Jump to content

Course:CONS200/2025WT2/Applying Socio-Ecological Analysis in Conservation Planning

From UBC Wiki

Socio-Ecological Analysis and Its Role in Conservation

Introduction

The Social Ecological Model was conceptualized in the 1970s by Urie Bronfenbrenner and became a social theory of Ecological Framework for Human Development in the 1980s. Urie Bronfenbrenner was born in Moscow, Russia in 1916 and studied at Cornell in his early academic years and did his masters at Harvard. Known for publishing "The Ecology of Human Development"[1] at the Harvard Press proposing his Ecological Systems Theories. His paper proposed the Social Ecological Model and other frameworks that helped develop socio-ecological analysis and the approaches used today in conservation.

What is Socio-Ecological Analysis?

Socio-ecological analysis or SEA is an interdisciplinary approach that explores the dynamics and relationships between human societies and natural ecosystems. As global challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource scarcity become more urgent, understanding these connections has never been more critical. Using data and insights from ecology, sociology, economics, and political science, socio-ecological analysis helps us make sense of how social systems and ecological systems respond to each other and work in society. The following page explains the frameworks that SEA provides, The importance of integrating ecological and social data and how we can make society and ecology work hand in hand.

Fundamental Concepts

Relationships between effective socio-ecological analysis (SEA) applications depend on a full understanding of various analytical approaches and systems. The recognition of important concepts allows researchers to create a framework which unifies diverse assessment methods and theoretical approaches. The method of SEA helps achieve both ecological and social considerations to develop adaptable conservation strategies. This part presents essential ideas which build a strong foundation for complete conservation planning.

Socio-Ecological Systems (SES)

Socio-ecological systems (SES) serve as an essential framework which supports study comparison and enables researchers to perform social-ecological trade-off assessments so they can identify practical solutions. This framework establishes essential ecological components that include biodiversity, ecosystem services and habitat quality. Traditional ecological knowledge and governance structures together with community engagement make up the social elements of this framework. Spatial data about resource utilization patterns remain directly involved in conservation planning as evidence of both biodiversity decay through human activities and resource destruction. The union of SES with conservation planning brings clearer results that prove superior to standard conservation efforts according to scholarly research[2].

Ecosystem Services and Cultural Values

Management of natural resources requires complete knowledge of all types of ecosystem services to establish successful conservation strategies. Humanity benefits from ecosystem services which encompass direct and indirect natural system benefits that include provisioning services through food and water alongside regulating services which ensure climate control[3]. The cultural value of ecosystem services exists as one of its many elements. Most cultural services maintain independent value because they emerge from the traditional cultural backgrounds of indigenous settlements. Conservation planning requires a complete understanding of how people connect to their environment because social-ecological relationships drive decision-making about environmental protection. The unified administrative approach between government agencies facilitates biodiversity conservation as well as establishing sustainable land management that requires local community participation[2].

Adaptive Co-Management and Social Learning

Adaptive co-management uses the collective decision process of co-management together with adaptive management's functional learning approach to practical problem-solving. Through co-management governments and local resource users equally share the power to make decisions and adaptive management uses adaptable policy testing through experimental learning approaches. The method requires ecological knowledge to be arranged then tested and improved by alternating between planning, action, and reflective phases[4]. Groups of people develop knowledge through collaborative problem-solving while exchanging their insights in processes of social learning. The purpose of this theory in resource management extends individual learning to produce shared practices and understanding for decision guidance[5]. Social learning involves intellectual growth which transforms personal understanding into community-level practice by way of social connectivity networks[6].

Social Network Analysis (SNA)

Social Network Analysis serves as an effective method to explore processes of relationship and interaction among stakeholders who work in conservation planning. The connections between stakeholders become visible through SNA which reveals how information spreads together with resources and how influence works towards identifying key actors while showing communication weaknesses. The use of SNA demonstrates how it establishes connections between regional planning frameworks and local implementation through the detection of stakeholder interaction discrepancies[7]. Social Network Analysis allows conservation initiatives to orient their programming by understanding major organizational forces in the network while building relationships that enhance collective work. The combination of SNA with socio-ecological frameworks enables an improved understanding of stakeholder characteristics which leads to the development of socially and ecologically effective conservation strategies. By focusing on SNA, communication between different scales becomes more effective while adaptive management becomes possible because it reveals transformations in social structures due to environmental and policy modifications[8].

Integration of SEA into Conservation Policy

Adaptive and comprehensive strategies for conservation policy need socio-ecological concepts as an integral component. The SES framework enables legislators to assess how the ecological aspects (like biodiversity and ecosystem services) offset social elements that affect conservation results[2]. Adaptive co-management merges controlled decision-making with testing methods to keep policies active through environmental changes along with social feedback[4]. Conservation efforts are strengthened by policy decisions, which incorporate cultural values together with traditional Indigenous knowledge, according to research on marine protected areas that involve Indigenous peoples' rights[9]. Through SNA practitioners gain an understanding of how participants stay connected with planning processes and local activities at the societal level[7].



A comprehensive conservation planning approach uses two main components: first, socio-ecological systems together with ecosystem services and second, adaptive co-management with social learning and social network analysis. The set of critical ideas helps planners gain vital knowledge about environmental and social aspects to perform trade-off assessments and design flexible strategies. Better decisions become possible through understanding critical ideas while these concepts help establish conservation initiatives capable of addressing environmental challenges alongside social requirements.

Methods and Approaches

General Challenges: In Data Socio-Ecological Analysis Collection

In relation to the foundation of socio-ecological analysis, understanding the significant complexity of socio-ecological systems, and data collection aids in the ability to comprehend inherent analytical difficulties. The variability in methods stems from diverse objectives and specific needs of a specific conservation project. Factors such as ecosystem type, socio-economic context, and stakeholder involvement contribute to the selection of data collection methods[10]. Given the nicheness of Socio-Ecological Analysis studies, there is overall difficulty in retrieving data from any target[11]. Exemplifying the convoluted manner of conducting socio-ecological analysis no matter the specified focus.

Common Data Collection Methods in Socio-Ecological Analysis

There are various data collection methods commonly used in SEA in order to obtain insights into social and ecological dynamic relationships. Known methods include both qualitative and quantitative research approaches, each contributing to the understanding of perspectives related to socio-ecological systems [12]. Common data collection methods in the Socio-Ecological Analysis perspective include the following six strategies:

1. Desk Research

Desk research involves collecting secondary data from the following sources: scientific literature, policy documents, environmental indicators, socio-economic reports, and official statistics[12]. This foundational approach helps identify key governance structures, environmental pressures, and socio-economic trends relevant to the SES[12].

2. Questionnaire Design and Surveys

Surveys and questionnaires are customized to the specific context of the desired analysis and are useful in gathering primary data from relevant actors when other secondary forms of data are unavailable. Questionnaire designs and surveys are effective tools that explore stakeholder perspectives, agricultural practices, and challenges in relation to sustainable approaches from an agro-ecology perspective[12].

3. In-depth Interviews

Conducted with key stakeholders, In-depth interviews include farmers, NGOs, researchers, public officials, and advisors. Interviews are qualitative and they provide rich detailed viewpoints into the trends of the barriers to sustainability transitions, SES, and interactions with actors involved in conservation endeavours[12].

4. Multi-Actor Platforms

Multi-Actor Platforms allow dialogue and collaboration between diverse stakeholders; facilitating the co-production of knowledge and consensus-building on agro-ecological transitions and sustainability[12]. These Multi-Actor platforms generate valuable data, fostering collaboration within socio-ecological systems[12].

5. Field Notes and Observations

Observational methods are often used in conjunction with interviews and surveys. Field notes capture non-verbal cues, contextual information, and interactions that may not be apparent through formal questioning. Observations help contextualize the findings of interviews and surveys, providing a richer understanding of the SES[12].

