Researchers typically operate in epistemic communities: groups that share common approaches to research agendas and sociopolitical action and define areas of debate. Although productive in their own spheres, a lack of understanding among these communities can undermine scientific progress. Thus, analyzing epistemic communities is important for understanding the politics of knowledge production. Social network analysis sheds light on these dynamics by mapping the collaborative networks that shape academic output. We used 255 publications examined in Apostolopoulou et al.’s review of neoliberal conservation literature and 2135 additional publications in a social network analysis. We compiled a coauthorship network for 318 authors and found a dispersed and polycentric network with low connectivity and relatively small clusters of scholars collaborating within tightly knit groups. Although the structure is conducive to innovation and diversity, building new connections among dispersed coauthor groups could enrich knowledge sharing to drive novel approaches. We identified central actors in building collaborations among communities and communicating ideas across the network. We considered actor attributes, such as gender and geographic location, alongside centrality measures. We found that seventy percent of the 20 authors with the highest betweenness centrality were men, and only one male author was affiliated to an institution in the Global South. Our analysis of thematic clusters in the literature highlighted the spatial patchiness and partialness of the literature across different subfields. Scholars should undertake more work on identified themes in currently excluded geographic regions through effective interdisciplinary collaborations and with local communities of research and practice and grassroots movements. There is a need to strengthen the field's intellectual diversity and to have a deeper engagement with issues of class, gender, and race. This would allow neoliberal conservation to reimagine conservation in ways that are not only environmentally sustainable, but also socially just.

In recent years, declines in animal pollinators have stimulated tremendous interest in pollinator‐friendly gardening. There is a widespread notion that pollinator gardens are beneficial, but the specific capacity of pollinator gardens to improve biodiversity conservation and societal well‐being remains unclear. We argue that setting clear ecological and social goals can clarify the value of pollinator gardens for both pollinators and people. Effective goals will articulate specific, quantifiable, and realistic endpoints across scales of biological organization. Opportunities and challenges for setting goals will vary across landscape contexts, cultural systems, stakeholder values, and geographic regions. In community‐based pollinator projects, harnessing the potential of gardens to improve outcomes requires an evidence‐based, iterative process involving identifying shared values, defining specific goals and measurable indicators, proposing straightforward interventions, monitoring progress, and evaluating success, including adaptive management if success is not met. These ideas provide ecologists and conservation practitioners with a practical framework for how to channel the swell of enthusiasm for pollinator gardening and, more generally, community‐driven conservation efforts in dynamic socioecological systems toward measurable impacts on biodiversity and people.

Action‐oriented conservation sciences are crippled by 3 false assumptions. First, although it is recognized in theory that natural and anthropic components of ecosystems are tightly intertwined, in practice, many conservation policies and actions are still based on the assumption that human and nonhuman stakes should be dealt with in deeply different ways. Second, although the anchorage of environmental sciences in values is amply demonstrated, many conservation scientists still assume they will lose their scientific credentials if they actively participate in decision‐making. Finally, although there is much scientific evidence of the permeability—to both protected entities and threats—of static geographic frontiers delimiting protected areas, many conservation policies are still based on the assumption that these frontiers in themselves produce relevant protections. To overcome these false assumptions, it is useful to articulate them in terms of frontiers based on 2 ideas associated with the term. As a synonym of border, frontier materializes a limit whose crossing can have high stakes. As used in phrases such as frontiers of knowledge, the term also refers to the ever‐moving horizon of what should be overcome. These 2 ideas capture the reasons current attempts at overcoming the 3 assumptions remain unsatisfactory. They are also useful for elaborating a new vision of conservation to simultaneously break from the 3 assumptions. Instead of taking fixed geographic frontiers of protected areas for granted, conservation scientists should participate, along with stakeholders and Indigenous peoples, in the collective identification of the conservation problems that need to be addressed. For these problems, decision committees that include representatives of concerned humans and representatives of concerned nonhumans should be formed to determine the temporal and spatial scope of relevant conservation actions. The result would be multidimensional protected areas dynamically fine‐tuned to the conservation issues they address and to changing environmental conditions.

Environmental managers struggle with communicating accurate and relevant information and with gaining trust from the communities they serve, problems that are especially pronounced in minority and colonized communities. An important step in developing successful management strategies is partnering directly with the communities involved, but community perceptions are rarely surveyed thoroughly when developing these strategies. We held discussions with 73 people across 22 small groups about their perceptions of environmental issues, with a focus on invasive species, on the island of Guåhan (Guam), a US island territory with a long and continued history of colonization by Western countries. We conducted these small group discussions with long‐time residents to learn about their environmental concerns and perceptions of invasive species and management efforts. Using grounded theory, we identified themes concerning apathy, proenvironmental behaviors, frustrations with efficacy, and disconnectedness from environmental decision‐making among residents of Guåhan. Residents expressed feeling disconnected from management decisions, which they critiqued as ineffective, but largely felt helpless to affect. Still, residents related to us their proenvironmental behaviors (e.g., picking up litter and controlling invasive species) and expressed a desire to learn more about management efforts. Our results highlight a clear need for improvement and expansion of engagement with Guåhan residents about environmental management, as well as opportunities to engage with a concerned and potentially proactive community.

Integrating diverse disciplines and knowledge practices into conservation offers new insights into the complex socioecological dynamics of conservation challenges and how to address them. Integration, however, is not simple; disciplines differ widely in their epistemic and professional commitments, theories, methods, applications, practices, and codes of ethics. Using an epistemic justice approach, we examined how and why different forms of disciplinary and social diversity are connected and offer a framework for promoting disciplinary diversity for conservation science and practice. This framework draws on a literature review and open‐ended responses from surveys of Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) members (n = 577) and nonmembers (n = 213) on experiences of professional and disciplinary exclusion and inclusion collected by SCB's Disciplinary Inclusion Task Force. We propose 4 steps conservation organizations and projects can take to promote disciplinary diversity and inclusion: know your history; understand power dynamics; listen to underrepresented voices; and operationalize disciplinary diversity and inclusion. As members of a highly interdisciplinary and diverse task force, we illustrated this framework through reflections on our shared experiences working together and the challenges and opportunities we faced.

