Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Environmental data justice is key for developing more effective area-based conservation approaches

Nature Reviews Biodiversity volume 2, pages 116–126 (2026) Cite this article

Subjects

An Author Correction to this article was published on 20 April 2026

This article has been updated

Abstract

Scientists are divided about how to respond to high levels of biodiversity loss. These differences have become clear in recent debates over the role of area-based conservation, which includes protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Debates between supporters and critics of these measures reflect the views of different epistemic communities who engage with area-based conservation using various methods, framings and normative positions. Conservation scientists emphasize biodiversity protection and habitat integrity; land systems scientists foreground land-use dynamics in interconnected socio-ecological systems; and political ecologists examine power relations and the social implications of protected areas. Despite these emphases differing in focus, they are internally compatible in that they share concerns about both biodiversity loss and social equity, although they assign different weights to these priorities. This Perspective brings together authors representing these three epistemic communities along with a fourth — environmental data justice scholars. We argue that disagreements among conservation scientists, land systems scientists and political ecologists can become constructive by applying vocabularies and frameworks from environmental data justice. Introducing environmental data justice to the debate will help conservation researchers and practitioners to develop more effective interventions to achieve the underlying goals of area-based conservation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. IPBES. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).

  2. Haas, P. M. Epistemic Communities, Constructivism, and International Environmental Politics (Routledge, 2016).

  3. Moon, K., Cvitanovic, C., Blackman, D. A., Scales, I. R. & Browne, N. K. Five questions to understand epistemology and its influence on integrative marine research. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.574158 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Scholfield, K. Transnational (Dis)connections: Mountain Gorilla Conservation in Rwanda and the DRC. PhD thesis, Univ. of Manchester (2013).

  5. Pooley, S. P., Mendelsohn, J. A. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 28, 22–32 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Caniglia, G. et al. A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4, 93–100 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sandbrook, C., Fisher, J. A., Holmes, G., Luque-Lora, R. & Keane, A. The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nat. Sustain. 2, 316–323 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang, Y. et al. Governance and conservation effectiveness in protected areas and indigenous and locally managed areas. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 48, 559–588 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dalton, D. et al. A Framework for Monitoring Biodiversity in Protected Areas and Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (IUCN, 2024).

  10. Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L. & Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23209–23215 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C. & Barrow, E. Cornered by PAs: adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Dev. 130, 104923 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vera, L. A. et al. When data justice and environmental justice meet: formulating a response to extractive logic through environmental data justice. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22, 1012–1028 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pritchard, R., Sauls, L. A., Oldekop, J. A., Kiwango, W. A. & Brockington, D. Data justice and biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13919 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Watson, J. E. M., Ellis, E. C., Pillay, R., Williams, B. A. & Venter, O. Mapping industrial influences on earth’s ecology. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 48, 289–317 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Soulé, M. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35, 727–734 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kareiva, P. & Marvier, M. What is conservation science? BioScience 62, 962–969 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mace, G. M. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558–1560 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bennett, N. J. et al. Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conserv. Biol. 31, 55–66 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bennett, N. J. et al. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv. 205, 93–108 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shackleton, R. T. et al. Navigating power in conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 5, e12877 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Janzen, D. H. Ecology of Plants in the Tropics (Edward Arnold, 1975).

  22. Shaffer, M. L. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31, 131–134 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Margules, C. R. & Pressey, R. L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ghoddousi, A., Loos, J. & Kuemmerle, T. An outcome-oriented, social–ecological framework for assessing protected area effectiveness. BioScience 72, 201–212 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Meyfroidt, P. et al. Ten facts about land systems for sustainability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2109217118 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Verburg, P. H., Erb, K.-H., Mertz, O. & Espindola, G. Land system science: between global challenges and local realities. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 433–437 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Meyfroidt, P., Lambin, E. F., Erb, K.-H. & Hertel, T. W. Globalization of land use: distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 438–444 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Friis, C. et al. From teleconnection to telecoupling: taking stock of an emerging framework in land system science. J. Land Use Sci. 11, 131–153 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Buchadas, A., Qin, S., Meyfroidt, P. & Kuemmerle, T. Conservation frontiers: understanding the geographic expansion of conservation. J. Land Use Sci. 17, 12–25 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pfeifer, M. et al. A systems approach framework for evaluating tree restoration interventions for social and ecological outcomes in rural tropical landscapes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 378, 20210111 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kuemmerle, T. Moving beyond simplistic representations of land use in conservation. Conserv. Lett. 17, e13055 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mahmoud, Y., Jerneck, A., Kronsell, A. & Steen, K. At the nexus of problem-solving and critical research. Ecol. Soc. 23, 40 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. West, P. Conservation is Our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in Papua New Guinea (Duke Univ. Press, 2006).

