Conservation Biology invites novel research and methods papers, reviews, and essays that focus on the application of psychological frameworks, theories, and methods to address conservation challenges in ways that are salient, useful, credible, and legitimate to researchers, practitioners, and decision makers. Contributions should address the role conservation psychology can play in research and practice. Submissions may be interdisciplinary but should (1) be grounded in and align with the tenets and standards of basic and applied psychology and (2) illustrate the value of psychological research in promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the science–management, knowledge-action boundary.
Contemporary conservation challenges cannot be solved with research that serves only theory at the expense of utility or salience to stakeholders. We are particularly interested in contributions that (1) detail collaborative efforts between psychology and other relevant sciences, (2) highlight the dynamic interplay between different data types and sources or synthesize psychological and biophysical data, (3) address methodological issues and best practices in applied conservation psychology research, and (4) integrate local cultural and sociodemographic contexts. We seek contributions in which innovative and integrative approaches are applied to address real-world complexities. Such approaches include, but are not limited to data analytics, time-series analyses or longitudinal studies, agent-based models, spatially explicit models, mixed-methods studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and experiments. We also welcome studies that address lessons learned from successful or failed collaborations.
The central message of contributions should convey that human behaviors and decisions are primary determinants of conservation success and failure. As such, inferences made by authors, particularly when claiming an ability to inform practice or policy, should be demonstrably relevant to conservation outcomes and possess a satisfactory body of evidence. Authors should discuss such evidence in relation to the conceptual, theoretical, or methodological foundations of the study, as well as relevant system elements not studied (i.e., other elements that should also be considered in decision-making processes).
If you are interested in contributing to this special section, submit an abstract by 1 February 2019 to [email protected] for consideration. We anticipate a manuscript deadline of September 2019.
Abstracts should be 500 words and include a tentative title and article type. The abstract should indicate the paper’s (1) alignment with the aims and scope of Conservation Biology, (2) alignment with the focus of the special section, (3) conceptual foundations, (4) data collection and analysis methods (when applicable), and (5) contributions to conservation policy or practice.
Conservation Biology is a hybrid journal. Open-access charges apply for those choosing this option who want to pay them. Page charges are waived if there is financial need. For additional advice and author instructions and guidelines, contact Kenneth E. Wallen ([email protected]) and Alia M. Dietsch ([email protected]).
Kenneth E. Wallen, University of Arkansas System, Div. of Agriculture
Alia M. Dietsch, Ohio State University, School of Environment and Natural Resources
Susan Clayton, College of Wooster, Dept. of Psychology
Gerard T. Kyle, Texas A&M University, Dept. of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences
Zhao Ma, Purdue University, Dept. of Forestry and Natural Resources
Sarah E. Reed, Wildlife Conservation Society, Director of Applied Conservation Science
Ans Vercammen, Imperial College London, Centre for Environmental Policy