Recent calls to address low diversity among scientists and practitioners in conservation and related disciplines have been varied and numerous (e.g., Pearson and Schuldt, 2014; Tallis and Lubchenco, 2014; Taylor, 2014; Green et al., 2015; Arismendi and Penaluna, 2016). As with any societal concern, acknowledging and describing the problem is important. But this is just the first step. Policies and programmes must also be put in place to correct it and organizations must be held accountable for low workforce diversity. We agree with Arismendi and Penaluna (2016) that “because diversity has been systematically underrepresented, we likely need to consider additional ways to systematically include it.” Here, we outline one attempt by the Society for Conservation Biology Marine Section (SCB Marine Section) to address the problem of low workforce diversity and foster inclusion in marine conservation, which can be used as a model for other groups. Conference participants discussed the issue during a focus group meeting at the 4th International Marine Conservation Congress (IMCC4) in 2016 in St. John's, NL, Canada. The result is a proposed marine diversity network, which we describe here.

Most conservation scientists, educators, and practitioners are familiar with the concept of diversity. It has multiple dimensions that can be easily measured—i.e., variety, balance, and disparity (Stirling, 2007; Box 1)—and can be applied to both human and non-human systems.

By all measures, low workforce diversity is rampant in conservation (Taylor, 2014), fisheries (Arismendi and Penaluna, 2016), forestry (Kern et al., 2015), and climate (Pearson and Schuldt, 2014) sciences within academic institutions and organizations founded or based in North America and Europe. These fields, like many others in science, suffer from a diversity crisis (Pearson and Schuldt, 2014). Most attention to the problem—and progress—to date has focused on issues surrounding gender inequality (e.g., Steinpreis et al., 1999; Murphy et al., 2007; Ceci and Williams, 2011; Martin, 2012; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; Cho et al., 2014; Reuben et al., 2014; Taylor, 2014; Conti and Visentin, 2015; Kern et al., 2015; Arismendi and Penaluna, 2016). But there is also a paucity of representation by people from different races and ethnicities (Ginther et al., 2011; Pearson and Schuldt, 2014; Taylor, 2014; Arismendi and Penaluna, 2016), socioeconomic backgrounds (Taylor, 2014; Laurison and Friedman, 2016), geographic regions (Burgman et al., 2015; Meijaard et al., 2015), and other groupings.

The mainstream conservation movement in the United States, for example, is dominated by white, upper middle-class Americans (Taylor, 2014). In one of the most comprehensive studies to date, Taylor (2014) critically examined workforce diversity in 191 conservation and preservation organizations, 74 governmental environmental agencies, and 28 environmental grant-making foundations in the U.S. Her findings highlight an uncomfortable truth: the demographic composition of most U.S. environmental institutions does not reflect that of the country as a whole. Although, people of color make up 38% of the U.S. population and constitute 29% of the workforce in science and engineering, they encounter what has been called a “green ceiling” where non-white minorities do not exceed 16% of staff in environmental institutions (Taylor, 2014). Furthermore, the few people of color within these institutions rarely hold leadership positions (Taylor, 2014). The same can be said for the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in U.S. conservation organizations, in which 70% of the presidents and board chairs are men (Taylor, 2014).

What about diversity within international, professional conservation societies such as the SCB Marine Section? In 2016, the SCB Marine Section had 819 members from 68 countries—a statistic that suggests respectable geographic diversity. However, almost three-quarters of its members (i.e., 596 people or 72.8%) were affiliated with institutions based in just four wealthy nations: the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia (Figure 1). Almost half of all members (47.5%) were affiliated with U.S. institutions (Figure 1). The remaining 27% of members were affiliated with institutions from 64 countries, with most countries represented by fewer than five members (Figure 1). Unfortunately, lack of data prevents us from assessing diversity within the Section by other pertinent measures such as race, socioeconomic background, or even gender.

