiversity research is done

-Social biases impacting Human-Wildlife Conflicts

-Applying methodologies from the social sciences to biodiversity conservation

-Learning how stakeholders, including biologists, approach issues in biodiversity conservation

-The intersection of Animal Rights, Animal Welfare, and biodiversity

-Compassionate Conservation and other methods trying to bridge the gap between animal welfare and biodiversity

-Varying philosophical views on topics key to biodiversity conservation, like the concept of “Wildness”

-Elucidating the intersection of deep ethical approaches to nature (e.g. Intrinsic, Instrumental, Relational Values) and biodiversity conservation

-Exploring whether Ecosystem Services are a good approach to biodiversity conservation

-Exploring whether Ecological Economics has underlying issues that affect its approach to biodiversity conservation

-Exploring where biodiversity conservation is not included in social discourse, but should be

-The intersection of Indigenous views and “Western” biodiversity conservation

-Exploring whether religious concepts can be adapted for biodiversity conservation

-Varying world views and biodiversity conservation, with an emphasis on previously ignored connections

-Exploring how the Sustainable Development Goals can be reformed to better suit biodiversity conservation

 

Chapter Proposals (approx. 500 words, not including the short biography)

Proposals should include:

The chapter’s topic and chapter structure

An outline of the key argument

An outline of methodology and ethical considerations, where applicable

Include a short biography (approx. 200 words): Please include author name, affiliation, and email address

 

Final chapters should be approximately 5000-8000 words.

Abstract Submission Deadline: 31/10/2024

Please submit proposals to: gabriel.yahyahaage@mail.mcgill.ca

We look forward to receiving your proposals!

 

Works cited:

Watanabe, M. E. (2020), “The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Researchers seek to make headway amid obstacles”, BioScience, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 205-212.