Despite widespread plans to embed justice, equity, decolonization, indigenization, and inclusion (JEDII) into universities, progress toward deeper, systemic change is slow. Given that many community‐based conservation (CBC) scholars have experience creating enduring social change in diverse communities, they have transferable skills that could help embed JEDII in universities. We synthesized the literature from CBC and examined it through the lens of self‐determination theory to help identify generalizable approaches to create resilient sociocultural change toward JEDII in universities. Fostering autonomous motivation (i.e., behaving because one truly values and identifies with the behavior or finds behavior inherently satisfying) is critical to inspiring enduring change in both CBC and JEDII. Based on theory and our examination of CBC, we provide 5 broad recommendations that helped motivate behavioral change in a way that was self‐sustained (i.e., even without external rewards or pressure). Guiding principles support autonomy by creating meaningful choice and different entry points for JEDII; prioritising relationships; designing payment programs that enhance autonomous motivation; developing meaningful educational opportunities that are relevant, timely, relational, and authentic; and creating institutional change by focusing efforts on critical moments.

Invasive non‐native species (INS) continue to pose a significant threat to biodiversity, including native population declines, which can ultimately disrupt ecosystem processes. Although there is growing evidence of the impacts of INS on functional diversity, most of the existing approaches to prioritization of species for conservation still focus on taxonomic diversity, neglecting the ecological role of species. We developed the functionally unique, specialized, and endangered by invasive non‐native species (FUSE INS) score to fill this gap by combining functional irreplaceability (i.e., uniqueness and specialization) of species with their extinction risk due to INS. We calculated this score for 3642 terrestrial vertebrates exposed to INS by assessing how INS affected them based on the IUCN Red List and by evaluating their specialization and uniqueness in a multidimensional functional space. Thirty‐eight percent of native species were both at high extinction risk because of INS and functionally unique and specialized, making them priority species for INS impact mitigation. Priority species of amphibians concentrated in Central America and Madagascar and of lizards in the Caribbean islands, northern Australia, New Zealand, and New Caledonia. Priority bird and mammal species were more widespread (birds, mostly in coastal areas, on Pacific islands, and in northern India and New Zealand; mammals, in southwestern Europe, Central Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa, Southeast Asia, and eastern Australia). Seventy‐eight species were also highly irreplaceable but not yet threatened by INS, suggesting that preventive conservation measures may help protect these species. For the 50 birds of the highest priority, 64% required conservation actions to mitigate the INS threat. The FUSE INS score can be used to help prioritize indigenous species representing large amounts of functional diversity. Incorporating functional diversity into the conservation prioritization of species and associated areas is key to accurately reducing and mitigating the impacts of INS on native biodiversity.

Biodiversity is confronted globally by multiple stressors. Environmental policies must regulate these stressors to achieve targets, but how should that be done when the outcomes of limits on one stressor are contingent on other stressors, about which there is imperfect knowledge? Deriving regulatory frameworks that incorporate these contingencies is an emerging challenge at the science–policy interface. To be fit for implementation, these frameworks need to facilitate the inherently sociopolitical process of policy implementation and account transparently for uncertainty, such that practitioners and other stakeholders can more realistically anticipate the range of potential outcomes to policy. We developed an approach to quantify stressor limits that explicitly accounts for multistressor contingencies. Using an invertebrate data set collected over 30 years throughout New Zealand, we combined ecological and ecotoxicological models to predict biodiversity loss as a function of one stressor, treating multistressor contingencies as a form of uncertainty about the outcomes of limits on that stressor. We transparently accounted for that uncertainty by presenting regulatory limits as bands bounded between optimistic and pessimistic views that practitioners may have about the local context within which limits are applied. In addition to transparently accounting for uncertainties, our framework also leaves room for practitioners to build stakeholder consensus when refining limits to suit different local contexts. A criticism of this open, transparent approach is that it creates too much scope for choosing limits that are lenient on polluters, paralyzing on‐the‐ground management of multiple stressors, but we demonstrate that this is not necessarily the case.

The Pacific Islands region is home to several of the world's biodiversity hotspots, yet its unique flora and fauna are under threat because of biological invasions. These invasions are likely to proliferate as human activity increases and large‐scale natural disturbances unfold, exacerbated by climate change. Remote sensing data and techniques provide a feasible method to map and monitor invasive plant species and inform invasive plant species management across the Pacific Islands region. We used case studies taken from literature retrieved from Google Scholar, 3 regional agencies’ digital libraries, and 2 online catalogs on invasive plant species management to examine the uptake and challenges faced in the implementation of remote sensing technology in the Pacific region. We synthesized remote sensing techniques and outlined their potential to detect and map invasive plant species based on species phenology, structural characteristics, and image texture algorithms. The application of remote sensing methods to detect invasive plant species was heavily reliant on species ecology, extent of invasion, and available geospatial and remotely sensed image data. However, current mechanisms that support invasive plant species management, including policy frameworks and geospatial data infrastructure, operated in isolation, leading to duplication of efforts and creating unsustainable solutions for the region. For remote sensing to support invasive plant species management in the region, key stakeholders including conservation managers, researchers, and practitioners; funding agencies; and regional organizations must invest, where possible, in the broader geospatial and environmental sector, integrate, and streamline policies and improve capacity and technology access.