Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 247–250 | Cite as

Risks associated with failed interdisciplinary approaches in conservation research

  • Miguel Delibes-Mateos
Letter to the Editor

Since the origin of conservation biology, it is recognized the need of integrating knowledge from different disciplines (Groome et al. 2006), because conservation problems are usually set in complex contexts that are constituted by both social and ecological systems (Cumming 2011). In other words, multitude aspects like socio-economic circumstances, cultural reasons, ecological factors and environmental factors, among others, drive conservation issues. Over recent times, this interdisciplinary approach has become fashionable (Ledford 2015). In this sense, funders encourage interdisciplinary projects. For example, one of the pillars of the EU framework for research and innovation Horizon 2020 states that “a challenge-based approach will bring together resources and knowledge across different fields, technologies and disciplines, including social sciences and the humanities”. In the same line, scientific journals increasingly demand multidisciplinary studies. In agreement with...


Conservation Biologist European Rabbit Conservation Problem Elaeis Guineensis Puma Concolor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Dr M. Delibes and Sue Silver provided helpful comments on previous versions of the manuscript. I thank Dr T. Heberlein for his suggestions and support. M. Delibes-Mateos is supported by the Talentia Postdoc Program launched by the Andalusian Knowledge Agency, and co-funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program, Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (COFUND—Grant Agreement n267226) and the Ministry of Economy, Innovation, Science and Employment of the Junta de Andalucía.


  1. Bonino N, Soriguer RC (2009) The invasion of Argentina by the European wild rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus. Mammal Rev 39:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clavero M (2014) Shifting baselines and the conservation of non-native species. Conserv Biol 28:1434–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clavero M, Nores C, Kubersky-Piredda S, Centeno-Cuadros A (2016) Interdisciplinarity to reconstruct historical introductions: solving the status of cryptogenic crayfish. Biol Rev 91:1036–1049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cumming GS (2011) Spatial resilience in social-ecological systems. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delibes R, Delibes-Mateos M (2015) Linking historical ecology and invasion biology: some lessons from European rabbit introductions into the new world before the nineteenth century. Biol Invasions 17:2505–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Editorial (2015) Mind meld. Nature 525:289–290Google Scholar
  7. Groome MJ, Meffe GK, Carroll CR (2006) Principles of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates Inc, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Heberlein TA (1988) Improving interdisciplinary research: integrating the social and natural sciences. Soc Nat Resour 1:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Inskip C, Zimmermann A (2009) Human-felid conflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx 43:18–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kabir M, Ghoddousi A, Sadique Awan M, Naeem Awan M (2014) Assessment of human-leopard conflict in Machiara National Park, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Eur J Wildl Res 60:291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kühl A, Balinova N, Bykova E, Arylov YN, Esipov A, Lushchekina AA, Milner-Gulland E (2009) The role of saiga poaching in rural communities: linkages between attitudes, socio-economic circumstances and behaviours. Biol Conserv 142:1442–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ledford H (2015) Team science. Nature 525:308–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu F, McShea WJ, Garshelis DL, Zhu X, Wang D, Shao L (2011) Human-wildlife conflicts influence attitudes but not necessarily behaviours: factors driving the poaching of bears in China. Biol Conserv 144:538–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lyall C, Meagher LR (2012) A master class in interdisciplinarity: research into practice in training the next generation of interdisciplinary researchers. Futures 44:608–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nantha HS, Tisdell C (2009) The orangutan-oil palm conflict: economic constraints and opportunities for conservation. Biodivers Conserv 18:487–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peterson MN, Birckhead JL, Leong K, Peterson MJ, Peterson TR (2010) Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conserv Lett 3:74–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pooley SP, Mendelsohn JA, Milner-Gulland EJ (2013) Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science. Conserv Biol 28:22–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Redpath SM, Bhatia S, Young J (2015) Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human-wildlife conflict. Oryx 49:222–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Soto-Shoender JR, Main MB (2013) Differences in stakeholder perceptions of the jaguar Panthera onca and puma Puma concolor in the tropical lowlands of Guatemala. Oryx 47:109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thorn M, Green M, Dalerum F, Bateman PW, Scott DM (2012) What drives human-carnivore conflict in the North West Province of South Africa? Biol Conserv 150:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados (IESA-CSIC)CórdobaSpain
  2. 2.CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBio Laboratório AssociadoUniversity of PortoVairãoPortugal

Personalised recommendations