How hidden meanings in biodiversity maps can inadvertently undermine policy impact

Addressing the biodiversity crisis depends fundamentally on mapping the distributions of plants, animals, and ecosystems. These maps are readily used as ‘boundary objects’ to span the interface between science and policy. As scientists, we tend assume that geographical depictions of nature are accurate and bias-free representations of the real world. However, they are actually abstractions of reality, framed by our scientific worldviews. Such framings may introduce hidden meanings, which can alienate observers from the realities in nature. Here I consider biodiversity maps through the lens of framing in social theory. Framing is the way individuals use metaphors, narratives and anecdotes to make sense of the world around them. I describe how biodiversity maps, which are intended as neutral boundary objects, can unintentionally activate inappropriate frames of interpretation that present nature from a technocratic and human-centred perspective. Such framings can introduce subliminal meaning into science-policy dialogues, encourage complacency, or erode scientific buy-in. I conclude that conservation science stands to benefit from interrogating not only the technical, but also the symbolic, aspects of biodiversity maps and describe four ways to limit unintentional framings and, ultimately, communicate scientific messages about biodiversity more effectively.

BUSCHKE Falko; 

2024-07-25

ELSEVIER SCI LTD

JRC137241

1873-2917 (online),   

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320724002878,    https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC137241,   

10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110725 (online),