Geology topics

Kirsten Leong

Publications and source records attributed to Kirsten Leong.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Foundational principles of an applied cultural evolutionary science for natural resource management and conservation

Culture, as the filter through which people view the world and a key determinant of human behaviour, is central to the practice of natural resource management and conservation. Conservation is intended to moderate the impacts of human cultural modification of the environment, exists as an endeavour because it is culturally valued, and acts largely through policies to encourage or discourage targeted human behaviours. However, culture is not static; as organisms and ecologies evolve, so too does culture exist as a dynamic, interconnected, coevolving element of the social–ecological systems in which management action is situated and implemented. Cultural evolution (CE) offers a valuable theoretical contribution to the scientific understanding of culture, cultural diversity and culture change and has the potential to be harnessed in the applied research and practice of conservation social science. We illustrate the essential principles necessary to grow an applied science of CE for natural resource management and conservation, and identify opportunities for CE to provide valuable information for science-based decision making and help conservation institutions and organizations adapt to the ongoing challenges posed by culture change. This transdisciplinary integration can contribute to improved outcomes across conservation objectives and build more resilient, sustainable social–ecological systems.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B ↗

USGS2025

Species nativeness as a cultural paradigm in conservation

Conservation entails cultural practices shaped by our worldviews, values, beliefs, and priorities for our interactions with nature. These inform how we categorize which species we want to occur in which landscapes. In Western conservation organizations, conceptualizations of species ‘belonging’ typically align with a dichotomy of native versus introduced species. This is a cultural paradigm, informed by biological considerations, and it is not uniformly shared across different cultures, resulting in varied conceptualizations of species belonging. These conceptualizations may continue to evolve as socio-ecological systems change over time. Thus, misalignment in perceptions of species belonging can manifest in seemingly intractable conflicts. We apply a cultural evolutionary lens to: (1) consider the social history of the native-introduced dichotomy; (2) describe social and ecological factors causing friction around the dichotomy; (3) explore how conservation can integrate diverse and changing values about species belonging, and (4) make predictions about future socio-ecological change that may shape conservation governance and our categorization of species. In doing so, we encourage conservation scientists and practitioners to practice reflexivity about the cultural nature of conservation and management of introduced species. This application of cultural evolution presents a unique lens for recognizing the inevitability of both social and ecological change and inspires critical consideration of how diverse and changing values might be integrated into, and shape, the future of conservation.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2024

Evolving wildlife management cultures of governance through Indigenous Knowledges and perspectives

Within governance agencies, academia, and communities alike, there are increasing calls to recognize the value and importance of culture within social-ecological systems and to better implement Indigenous sciences in research, policy, and management. Efforts thus far have raised questions about the best ethical practices to do so. Engaging with plural worldviews and perspectives on their own terms reflects cultural evolutionary processes driving paradigm shifts in 3 fundamental areas of natural resource management: conceptualizations of natural resources and ecosystems, processes of public participation and governance, and relationships with Indigenous Peoples and communities with differing worldviews. We broadly describe evolution toward these paradigm shifts in fish and wildlife management. We then use 3 case studies to illustrate the ongoing cultural evolution of relationships between wildlife management and Indigenous practices within specific historical and social-ecological contexts and reflect on common barriers to appropriately engaging with Indigenous paradigms and lifeways. Our case studies highlight 3 priorities that can assist the field of wildlife management in achieving the changes necessary to bridge incommensurable worldviews: acknowledging and reconciling historical legacies and their continued power dynamics as part of social-ecological systems, establishing governance arrangements that move beyond attempts to extract cultural information from communities to integrate Indigenous Knowledges into dominant management paradigms, and engaging in critical reflexivity and reciprocal, accountable relationship building. Implementing these changes will take time and a commitment to processes that may initially feel uncomfortable and unfamiliar but have potential to be transformative. Ethical and culturally appropriate methods to include plural and multivocal perspectives and worldviews on their own terms are needed to transform wildlife management to achieve more effective and just management outcomes for all.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗

USGS2020

Human dimensions considerations in wildlife disease management

In 1943, Aldo Leopold observed that the real problem of wildlife management is not how to handle wildlife, but how to manage humans. As with any other aspect of wildlife management, social sciences can improve understanding the human dimensions of wildlife disease management (WDM). Human activities have accelerated the emergence of wildlife diseases, and human concerns about the ecological, social, and economic impacts of wildlife diseases and their management have led to diseases becoming headline-worthy public issues. This chapter provides guidance to help front-line professionals understand and address the public’s perspectives and behaviors relevant to WDM. This chapter focuses on practical needs of wildlife disease managers who have to consider and interact with specific stakeholders and the broader public. The chapter does not dive deeply into social science; instead it briefly reviews some concepts that are most relevant to WDM. The chapter also suggests where to look for assistance and additional resources for further reading. Following brief introductory comments, the chapter is organized around a simple model of the general process for WDM. It addresses three key areas where social science can assist in WDM—audience research to understand stakeholders; engaging stakeholders in wildlife disease management; and using risk communication about wildlife diseases and disease management to inspire risk-wise behavior.

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS2019

Try, try again: Lessons learned from success and failure in participatory modeling

Participatory Modeling (PM) is becoming increasingly common in environmental planning and conservation, due in part to advances in cyberinfrastructure as well as to greater recognition of the importance of engaging a diverse array of stakeholders in decision making. We provide lessons learned, based on over 200 years of the authors’ cumulative and diverse experience, about PM processes. These include successful and, perhaps more importantly, not-so-successful trials. Our collective interdisciplinary background has supported the development, testing, and evaluation of a rich range of collaborative modeling approaches. We share here what we have learned as a community of participatory modelers, within three categories of reflection: a) lessons learned about participatory modelers; b) lessons learned about the context of collaboration; and c) lessons learned about the PM process. First, successful PM teams encompass a variety of skills beyond modeling expertise. Skills include: effective relationship-building, openness to learn from local experts, awareness of personal motivations and biases, and ability to translate discussions into models and to assess success. Second, the context for collaboration necessitates a culturally appropriate process for knowledge generation and use, for involvement of community co-leads, and for understanding group power dynamics that might influence how people from different backgrounds interact. Finally, knowing when to use PM and when not to, managing expectations, and effectively and equitably addressing conflicts is essential. Managing the participation process in PM is as important as managing the model building process. We recommend that PM teams consider what skills are present within a team, while ensuring inclusive creative space for collaborative exploration and learning supported by simple yet relevant models. With a realistic view of what it entails, PM can be a powerful approach that builds collective knowledge and social capital, thus helping communities to take charge of their future and address complex social and environmental problems.

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene↗

USGS2018

Twelve questions for the participatory modeling community

Participatory modeling engages the implicit and explicit knowledge of stakeholders to create formalized and shared representations of reality and has evolved into a field of study as well as a practice. Participatory modeling researchers and practitioners who focus specifically on environmental resources met at the National Socio‐Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) in Annapolis, Maryland, over the course of 2 years to discuss the state of the field and future directions for participatory modeling. What follows is a description of 12 overarching groups of questions that could guide future inquiry.

Earth's Future↗