Talking about the lack of social science in environmental conservation (Part 1)

___________

Overview

The lack of social science in conservation practices should not surprise me this much. As a long-term designer in landscape architecture, my work always involves humans as a critical dimension from the start to the end of a project. Our clients, of course, are humans, invest their money in the project and our job is to ensure they get what they want, as well as to care for their neighbors and relevant stakeholders who will be affected (get benefits or endure the loss) by the construction of what we design. In most cases, we are the ones who advocate for nature’s needs as “additional” outcomes. Thus, my picture, social or human factors always dominate the natural side, not vice versa.

After nearly four years of involvement in academic settings, I am now on the other side of the story, where the lack of social science is alarming. In environmental studies generally, and in conservation particularly, scientists rely greatly on their data and almost skip the social context and history of social evolution in places where they conduct research and then their statements. While statistical methods are valued for their quantitative features and seem like they represent facts rather than opinions, ignoring non-numeric contributors would lead to highly biased assumptions and failures in answering “why” and “how”. Thus, the solutions or strategies made out of those research will face difficulties and risks (yes, risks, as if you make the local communities angry at you).

The next section is the reflection on the first case study that explains more clearly what “lacking social science” means in specific contexts. References are provided at the end of this essay.

Case study #1

A proposal for Tan Thanh mudflat protection in the Mekong Delta

TABLE 1. The original foundation of the study.

ORIGINAL INDICATED SOCIAL THREATS	ORIGINAL CONSERVATION SOLUTION
1.1. Agriculture expansion and intensification 1.2. Over-exploitation and control of species 1.3. Human intrusion and disturbance 1.4. Pollution	Advocate to establish a nature reserve to sharply stop local social activities that caused those threats

.

As agriculture livelihoods were said to be the problems, we first started our survey on the range of livelihoods in Tan Thanh and at the same time investigated on-site any sources of ecotoxins. We also added some questions about other factors in people’s lives such as their family stories, their faith, hobbies, etc., aiming to make our interviews go smoothly. The results did deepen the argument about the threats but also defended local communities from bearing all responsibilities and being targeted in conservation planning (see Table 2). And, surprisingly, the answers to additional questions brought out new dimensions in the interaction of people with their local nature which were not mentioned in senior scholars’ reports. However, at that time, I was not aware of a thing called “social research gaps”. In this essay, I will include those gaps that were not analyzed in my team’s article published in 2023 (see Table 3).

TABLE 2. The study revealed more information about the social factors of the situation and defended farmers from un-proven blame.

DEEPENED UNDERSTANDING OF SOCIAL THREATS
2.1. Agriculture expansion and intensification: Mapping results showed that 59% of the mainland and 51% of the mudflat were used for intensive agriculture and these numbers could be increased later on. However, the loss of local mangroves was also contributed by climate change and rising sea levels.
2.2. Over-exploitation and control of species: Intensive usage of pesticides on farmlands was confirmed during interviews, also the wild bird control method. However, the blame on local people for capturing wild birds for commercial purposes got no evidence.
2.3. Human intrusion and disturbance: Disturbance on the mudflat was recognized as the consequence of clam nursing and harvesting. There were suggestions that the potential of losing benthic prey due to anthropogenic harvesting might force predators – wild birds, to look elsewhere for food. However, it was needed to conduct quantitative analyses to determine how this disturbance affected this ecosystem.
2.4. Pollution: Solid waste in the area was alarming at the time of the survey but there was no evidence of the sources from local households and farmlands as claimed by previous environmental advocates. There were monthly services to collect domestic and agricultural wastes, and farmers effectively recycled used materials.

.

TABLE 3. Recorded but un-mentioned information about local communities and relevant gaps in conservation proposals.

UN-MENTIONED INFORMATION	EFFECTS ON THE ORIGINAL CONSERVATION SOLUTION
3.1. Agriculture-based livelihoods are not just the main income of local communities but also for people who do not live in the area but work as workers for local landowners.	Establishing a nature reserve and terminating existing livelihoods would affect an unknown range of citizens who are the first providers of their households. If there is a need to reduce or terminate existing livelihoods, a conservation proposal should include solutions for shifting the job market to another practical way to secure people’s incomes.
3.2. People aggressively stated that they themselves and their elders fought in the war to protect the lands, thus, they did not agree with a regional plan that would turn their property into a park but did not relocate them to equally valuable places.	Forcing the establishment of a nature reserve or regional park planning, either by government sectors or NGOs, without proper social studies would cause serious conflicts and an irreconcilable relationship with local communities.
3.3. Folk spiritual beliefs indicate humans’ responsibility of not killing animals recklessly as it would result in bad consequences in their and their children’s lives. That is why there are environment-friendly methods of wildlife control.	The ignorance of local spiritual life when developing conservation plans it initiatives would withdraw the advantages of this factor which is a driver of human interactions with nature. Moreover, stressors from scientists’ public statements about local communities as a threat to the environment would reduce the chance of approachable conversations with farmers.
3.4. Farmers use radio as the main media channel and they declare to follow closely the guidance of the Agriculture & Rural Development agency, which is streamed through radio, in planning their crop seasons.	This fact suggests radio is an effective channel when it comes to conservation outreach because conferences or classroom meetings are hardly organized with a vast number of farmers. And, speeches can be repeated with much less investment.
3.5. Some farmers reported there were sustainable agriculture programs that the local officials brought to the area, but there were no follow-ups over time and the guidance they provided was not practical. Thus, they ended up continuing with what they had been doing.	This information suggests the open-mindedness of people as they were willing to attend programs and try out the guidance. It also negates the statement of some scientists that people were unapproachable in environmental or sustainable agriculture teaching.
3.6. Agri-ecotourism was recorded with a few numbers on private farmlands in nearby villages as a new type of livelihood. The interest in visiting Tan Thanh for tourism due to its coastal landscape also had been increasing at the survey time.	This suggests a potential solution for livelihoods if the existing ones are terminated due to the establishment of a preserved natural area. However, relevant strategies need to be developed carefully so as not to cause new threats to the protected ecosystem.