6. Data Coding and Thematic Analysis

Originally retrieved as qualitative data (e.g., interview transcripts, survey responses). Said data undergoes coding and thematic analysis for an identification process[12]. The following four keywords are critical to understanding the SES: patterns, system variables, and relationships. Actionable insights are a direct result of the analysis that helps distil complex data[12].

7. Integration of Quantitative Indicators

Quantitative indicators completely complement qualitative data, offering a significantly more generalized understanding of systematic dynamics, and their potential for transformation[12]. Furthermore, environmental, economic, and social indicators from regional databases (e.g., FADN) are integrated into the indicators analysis[12]. Conclusively, integrative quantitative indicators put almost the entire weight on harmoniously blending social and conversational data for the most effective conservation analysis[12].

Social Network Analysis (SNA)

Social network analysis plays a critical role in socio-ecological analysis by examining the relationships and interactions within the context of a specific social network. This revelation provides insight into the social structures that influence ecological outcomes[13]. This generates a much deeper understanding of how human behaviour, social forces, social norms, and hierarchical systems shape environmental practices and conservation efforts on the whole.

The Role of Social Networks in Socio-Ecological Analysis

Social networks are made up of unique individuals who are influenced by a multitude of social forces, like economic motivations, social hierarchies, cultural norms, and geographical location[14]. These factors contribute to interacting in ways that shape the behavioural habits and decision-making of individuals within the network. Furthermore, because social data is comparably half of socio-ecological analysis, understanding its complexities through a sociological perspective is critical; sociology plays an influential role in socio-ecological analysis hence illuminating the following four central elements of social networks is critical:

1. Human Diversity and Social Forces

Social networks are influenced by social forces. Social forces are prime personal characteristics that make you the individual you are, social forces are simply gender, race, religion, status, education, and location. Factors that have the transformative influence to shape the way individuals interact with each other and with the environment are social forces[15]. Social forces, a prime part of socio-ecological analysis, have a paramount effect on sustainability and ecological systems.

2. Geographical Context

The geographical location of individuals within a social network significantly impacts both social and ecological outcomes. Different statuses of a country will demand specific pressures and governance structures compared to similar networks in less-developed regions. This inherently creates varied conservation priorities and strategies amongst specific actors in geographical regions[16].

3. Human Greed and Economic Competition

Human behavioural greed, particularly economic drive, prioritizing short-term profit over anything, especially sustainability is often fueled by competition and the desire for more resources, especially money[17]. These dynamics are perpetuated heavily through social networks, where individuals seek to maintain or improve their position within the given social hierarchy[18]. In conservation contexts, this drive can contribute to the over-exploitation of resources and environmental degradation which all result in diminishing the natural world.

4. Social Hierarchies and Order

Social hierarchies and the desire to maintain or ascend within the social order play a significant role in shaping individuals' actions within a network[18]. In order to ascend, a given individual will selfishly do what it takes despite costing sustainability and the natural world. This can encourage detrimental economic exploitation and create intense environmental harm, as people in higher social positions may have more influence over natural resource use and conservation-oriented decisions[17].

SNA in Socio-Ecological Systems

When analyzing the social network within either socio-ecological systems or social network analysis both provide critical data on how power dynamics, resource allocation, and social behaviour influence conservation-oriented outcomes[19]. Social network analysis does an impressive job of uncovering hidden patterns in society through social interactions and their impact on sustainability; this strictly facilitates more effective conservation methods that take social realities into account, this is all in hopes of aiding sustainability and ecology[19].

Indicators for Measuring and Assessing Social and Ecological Data

Socio-ecological analysis indicators are important tools used to quantify, observe, and evaluate the social and ecological data of a system. Indicators assist all researchers track variables defining the health and resilience of ecosystems in addition to human society[20]. Social indicators include basic factors of income distribution, education levels, community engagement, and access to resources, while ecological indicators centre on concepts like biodiversity, land use change, and water quality[20].

