Facilitating collaborations between researchers and practitioners in ecosystem management and restoration

Abstract

Summary Collaborations between researchers and practitioners are vital to ensure mutual learning to inform scientific and on‐ground outcomes and government policy. Communicating outcomes from these collaborations benefit land management and restoration projects. The Ecological Society of Australia (ESA) Practitioner Engagement Working Group (PEWG) showcases and communicates applied ecological research projects, driven by partnerships between researchers and practitioners, and promotes the value of these links to on‐ground action. In December 2019, the PEWG ran the Practitioner Engagement for On‐ground Outcomes symposium at the ESA annual conference in Launceston, Tasmania, to highlight key factors that enable and limit effective collaboration in ecological projects. Overall, 17 speakers from a range of government, Indigenous and non‐government organisations delivered presentations on ecological issues. Here, we focus on six presentations that revealed eight key enablers of effective science‐practice partnerships. Of these, six related to principles underpinning translational ecology (collaboration, commitment, communication, decision‐framing context, engagement and process buy‐in). Two additional enablers were highlighted – innovation and robust science, and longevity and flexible timelines. This symposium provided a stream‐lined approach to communicate the factors which enable successful projects to a broad audience. To enhance effective researcher‐practitioner collaborations, improved practice and greater innovations in future ecosystem management projects, as well as both new and long‐term funding streams, will be required.

Seed sourcing strategies for ecological restoration under climate change: A review of the current literature

“…Increased integration between practice and theory. When researchers and practitioners work collaboratively on restoration projects, the results may prove particularly insightful (Dickens and Suding, 2013;Jellinek et al, 2021;Leger et al, 2021). Many studies have focused on extending basic ecological concepts to the practice of restoration (Dickens and Suding, 2013), but many of these are done in plot-based experiments that may or may not be correlated with patterns and dynamics at play in at-scale restoration projects.…”

Toward a systemic decision-making tool of territorial resilience based on multicriteria methodologies: The case of the DHDA Project

“…Good management practices [63] [64] [65] Sustainability [66], [67] Reproducibility / adaptability [65] Guidance / support Accelerating innovation/foresight [72]…”

Towards a pedagogy of social-ecological collaborations: engaging students and urban nonprofits for an ecology with cities

“…However, failures by researchers to co-create project objectives with local stakeholders can lead to unanticipated, negative feedbacks from residents and ultimately, distrust of researchers by residents and unsuccessful restoration and conservation projects (Turo and Gardiner 2020 ). Further, while such transdisciplinary approaches can be beneficial to researchers and practitioners, resulting publications rarely describe the inner workings of the collaborative process, particularly the social aspects of the project that enabled the most successful outcomes and lessons learned (Hallett et al 2017 ; Jellinek et al 2021 ).…”