.

As an environmentalist, I also strongly advocate and utterly look for the success of conservation plans. However, a project of any kind is a collaboration and can not be presented as an absolute perspective of one side, especially when it is conducted on others’ properties. Local social studies are unavoidable in the process. More importantly, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, if the base of physical and safety needs is not secured, people will not attempt to work on other factors in life including the care for nature. I could not stop thinking about it ever since I heard the below response from a farmer, though he thought having a park was a good thing to do.

Image from the site © P.T. Nguyễn Nữ .

Discussions

This case study is just one among many others that show the lack of social science and early engagement of local communities in environmental conservation. Google Scholar can list an uncountable number of articles, essays, and reports published in this century for the two keywords “social science” and “conservation”, arguing for the absence of social scientists in contrast to natural scientists in the field. However, I consider this movement an inevitable delay. In the midst of the global environmental crisis, countries and nations have been in a rush to establish and participate in international conventions on protecting nature. It needed to have natural scientists investing in studies and research to found the basic knowledge of what we want to protect, what are biodiversities of places that conventions talk about, to name the problems. Then, it came to the realization of the need for social science in this seem-to-be natural topic.

“Everyone working in conservation, it seems, recognizes that natural science alone cannot solve conservation problems” – Bennett et al., 2016.

Unfortunately, even when we are aware of the lack, we, as young professionals, still fall into the same pit of unintentionally ignoring the involvement of local communities and their needs in our conservation planning. And the more unfamiliar we are with the place, the more we do not know what we are missing. To improve the situation and fill the gap, there are three suggestions for us (yes, including myself) to do to raise awareness and make ourselves more familiar with relevant duties:

1. Avocate: Continue advocating and talking about this topic would help spread the information to people in order to raise awareness. It works the same as other advocate activities for public campaigns. (Protests are considered unnecessary for this case)

2. Volunteer: Professionals have their duties in the conservation field, however, as social factor is lacking, their jobs might not relevant to social science or community engagement initiatives. In that case, quiting a secured position because of this lack does not sound like a choice of wisdom, in stead, participating as volunteer and expand our network with people in projects or programs that embrace this factor would help back us up with hands-on experiences and keep us updated on current trends.

3. Marketing ourselves and our work: This is very important, as if we want to avocate and work with a vast number of people whose diverse backgrounds, they need to know who we are and what we are standing for, potential partners need to see that we are out there and available to be reached out.

I hope this essay provides you insights about the topic. If you are interested in part 2, discussing the case study of the Snow Leopards in the Western Himalayas, sign-up to receive updates of its publishing. I also welcome conversations to further discuss this topic, kindly leave a comment at the end of this page or send private messages and I will reach out to you.

Follow-up questions

• This case study suggests religions or spiritual beliefs drive people’s perception of environmental issues. What are the religions or beliefs that you recognize in your study sites?
• Conservation involves many factors and disciplines that determine the situation analysis. What are the stakeholders of a conservation project that you think will need to be included?
• What are the difficulties of involving social science in conservation that you can think of?

References

1. Bennett, N. J., et al. (2017). Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conservation Biology, 31(1), 56-66.
2. Gatersleben, B. et al. (2024). Environmental Social Science: What is it and why do we need it?. Environment Agency, 1-16.
3. Nguyen, H.B., Yong, D.L. & Le, T.T. (2021). Conservation status of shorebirds at key coastal sites in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Conservation Report No. X. BirdLife International (Asia), Singapore & WildTour, Ho Chi Minh City.
4. Nguyen, P. T. N., Tran, T. X., Pham, T. H., & Nguyen, K. D. (2023). Livelihoods and human impacts in Tan Thanh mudflat, Tien Giang Province, Vietnam. Research Journal of Biotechnology Vol, 18, 8.