Social–ecological systems approaches are essential for understanding and responding to the complex impacts of COVID-19 on people and the environment

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is dramatically impacting planetary and human societal systems that are inseparably linked. Zoonotic diseases like COVID-19 expose how human well-being is inextricably interconnected with the environment and to other converging (human driven) social–ecological crises, such as the dramatic losses of biodiversity, land use change, and climate change. We argue that COVID-19 is itself a social–ecological crisis, but responses so far have not been inclusive of ecological resiliency, in part because the "Anthropause” metaphor has created an unrealistic sense of comfort that excuses inaction. Anthropause narratives belie the fact that resource extraction has continued during the pandemic and that business-as-usual continues to cause widespread ecosystem degradation that requires immediate policy attention. In some cases, COVID-19 policy measures further contributed to the problem such as reducing environmental taxes or regulatory enforcement. While some social–ecological systems (SES) are experiencing reduced impacts, others are experiencing what we term an "Anthrocrush,” with more visitors and intensified use. The varied causes and impacts of the pandemic can be better understood with a social–ecological lens. Social–ecological insights are necessary to plan and build the resilience needed to tackle the pandemic and future social–ecological crises. If we as a society are serious about building back better from the pandemic, we must embrace a set of research and policy responses informed by SES thinking.

Academic Incentives Should Not Promote the "Extinction of Nature Experience"

Evidence suggests that a decline in people's exposure to nature corresponds to decreasing support for nature-a phenomenon we call extinction of nature experience. Here, we evaluate three current trends in conservation research and consider if they contribute to a decrease in exposure to nature. We suggest that while using sensors, algorithms, technocentric thinking, conducting meta-analyses, and taking more lab-based approaches all have significant potential to advance conservation goals, they lead to researchers spending less time in the field and an extinction of nature experience. A reduction of researcher field time will mean fewer local field assistants are hired and trained;lower engagement of researchers with ground realities;and a rift in conservation research, planning, and implementation. We suggest that the field of conservation science should balance how it allocates time and rewards to field versus non-field components. If we are not careful, we will select researchers that are distant from the biodiversity itself and the communities that are affecting it locally. Since the pandemic began many researchers were unable to go to their field sites and if care is not taken, the pressures that promote the extinction of nature experience may be promoted by institutions in a post-COVID-19 world.