  34. Holmes, G. & Cavanagh, C. J. A review of the social impacts of neoliberal conservation: formations, inequalities, contestations. Geoforum 75, 199–209 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Brockington, D. & Igoe, J. Eviction for conservation. A global overview. Conserv. Soc. 4, 424–470 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Apostolopoulou, E. et al. Reviewing 15 years of research on neoliberal conservation: towards a decolonial, interdisciplinary, intersectional and community-engaged research agenda. Geoforum https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.05.006 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schreckenberg, K., Franks, P., Martin, A. & Lang, B. Unpacking equity for protected area conservation. Parks 22, 11–26 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dinerstein, E. et al. A ‘Global Safety Net’ to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb2824 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Burivalova, Z. et al. What works in tropical forest conservation, and what does not: effectiveness of four strategies in terms of environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, e28 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Büscher, B. et al. Half-earth or whole earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications. Oryx 51, 407–410 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kashwan, P., Duffy, V. R., Massé, F., Asiyanbi, A. P. & Marijnen, E. From racialized neocolonial global conservation to an inclusive and regenerative conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 63, 4–19 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ellis, E. C. & Mehrabi, Z. Half earth: promises, pitfalls, and prospects of dedicating half of earth’s land to conservation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 38, 22–30 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mehrabi, Z., Ellis, E. C. & Ramankutty, N. The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet. Nat. Sustain. 1, 409–412 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Henry, R. C. et al. Global and regional health and food security under strict conservation scenarios. Nat. Sustain. 5, 303–310 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Brockington, D., Duffy, R. & Igoe, J. Nature Unbound. Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas (Earthscan, 2008).

  46. Rodriguez, J. P. et al. Environment — globalization of conservation: a view from the south. Science 317, 755–756 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. IPBES. Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES secretariat, 2022).

  48. Vijay, V. & Armsworth, P. R. Pervasive cropland in protected areas highlight trade-offs between conservation and food security. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2010121118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Geldmann, J. et al. Essential indicators for measuring site-based conservation effectiveness in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12792 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wauchope, H. S. et al. Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, but management helps. Nature 605, 103–107 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Ferraro, P. J. & Hanauer, M. M. Quantifying causal mechanisms to determine how protected areas affect poverty through changes in ecosystem services and infrastructure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 4332–4337 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Naidoo, R. et al. Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav3006 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Youdelis, M., Townsend, J., Bhattacharyya, J., Moola, F. & Fobister, J. Decolonial conservation: establishing indigenous protected areas for future generations in the face of extractive capitalism. J. Political Ecol. 28, 991–1022 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pfeifer, M. et al. Protected areas: mixed success in conserving East Africa’s evergreen forests. PLoS ONE 7, e39337 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Büscher, B. & Fletcher, R. The Conservation Revolution: Radical Ideas for Saving Nature beyond the Anthropocene (Verso Books, 2020).

  56. Matulis, B. S. & Moyer, J. R. Beyond inclusive conservation: the value of pluralism, the need for agonism, and the case for social instrumentalism. Conserv. Lett. 10, 279–287 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pascual, U. et al. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat. Sustain. 4, 567–572 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Chambers, J. M. et al. Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Glob. Environ. Change 72, 102422 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Tengö, M. et al. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond — lessons learned for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 17–25 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO 43, 579–591 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Mentges, A., Blowes, S. A., Hodapp, D., Hillebrand, H. & Chase, J. M. Effects of site-selection bias on estimates of biodiversity change. Conserv. Biol. 35, 688–698 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pratzer, M. et al. An actor-centered, scalable land system typology for addressing biodiversity loss in the world’s tropical dry woodlands. Glob. Environ. Change 86, 102849 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Chapman, M. et al. Biodiversity monitoring for a just planetary future. Science 383, 34–36 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Taylor, L. What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717736335 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Carroll, S. R. et al. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Sci. J. 19, 43 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Goldstein, J. & Nost, E. The Nature of Data. Infrastructures, Environments, Politics (Univ. Nebraska Press, 2022).

  67. Longdon, J. Environmental data justice. Lancet Planet. Health 4, e510–e511 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sauls, L. A., Paneque-Gálvez, J., Amador-Jiménez, M., Vargas-Ramírez, N. & Laumonier, Y. Drones, communities and nature: pitfalls and possibilities for conservation and territorial rights. Glob. Soc. Chall. J. 2, 24–46 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Runting, R. K., Phinn, S., Xie, Z., Venter, O. & Watson, J. E. M. Opportunities for big data in conservation and sustainability. Nat. Commun. 11, 2003 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Sandbrook, C. et al. Principles for the socially responsible use of conservation monitoring technology and data. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e374 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Robinson, C. J. et al. Place-based data justice practices for collaborative conservation research: a critical review. Biol. Conserv. 288, 110346 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Berreneche, C. & Lombana-Bermudez, A. Another infrastructure is possible: grassroots citizen sensing and environmental data justice in Colombia. Int. J. Commun. 17, 3638–3659 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  73. D’Ignazio, C. & Klein, L. F. Data Feminism (MIT Press, 2020).