Just like ecological diversity is associated with a range of favorable environmental and economic consequences (Pimentel et al., 1997), there are measurable benefits of diversity in the workforce and in science endeavors. Østergaard et al. (2011) found a positive association between the likelihood of innovation within an organization and employee diversity in gender and education. Freeman and Huang (2015) revealed that greater diversity in manuscript co-authors increased the likelihood that a paper would have a high impact on science in terms of journal impact factor and number of citations. Summarizing the findings from numerous studies, Wullum Nielsen et al. (2017) showed that gender diversity can result in “better science”—described in terms such as broader scientific insights—when it occurs within a supportive institutional context (e.g., non-hierarchical structures where individuals from underrepresented groups attain a “critical mass” of between 15 and 30% of team members).

Ultimately, effective conservation solutions must consider the local contexts and values of the communities who are undertaking the actions. Currently, conservation professionals do not reflect the diversity of perspectives and experiences of the world as the communities who bear the largest burden for implementing—or adverse consequences for failing to implement—conservation action (Romero and Andrade, 2004). Conservation professionals without appropriate cultural values and contexts are unlikely to develop effective or appropriate solutions (see also Douglas and Veríssimo, 2013; Green et al., 2015). By failing to involve people from diverse backgrounds, we run the risk of isolating the goals and activities of conservation from wider society, which can lead to decreased public support for conservation. A growing body of literature, for instance, illustrates how local citizens engaging in science can increase stakeholder willingness to support and participate in activities that conserve local biodiversity (e.g., Evans et al., 2005; Cooper et al., 2007).

Inclusion can be described as “welcoming and including a diverse range of people, and having their input and perspectives valued and considered within the context of a collective endeavor” (Bonta et al., 2015). Inclusion pertains to the “process and culture” of an organization (Bonta et al., 2015). It is a way of thinking and doing things within a group.

There are numerous barriers to inclusion in marine conservation, which help perpetuate low workforce diversity. In particular, significant social hurdles (e.g., gender, economic, systemic, and/or implicit institutional biases) persist in many countries to entering science careers in general, and conservation science careers in particular (Steinpreis et al., 1999; Ginther et al., 2011; Taylor, 2014; Laurison and Friedman, 2016). For example, many field assistant positions in wildlife ecology and conservation—which provide valuable experience that can improve a student's chances of being admitted to a graduate program or secure research funding—offer little or no pay (Fournier and Bond, 2015). These positions can therefore be accepted only by people with fewer financial constraints, limiting future workforce diversity in the field (Fournier and Bond, 2015). For many who do achieve careers in conservation, the barriers to accessing professional resources can be numerous and profound. These issues include, among others, the predominance of English as the language of science (Amano and Sutherland, 2013; Giehl et al., 2017), publishing practices that restrict access to knowledge behind paywalls (Fuller et al., 2014; Giehl et al., 2017), and the red tape associated with international travel to attend training or conferences. Wilson and Biggs (2016), for example, found that 34% of scientists from developing countries reported forfeiting professional opportunities due to visa delays or denials, despite spending more than 10 h, on average, on visa applications. In contrast, scientists from developed countries did not perceive current visa regulations as a significant barrier to professional travel (Wilson and Biggs, 2016).

Individuals can play a role in alleviating barriers to inclusion in marine conservation. We highlight three areas for action, among the many that could be undertaken.

Ecological and environmental societies have a variable record of concern and engagement with the issue of diversity (Box 2). Some of the more established activities focus on mentorship at annual conferences. IMCC4 participants discussed the problem of low workforce diversity and inclusion in marine conservation during a focus group meeting. Their agreed first step on the road to a solution was proposing something different: the establishment of an online-based Marine Diversity Network (MDN), which we outline here as a potential model for other groups seeking to become more diverse and inclusive.

There are at least six key steps to making the MDN a reality, which can be broadly applied to other online networks.

There are many ways to increase member diversity in an organization, and many good reasons to do so. Removing barriers to diverse participation in conservation requires coordinated, mindful actions by individuals and organizations. We outline the development of an online network to facilitate connections among diverse scientists, educators, and practitioners separated by large expanses of ocean, and transfer of knowledge and expertise relevant to solving pressing conservation problems. We hope that the proposed network and other actions presented in this paper find widespread support, and that they might serve both as inspiration and guide to other groups concerned with increasing diversity and inclusivity.

Conceived focus group: LME and NSS. Organized focus group: LME and NSS. All authors listed, have made substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.