Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Improving university policies and risk assessment to support inclusive fieldwork in environmental science

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Louise MairORCiD, James HardwickORCiD, Dr Natasha MannionORCiD, Laura Braunholtz, Dr Briony CarlinORCiD, Dr Tina SikkaORCiD, Professor Peter HopkinsORCiD, Dr Zarah Pattison

Downloads


Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).


Abstract

Higher education institutional policies on fieldwork, and associated fieldwork risk assessments, communicate in explicit and implicit ways how inclusive the institutional approach to fieldwork is, and whether fieldworker safety and wellbeing is an institutional priority. Appropriate policies, when effectively implemented, should protect individuals from harm and provide recourse if harm occurs. We reviewed the extent to which 90 UK higher education institutions that provide environmental science courses addressed protected characteristics, the rights of fieldworkers, and responsibilities for fieldworker safety in their fieldwork policy (n=67) and risk assessment (n=77) documents. We found that 77% of policy documents mentioned protected characteristics, but only 40% stated that fieldwork participants have a right to safety in the field, and only 5% stated a right to participate in fieldwork free from harassment. Among risk assessments, 51% mentioned protected characteristics, and only 10% identified discrimination as a potential risk. Solution: Our results show that there is a need to develop more inclusive fieldwork policies and practice across UK institutions. Drawing from our results and existing literature, we recommend that institutions should: (i) strive for a philosophical and cultural change to make inclusion the default; (ii) develop institute- and fieldwork-specific policy and risk assessment documents; (iii) ensure that policies and risk assessments explicitly consider how characteristics and identities intersect with risk in the field; (iv) improve incident reporting procedures; (v) clearly articulate responsibilities; and (vi) use inclusive language that values fieldworkers and embeds their rights to safety.


Publication metadata

Author(s): Mair L, Hardwick J, Mannion N, Braunholtz L, Carlin B, Sikka T, Hopkins P, Pattison Z

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Ecological Solutions and Evidence

Year: 2025

Volume: 6

Issue: 3

Print publication date: 29/08/2025

Online publication date: 29/08/2025

Acceptance date: 28/07/2025

Date deposited: 09/09/2025

ISSN (electronic): 2688-8319

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.70109

DOI: 10.1002/2688-8319.70109

Data Access Statement: The data analysed were extracted from documents obtained from institutions included in this study. The anonymised extracted data are available from Mair et al. (2025).


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Funding

Funder referenceFunder name
Natural Environment Research Council Grant/ Award Number: 2021EDIE040Pattison

Share