  74. Dillon, L. et al. Situating data in a Trumpian era: the environmental data and governance initiative. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109, 545–555 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Gitelman, L. Raw Data is an Oxymoron (MIT Press, 2013).

  76. Chiaravalloti, R. M. et al. Extreme citizen science: lessons learned from initiatives around the globe. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4, e577 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Challender, D. W. S. et al. Mischaracterising wildlife trade and its impacts may mislead policy processes. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12832 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Millner, N. et al. Exploring the opportunities and risks of aerial monitoring for biodiversity conservation. Glob. Soc. Chall. J. 2, 2–23 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Láng-Ritter, J., Keskinen, M. & Tenkanen, H. Global gridded population datasets systematically underrepresent rural population. Nat. Commun. 16, 2170 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Lillesø, J.-P. B. et al. Reference vegetation for restoration? Three vegetation maps compared across 76 nature reserves in Uganda and Kenya. Ecosphere 15, e70030 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience 67, 534–545 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Lillesø, J.-P. B. et al. The Atlas, Vol. 1 (Univ. Copenhagen, 2011).

  83. Stevens, M. et al. Taking participatory citizen science to extremes. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 13, 20–29 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Fairhead, J. in Practising Development. Social Science Development Perspectives (ed. Pottier, J.) 187–204 (Routledge, 1993).

  85. Dencik, L., Hintz, A., Redden, J. & Treré, E. Exploring data justice: conceptions, applications and directions. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22, 873–881 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Fraser, N. Abnormal Justice. Crit. Inq. 34, 393–422 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice (Belknap Press, 1971).

  88. O’Brien, M. et al. Earth science data repositories: implementing the CARE principles. Data Sci. J. 23, 37 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Hortal, J. et al. Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 523–549 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Hughes, A. C. et al. Sampling biases shape our view of the natural world. Ecography 44, 1259–1269 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Stropp, J. et al. Mapping ignorance: 300 years of collecting flowering plants in Africa. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 1085–1096 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Sahu, A., Kumar, N., Pal Singh, C. & Singh, M. Environmental DNA (eDNA): powerful technique for biodiversity conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 71, 126325 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Correia, R. A. et al. Using ignorance scores to explore biodiversity recording effort for multiple taxa in the Caatinga. Ecol. Indic. 106, 105539 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Briske, D. D., Coppock, D. L., Illius, A. W. & Fuhlendorf, S. D. Strategies for global rangeland stewardship: assessment through the lens of the equilibrium–non-equilibrium debate. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1056–1067 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Wang, H., Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Yao, Y. & Wang, C. Land cover change in global drylands: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 863, 160943 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Veldman, J. W. et al. Comment on ‘The global tree restoration potential’. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Silveira, F. A. O. et al. Biome awareness disparity is BAD for tropical ecosystem conservation and restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 1967–1975 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Robinson, T. P. et al. Mapping the global distribution of livestock. PLoS ONE 9, e96084 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. ESA. Land Cover CCI Product User Guide Version 2. Technical Report (ESA, 2017).

  101. Behnke, R. H. & Muthami, D. The Contribution of Livestock to the Kenyan Economy (IGAD LPI, 2011).

  102. Behnke, R. H. & Nakirya, M. The Contribution of Livestock to the Ugandan Economy (IGAD LPI, 2012).

  103. Behnke, R. H. & Osman, H. M. The Contribution of Livestock to the Sudan Economy (IGAD LPI, 2012).

  104. O’Connell, A. F., Nichols, J. D. & Karanth, K. U. Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses (Springer, 2011).

