Conservation, mismatch and the research–implementation gap

Abstract

Despite calls to better link research and practice, the gap between knowing and doing continues to limit conservation success. Here we report on the outcomes from a workshop at the Society for Conservation Biology Oceania Conference 2014 on bridging the research–implementation gap. The workshop highlighted how the gap is still very real in conservation and the importance of bringing together researchers and practitioners to discuss their work. Workshop participants discussed how the research–implementation gap influenced their conservation efforts, identified five key mismatches between research and practice, and recommended seven ways we can work together to bridge the gap. The outcomes identified by the workshop are highly relevant to conservation efforts around the world.

Network analysis of a stakeholder community combatting illegal wildlife trade

“…However, despite the rise in open access, albeit its contested merits (Joseph ; Xia ), journal paywalls and academic exclusivity are often cited as reasons that continue to perpetuate the research‐implementation mismatch, which especially hinders information exchange between academics and conservation practitioners (Jarvis et al. ). The priorities inherent to academic research and publication can also hinder applicable communication and perceived usefulness of contributions from academics.…”

“…Other than several academic respondents mentioning that they observe strict ethical anonymity if any of their research participants could be compromised, they are arguably under fewer constraints in how and with whom they can communicate compared with, for example, stakeholders in government and enforcement. However, despite the rise in open access, albeit its contested merits (Joseph 2013;Xia 2013), journal paywalls and academic exclusivity are often cited as reasons that continue to perpetuate the research-implementation mismatch, which especially hinders information exchange between academics and conservation practitioners (Jarvis et al 2015). The priorities inherent to academic research and publication can also hinder applicable communication and perceived usefulness of contributions from academics.…”

Research advances and gaps in marine planning: towards a global database in systematic conservation planning

“…We argue that SCP studies developed without any input from conservation practitioners, despite academic focus, can limit the potential application and validity of findings; limitations include inadequate information, unrealistic assumptions, and methods that are difficult to replicate. In this sense, the observed paucity in stakeholder participation in the marine SCP literature may provide some evidence of the broader and well known research-implementation gap (Jarvis et al, 2015;Knight et al, 2008).…”

“…Documenting novel approaches in a global SCP database as they emerge can thus facilitate and expedite such developments. Further, efforts to narrow the planning-implementation gap (Jarvis et al, 2015;Knight et al, 2008) would benefit from better understanding of where planning has led to on-ground actions (or not), and information about the governance, socioeconomic, and political conditions under which plans have been developed (Fox et al, 2012;Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). For example, understanding how planning processes are adjusted to work under legal "head of power" or other binding commitments (e.g., local cultural protocols) can facilitate effective implementation (Day, 2017).…”

Model for improved undergraduate training in translational conservation science

“…Cross-disciplinary training is widely acknowledged as necessary (e.g., Newing, 2010;Turner II et al, 2016), but the degree to which disciplines are integrated in addressing a common problem ranges from minimal (multidisciplinary) to some (interdisciplinary) to substantial (transdisciplinary; see Ciannelli et al, 2014). Even more crucial is the development of approaches that cross the research-implementation gap (Arlettaz et al, 2010;Pietri et al, 2013;Jarvis, Borrelle, Breen, & Towns, 2015; knowledge-action boundary of Cook, Mascia, Schwartz, Possingham, & Fuller, 2013), bringing students and researchers into collaboration with managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders, to translate research results into meaningful conservation action. Even more crucial is the development of approaches that cross the research-implementation gap (Arlettaz et al, 2010;Pietri et al, 2013;Jarvis, Borrelle, Breen, & Towns, 2015; knowledge-action boundary of Cook, Mascia, Schwartz, Possingham, & Fuller, 2013), bringing students and researchers into collaboration with managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders, to translate research results into meaningful conservation action.…”