Identifying the barriers to inclusion in field-based environmental sciences research

Fieldwork is an important component of data collection in environmental sciences and other related disciplines. Sensitive to the ways in which field based environmental sciences (FBES) research is often unsafe and lacks inclusivity, we explore findings from a mixed methods study that identified barriers to inclusion and overlooked risks to safety for FBES researchers. We found that gender and gender identity presented a direct risk for discrimination, harassment, and violence in the field (63.8% of cis females and 100% of nonbinary/genderqueer respondents). Sexuality, race, and ethnicity also posed a risk to FBES researchers with 88.3% of respondents stating that marginalised groups are underrepresented in FBES. Over half of our respondents stated class and socio-economic background to be a barrier to their participation in FBES research due to job precarity and lack of funding. These risks and barriers experienced by researchers can lead to a lack of novelty in environmental science. As such, we argue that we need to increase diversity whilst reducing risks in FBES and cultivate a more prosperous, safe, and empowered research culture

A systems approach framework for evaluating tree restoration interventions for wellbeing and ecological outcomes in rural tropical landscapes

The science guiding design and evaluation of restoration interventions in tropical landscapes is dominated by ecological processes and outcomes and lacks indicators and methods that integrate human wellbeing into the restoration process. We apply a new systems approach framework for tree restoration in forest-agricultural landscapes to show how this shortcoming can be addressed. Demonstrating ‘proof of concept’, we tested statistical models underlying the framework pathways with data collected from a case study in Tanzania. Local community perceptions of nature's values were not affected by levels of self-reported wildlife-induced crop damage. But mapped predictions from the systems approach under a tree restoration scenario suggested differential outcomes for biodiversity indicators and altered spatial patterns of crop damage risk, expected to jeopardize human wellbeing. The predictions map anticipated trade-offs in costs and benefits of restoration scenarios, which we have started to explore with stakeholders to identify restoration opportunities that consider local knowledge, value systems and human wellbeing. We suggest that the framework be applied to other landscapes to identify commonalities and differences in forest landscape restoration outcomes under varying governance and land use systems. This should form a foundation for evidence-based implementation of the global drive for forest landscape restoration, at local scales. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Understanding forest landscape restoration: reinforcing scientific foundations for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration’