Calling for a new agenda for conservation science to create evidence-informed policy

Abstract

Improving the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy has been a long-standing focus of the conservation community. A plethora of studies have examined conservation science-policy interfaces, including a recent global survey of scientists, policy-makers, and practitioners. This identified a list of top barriers and solutions to evidence use, which have considerable overlap with those identified by other studies conducted over the last few decades. The three top barriers -(i) that conservation is not a political priority, (ii) that there is poor engagement between scientists and decision-makers, and (iii) that conservation problems are complex and uncertainhave often been highlighted in the literature as significant constraints on the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy. There is also repeated identification of the solutions to these barriers. In this perspective, we consider three reasons for this: (1) the barriers are insurmountable, (2) the frequently-proposed solutions are poor, (3) there are implementation challenges to putting solutions into practice. We argue that implementation challenges are most likely to be preventing the solutions being put into practice and that the research agenda for conservation science-policy interfaces needs to move away from identifying barriers and solutions, and towards a detailed investigation of how to overcome these implementation challenges.

On “success” in applied environmental research — What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved?

“…And, in some cases, a researcher oversells their work. In both cases, this can be addressed through better training scientists to communicate uncertainty (Leung et al 2015;Rose et al 2019). That said, environmental management and policy is inherently embedded within an uncertain world, which creates challenges for all involved (Hilborn 1987;Polasky et al 2011).…”

Navigating spaces between conservation research and practice: Are we making progress?

“…where it is not done well (see Oliver, Kothari, & Mays, 2019;Sutherland, Shackelford, & Rose, 2017;Rose et al, 2019). There has also been progress with emerging boundary organisations and knowledge brokers working in the spaces between research and practice, while aligning the work of research-and practice-led institutions (Cvitanovic, Löf, Norström, & Reed, 2018;Posner & Cvitanovic, 2019;Roux et al, 2017).…”

“…co‐appointments between NIWA and Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, and Professors of Practice appointed across Conservation International and Arizona State University in the United States). Increased interest in co‐design and co‐production reflects a greater need for transdisciplinary work across research and practice (Miller & Wyborn, 2020; Wyborn, 2015) but can come with its own difficulties, both related to the financial and time costs of undertaking co‐production, and the potential risks to researchers, practitioners, and partners where it is not done well (see Oliver, Kothari, & Mays, 2019; Sutherland, Shackelford, & Rose, 2017; Rose et al., 2019). There has also been progress with emerging boundary organisations and knowledge brokers working in the spaces between research and practice, while aligning the work of research‐ and practice‐led institutions (Cvitanovic, Löf, Norström, & Reed, 2018; Posner & Cvitanovic, 2019; Roux et al., 2017).…”

“…When asked to identify the most important issue to overcome, workshop participants initially identified priority, communication, and institutional mismatch as central issues in almost even numbers. Following deeper discussion, workshop participants agreed that institutional mismatch is the overarching barrier to effectively navigating the spaces between research and practice (see also Jarvis et al., 2015; Rose et al., 2019). Better aligning the institutional values, rules, and norms that currently constrain our abilities to build sustainable relationships between researchers and practitioners could enable better alignment of scale, temporal, and priority mismatches while opening up new pathways for communication and collaboration.…”

Overcoming barriers to transfer of scientific knowledge: integrating biotelemetry into fisheries management in the Laurentian Great Lakes

“…Other reported barriers to incorporating biotelemetry into fishery management include: skepticism and distrust of biotelemetry, competing priorities, inflexible institutional structures, challenges in interpreting complex data; lack of awareness and access to new findings; or lack of management relevance in study design (Young et al 2013(Young et al , 2018Mcgowan et al 2016;Krueger et al 2018;Nguyen et al 2018a, b;Brownscombe et al 2019a, b). Of course, many of these challenges are not unique to biotelemetry and have been commonly documented in various other contexts (Rose et al 2018(Rose et al , 2019. However, rapid technological improvements have resulted in an accelerated use of biotelemetry, allowing the generation of novel information that traditional approaches cannot offer (Lennox et al 2017).…”