Regional and Global Applications

Something that always needs to be considered when trying to come up with social-ecological approaches, which are relevant, effective, sustainable and scalable is that those plans deal with “living structures” and ever-changing cultures, values and trends. Hence, they need to be constantly assessed and adjusted accordingly. Depending on the magnitude of the change and its impact, it may result in a transformation or adaptation of the system itself. Transformation refers to a fundamental shift in the structure and function of a social-ecological system, often occurring when existing social, economic, political, and ecological conditions become untenable[21]. These transformations can be triggered by various factors, such as environmental degradation, social unrest, or policy changes. SEA can be used to understand the drivers of transformation, identify potential thresholds, and develop strategies to facilitate or manage these shifts to achieve desired conservation outcomes. For example, in the Kristianstad wetland landscape in Sweden, SEA helped guide a transformation toward ecosystem management by identifying the social processes that led to the degradation of the wetland and by building social-ecological resilience to support the desired changes[21].

Case Studies of SEA Application in British Columbia

While specific peer-reviewed case studies explicitly focusing on SEA applications in British Columbia conservation planning are limited, several examples highlight the integration of social and ecological considerations in conservation projects in the province.

  • The Conservation Framework: The British Columbia Ministry of Environment developed a Conservation Framework that prioritizes species and ecosystems for conservation based on a number of criteria, including global and provincial risk status, threats, and trends[22]. This framework incorporates social considerations by recognizing the importance of stewardship responsibility/accountability and the need for preventative measures to proactively protect species and ecosystems that are not yet at risk. It also highlights the need to consider socio-economic factors when making conservation decisions.
  • Green Shores for Shoreline Development: This program encourages shoreline development that protects and enhances natural ecosystems while providing social benefits such as recreation and access to nature[23]. Green Shores projects incorporate SEA principles by considering the ecological and social impacts of shoreline development and promoting sustainable practices. Each certified project has a compiled case study that includes design details, images, and a description of pre- and post-project conditions at the site, demonstrating how Green Shores design principles were integrated.
  • Nature-Based Solutions: The Raincoast Conservation Foundation advocates for Nature-Based Solutions that address climate risks and habitat loss, while providing social benefits such as flood mitigation and stormwater management[24]. This approach aligns with SEA principles by recognizing the interconnectedness of human and natural systems and promoting solutions that benefit both people and the environment. However, challenges exist in defining protected area boundaries using ecological parameters and ensuring that Nature-Based Solutions lead to the creation of high-quality habitat that supports underlying ecological processes. There is also a need for increased opportunities for Indigenous-led Nature-Based Solutions through capacity building and sustainable funding[24].

These examples demonstrate the growing awareness of the importance of SEA, in British Columbia's conservation planning. By integrating social and ecological considerations, these initiatives aim to achieve more effective and sustainable conservation outcomes that all British Columbians will feel comfortable to adopt and embrace as they fit in with their values and priorities while not feeling like an imposition.

Global Case Studies of SEA Application

Global case studies provide further evidence of the effectiveness of SEA in conservation planning across various scales and contexts.

  • Australia: A study in southwestern Australia used the Social-Ecological Systems framework to inform the implementation of a large-scale conservation initiative aimed at restoring ecological connectivity[25]. The SEA identified areas with varying conservation opportunities based on ecological importance and stakeholder presence, leading to the development of targeted implementation strategies[25]. The study involved semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, online surveys, and the analysis of publicly available data on ecological importance, stakeholder presence, collaboration between stakeholders, and their scale of management[25].
  • Global Protected Areas: A global assessment of protected areas found that those reporting positive socio-economic outcomes were more likely to report positive conservation outcomes[26]. This highlights the importance of considering social factors in protected area management and the potential for achieving win-win scenarios that benefit both people and nature. The study found that positive conservation and socio-economic outcomes are more likely to occur when protected areas adopt co-management regimes, empower local people, reduce economic inequalities, and maintain cultural and livelihood benefits[26].
  • Kenya: A study in Kenya applied the Social-Ecological Systems Framework to assess the potential barriers and opportunities for the consumptive use of wildlife[27]. The SEA identified several barriers, including ownership and wildlife movement, monitoring challenges, and potential conflicts between stakeholders, informing the development of more effective conservation policies. The study highlighted the need for large-scale investment in effective monitoring systems, new regulations, training, market development and research, considerations about equity, and devolved ownership of wildlife to support the consumptive use of wildlife[27].

These case studies demonstrate the diverse applications of SEA in conservation planning across different scales and contexts. By considering the complex interactions between social and ecological systems, SEA helps to achieve more effective and sustainable conservation outcomes.

Comparing SEA Applications in British Columbia and Globally

While the application of SEA in British Columbia shares similarities with global examples, some key differences emerge:

Feature British Columbia Global
Scale of Projects Often focused on regional or municipal scales[28] Depending on the countries’ government those projects vary in area of focus from region to state to country-wide[29]
Ecosystem types Diverse, including forests, marine, and grasslands[28] Wide range, with a focus on coastal and marine systems in many studies[29]
Social and Cultural contexts Strong emphasis on Indigenous communities and their way of knowing and experiencing the environment as a whole and non-human centric 17 Diverse, with varying levels of community involvement[29]
Legal and policy frameworks Well-developed, with legislation and policies that support sustainable management of natural resources[28] Varies significantly across countries and their regions[29]. Some of the less developed countries are the ones with fewer options available to their “stakeholders” as they lack access to basic necessities. Such as clean drinking water, nutrition and healthcare.
Level of Indigenous involvement High, with increasing recognition of Indigenous rights and knowledge in conservation planning Varies depending on the region and specific project

These differences highlight the need to tailor SEA approaches to the specific context of each conservation project. While general principles apply, the specific methods and considerations will vary depending on the scale, ecosystem type, and social and cultural context. For example, in British Columbia, there is a strong emphasis on incorporating Indigenous knowledge and perspectives in conservation planning, while in other regions, the level of Indigenous involvement may vary depending on the legal and societal context.

Challenges and Limitations

Conservation planning can become less effective when implementing SEA because it may create challenges that have to be addressed to ensure effective outcomes. A major barrier emerges from the extensive uncertainty that comes with combining social and ecological data sets. A study suggests that biodiversity and habitat quality metrics have good measurable data, while social metrics like stakeholder needs and community preferences are hard to measure effectively. The mismatch between these data types makes detecting SES system trade-offs and interactions difficult[2]. Additionally, research demonstrates that feedback loops between conservation actions and SES are complex interactions. Without reliable long-term data, the evaluation of conservation impacts, and the growth of proper adaptive management strategies cannot be developed effectively[30].

Moreover, strict regulations prevent the successful application of SEA programs. For example, researchers explain the fact that strict policy frameworks combined with governance structures hinder the integration of knowledge systems, including traditional ecological knowledge. The intensity of barriers produces conservation policies which respond poorly to updated information and environmental changes, leading to unsuccessful conservation outcomes[4].

Furthermore, scale mismatches are a major obstacle during these operations. Researchers discuss the fragmentation of decision-making which occurs when ecological processes operate at one scale compared to governance systems operating at another scale. Such misalignments between local demands and regional planning targets lead stakeholders to experience conflicts because it becomes tough to coordinate joint operations[5]. A substantial challenge is faced when attempting to link multiple types of data sources practically. SNA and other analytical tools sometimes fail to detect multi-scale interactions successfully.

Not only that, but power dynamics and equity issues are very much present in SEA conservation planning, where insufficient consideration and fairness are put upon local and land communities. For instance, a study has examined Indigenous peoples' rights in marine protected areas, it highlights how their presence is often excluded in high-level conservation policies; 9 out of 13 cases of incorporating Indigenous peoples in marine protected areas governance were social challenges. Furthermore, these protected areas gave limited power to advisory bodies because the Minister had the ultimate decision-making authority. A few ecological challenges were raised; protection was limited, and management of these areas was species-specific rather than complete coverage[9].


The implementation of SEA in conservation planning faces several barriers, including unclear data, strict laws, stakeholder conflicts, ecological governance mismatches, and limited methods. Additionally, the power and equity issues of some conservation plans can marginalise land communities. Improved data collection like legislative review, strengthened collaboration, and inclusivity represent the solutions to SEA incorporation problems. Overall, the implementation of conservation policies depends on their ability to respond effectively to ecological conditions alongside social equality.

Conclusion

In conclusion, SEA is an essential tool for effective conservation planning in the 21st century. By recognizing the interconnectedness of human societies and natural ecosystems, SEA provides a more comprehensive understanding of environmental problems and can inform more effective conservation strategies. Case studies from British Columbia and global examples demonstrate the diverse applications of SEA and its potential to achieve both conservation and social goals. While challenges and limitations exist, the benefits of SEA in promoting sustainability and ensuring that conservation efforts benefit both people and nature are undeniable. As conservation planning continues to evolve, SEA will play an increasingly important role in guiding us toward a more sustainable and equitable future.

The case studies examined highlight the importance of considering social factors such as stakeholder engagement, community participation, and the integration of local indigenous knowledge in conservation planning. They also demonstrate the need to tailor SEA approaches to the specific context of each project, considering factors such as the scale of the project, the types of ecosystems involved, and the social and cultural context. By carefully considering these factors and by using appropriate frameworks and approaches to guide the analysis, conservation planners can effectively use SEA to intentionally achieve conservation outcomes that will likely be more sustainable and more equitable, making sure social justice is always one of the factors kept into account when making any such decisions.

References

  1. ↑ Bronfenbrenner, Urie (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard Press. ISBN 0-674-22457-4.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Ban, Natalie C; Mills, Morena; Tam, Jordan; Hicks, Christina C; Klain, Sarah; Stoeckl, Natalie; Bottrill, Madeleine C; Levine, Jordan; Pressey, Robert L; Satterfield, Terre; Chan, Kai MA (2013). "A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations" (PDF). Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 11 (4): 194–202. doi:10.1890/110205. ISSN 1540-9295. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  3. ↑ Chan, Kai M.A.; Satterfield, Terre; Goldstein, Joshua (2012). "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values". Ecological Economics. 74: 8–18. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Berkes, Fikret (2009). "Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning". Journal of Environmental Management. 90 (5): 1692–1702. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Armitage, Derek; Berkes, Fikret; Dale, Aaron; Kocho-Schellenberg, Erik; Patton, Eva (2011). "Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada's Arctic". Global Environmental Change. 21 (3): 995–1004. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006.
  6. ↑ Reed, Mark S.; Evely, Anna C.; Cundill, Georgina; Fazey, Ioan; Glass, Jayne; Laing, Adele; Newig, Jens; Parrish, Brad; Prell, Christina; Raymond, Chris; Stringer, Lindsay C. (2010). "What is Social Learning?". Ecology and Society. 15 (4). doi:10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01. ISSN 1708-3087.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Guerrero, Angela M.; McAllister, Ryan R. J.; Corcoran, Jonathan; Wilson, Kerrie A. (2013). "Scale Mismatches, Conservation Planning, and the Value of Social‐Network Analyses" (PDF). Conservation Biology. 27 (1): 35–44. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01964.x. ISSN 0888-8892. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  8. ↑ Mills, Morena; Álvarez-Romero, Jorge G.; Vance-Borland, Ken; Cohen, Philippa; Pressey, Robert L.; Guerrero, Angela M.; Ernstson, Henrik (2014). "Linking regional planning and local action: Towards using social network analysis in systematic conservation planning". Biological Conservation. 169: 6–13. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.015.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Ban, Natalie C.; Frid, Alejandro (2018). "Indigenous peoples' rights and marine protected areas". Marine Policy. 87: 180–185. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.020.
  10. ↑ Reed, Mark S. (April 2009). "Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management" (Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001). Journal of Environmental Management. 90, issues 5: 1933–1949 – via ScienceDirect.
  11. ↑ Kok, Marcel (01 January 2015). "A new method for analysing socio-ecological patterns of vulnerability" (https://go.exlibris.link/RQgCqtg7). Reg Environ Change. Volume 16: 229–243 – via CrossMark.
  12. ↑ 12.00 12.01 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 12.08 12.09 12.10 12.11 12.12 UZEI (2021). "Data collection for assessing socialecological systems (SES): Brief step-by-step guide" (https://uniseco-project.eu/assets/content/resources/08-methodological-briefs/UNISECO-D 6.4-Methodological-Brief-Data-collection-SES.pdf) (PDF). Methodological Brief: Data Collection SES: 1–7 – via Uniseco.
  13. ↑ Groce, J. E., Farrelly, M. A., Jorgensen, B. S., & Cook, C. N. (2019). Using social-network research to improve outcomes in natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 33(1), 53- 65. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13127
  14. ↑ Pressman, S. (2020). In Pressman S. (Ed.), How social forces impact the economy (1;1st; ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003006343
  15. ↑ Simon, C., Brexendorf, T. O., & Fassnacht, M. (2016). The impact of external social and internal personal forces on consumers' brand community engagement on facebook. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 25(5), 409-423. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2015-0843
  16. ↑ Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 366-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Lin, Q. F. (2014). Aldo Leopold’s unrealized proposals to rethink economics. Ecological Economics, 108, 104-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.018
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Fournier, M. A. (2009). ADOLESCENT HIERARCHY FORMATION AND THE SOCIAL COMPETITION THEORY OF DEPRESSION. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(9), 1144-1172. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/adolescent-hierarchyformation-social-competition/docview/224872476/se-2
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Barton, D. N., Ebbesson, J., & Bentrup, G. (2013). Integrating Social and Ecological Systems for Sustainable Resource Management: Approaches, Tools, and Applications. Environmental Science & Policy, 30, 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.01.004\
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Figueroa, M. E., & Sarmiento, J. M. (2017). Social-Ecological Indicators for the Sustainability of Regional Systems. Ecological Economics, 137, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.005
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 * (PDF) https://www.communityconservation.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Analysis-of-Social-Ecological-Systems-for-Community-Conservation-CCRN-2.pdf. Retrieved 2025-04-12. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  22. ↑ * (PDF) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/species-ecosystems-at-risk/species-at-risk-documents/cf_primer.pdf. Retrieved 2025-04-12. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  23. ↑ *"GS Case Studies". Stewardship Centre for BC. 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2025-04-12.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 *"Nature-based Solutions for addressing climate risks and fostering biodiversity in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia". Raincoast. 2021-11-21. Retrieved 2025-04-12.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 *"Nature-based Solutions for addressing climate risks and fostering biodiversity in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia". Raincoast. 2021-11-21. Retrieved 2025-04-12.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 *Guerrero, Angela M.; Wilson, Kerrie A. (2016-12-21). "Using a social–ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans" (PDF). Conservation Biology. Wiley. 31 (2): 290–301. doi:10.1111/cobi.12832. ISSN 0888-8892. Retrieved 2025-04-12.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 *Brehony, Peadar; Tyrrell, Peter; Kamanga, John; Waruingi, Lucy; Kaelo, Dickson (2020). "Incorporating social-ecological complexities into conservation policy". Biological Conservation. Elsevier BV. 248: 108697. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108697. ISSN 0006-3207.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 *Gilani, Haris R.; Innes, John L. (2020-03-13). "The State of British Columbia's Forests: A Global Comparison". Forests. MDPI AG. 11 (3): 316. doi:10.3390/f11030316. ISSN 1999-4907.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 *Li, Hang; Rex, John (2025-03-06). "Reconstructing Evapotranspiration in British Columbia Since 1850 Using Publicly Available Tree-Ring Plots and Climate Data". Remote Sensing. MDPI AG. 17 (5): 930. doi:10.3390/rs17050930. ISSN 2072-4292.
  30. ↑ Miller, Brian W.; Caplow, Susan C.; Leslie, Paul W. (2012). "Feedbacks between Conservation and Social‐Ecological Systems". Conservation Biology. 26 (2): 218–227. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01823.x. ISSN 0888-8892. Retrieved April 11, 2025.


This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2025WT2/Applying_Socio-Ecological_Analysis_in_Conservation_Planning&oldid=860428"