  105. Gibeau, M. L. & McTavish, C. Not-so-candid cameras: how to prevent camera traps from skewing animal behaviour. Wildl. Profess.3, 35–37 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Sharma, K. et al. Conservation and people: towards an ethical code of conduct for the use of camera traps in wildlife research. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 1, e12033 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Karanth, K. U. Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera-trap data using capture–recapture models. Biol. Conserv. 71, 333–338 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Karanth, K. U. & Nichols, J. D. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79, 2852–2862 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Johansson, Ö et al. Land sharing is essential for snow leopard conservation. Biol. Conserv. 203, 1–7 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Mishra, C., Young, J. C., Fiechter, M., Rutherford, B. & Redpath, S. M. Building partnerships with communities for biodiversity conservation: lessons from Asian mountains. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1583–1591 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Jackson, R. M., Mishra, C., McCarthy, T. M. & Ale, S. B. Snow leopards: conflict and conservation. Biol. Conserv. Wild Felids 2, 417–430 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  112. Suryawanshi, K. R., Bhatia, S., Bhatnagar, Y. V., Redpath, S. & Mishra, C. Multiscale factors affecting human attitudes toward snow leopards and wolves. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1657–1666 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the many colleagues who reviewed and helped to strengthen this manuscript ahead of submission to the journal. D.B., M.K. and R.U. acknowledge funding by the European Union (ERC, CONDJUST, 101054259) and T.K. likewise (ERC, SYSTEMSHIFT, 101001239). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Furthermore, they note that this work contributes to ICTA-UAB ‘María de Maeztu’ Programme for Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CEX2024-001506-M/funded by MICIU/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033). R.L. acknowledges the support of CNPq SINBIOSE grant number 447598/2025-2. T.L. acknowledges the support of CNPq grant nos 446440/2024-8 and 315161/2025-6. M.K. and D.S. acknowledge the support of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Eicher Group Foundation, the Snow Leopard Trust and the women of Kibber village who have been instrumental to the establishment of the Women in Conservation Project. This work contributes to the Global Land Programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ashley School of Global Development and the Environment, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Jenny E. Goldstein & Lauren Drakopulos

  2. Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), Barcelona, Spain

    Dan Brockington, Munib Khanyari & Ryan Unks

  3. Departament de Dret Privat, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Dan Brockington

  4. Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain

    Dan Brockington

  5. Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Chris Sandbrook

  6. Earth and Life Institute, UC Louvain, Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Patrick Meyfroidt

  7. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS), Brussels, Belgium

    Patrick Meyfroidt

  8. Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Jonas Geldmann

  9. Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Jonas Geldmann

  10. Geography Department, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

    Tobias Kuemmerle

  11. School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Marion Pfeifer

  12. Global Affairs Program, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Laura A. Sauls

  13. Department of Sociology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Lourdes Vera

  14. Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway

    Anwesha Dutta

  15. Global Development Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Rose Pritchard

  16. United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK

    Nina Bhola

  17. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Ruth DeFries

  18. School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

    Freya A. V. St John

  19. Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group, Pune, India

    Neema Pathak Broome

  20. Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Joycelyn Longdon

  21. Geography Department, King’s College London, London, UK

    Kate Schreckenberg

  22. School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Gary Watmough

  23. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK

    Cleo Cunningham

  24. Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, India

    Munib Khanyari & Deepshikha Sharma

  25. Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Brazil

    Richard Ladle & Thaniá Lessa

Authors
  1. Jenny E. Goldstein
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dan Brockington
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris Sandbrook
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick Meyfroidt
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jonas Geldmann
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tobias Kuemmerle
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marion Pfeifer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Laura A. Sauls
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Lourdes Vera
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Anwesha Dutta
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Rose Pritchard
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Nina Bhola
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ruth DeFries
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Lauren Drakopulos
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Freya A. V. St John
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Neema Pathak Broome
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Joycelyn Longdon
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Kate Schreckenberg
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Gary Watmough
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Cleo Cunningham
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Munib Khanyari
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Richard Ladle
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Thaniá Lessa
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Deepshikha Sharma
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Ryan Unks
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.E.G., C.S., D.B., R.U., M.K., D.S., R.L. and T.L. contributed to research for this manuscript. J.E.G., C.S., D.B., N.B., N.P.B., C.C., R.D., L.D., A.D., J.G., T.L., J.L., P.M., M.P., R.P., T.K., L.A.S., K.S., F.A.V.S.J., L.V. and G.W. contributed to the discussion of content. J.E.G., C.S. and D.B. contributed to writing of the manuscript. J.E.G., C.S., D.B., P.M., T.K., M.P., J.G., K.S., R.P., L.A.S., L.V. and F.A.V.S.J. contributed to reviewing and editing the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jenny E. Goldstein, Dan Brockington or Chris Sandbrook.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Biodiversity thanks Joern Fischer and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

Environmental Data and Governance Initiative: https://envirodatagov.org/

Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: https://www.cbd.int/gbf

Nature Conservation Foundation camera trap training workshop: https://www.ncf-india.org/high-altitudes/shen

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldstein, J.E., Brockington, D., Sandbrook, C. et al. Environmental data justice is key for developing more effective area-based conservation approaches. Nat. Rev. Biodivers. 2, 116–126 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00126-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00126-w

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene