Increasing Conservation Impact and Policy Relevance of Research through Embedded Experiences

Jenkins, Lekelia D.; Maxwell, Sara M.; Fisher, Elizabeth

doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01878.x

Cited by 30 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These flaws have resulted in recommendations to engage in interdisciplinary, two-way interaction focused on building interpersonal relationships to address scientific and policy needs (Young et al 2014). In particular, researchers have suggested that scientists and decision makers conduct more "boundary work" (Rose 2015), jointly developing research and policy, promoting transdisciplinary research, incentivizing long-term dialogue among decision makers and scientists, and embedding scientists in policy-making agencies (Jenkins et al 2012, Young et al 2014, Rose 2015.…”

Section: The Most Persistent Observation In the Literature On Utilizamentioning

confidence: 99%

The science and politics of human well-being: a case study in cocreating indicators for Puget Sound restoration

Biedenweg¹,

Harguth²,

Stiles³

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Across scientific fields, there have been calls to improve the integration of scientific knowledge in policy making. Particularly since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, these calls increasingly refer to data on human well-being related to the natural environment. However, policy decisions involve selective uptake of information across communities with different preferences and decision-making processes. Additionally, researchers face the fact that there are important trade-offs in producing knowledge that is simultaneously credible, legitimate, socially relevant, and socially just. We present a study that developed human well-being indicators for Washington State's Puget Sound ecosystem recovery agency over 3 years. Stakeholders, decision makers, and social scientists were engaged in the identification, modification, and prioritization of well-being indicators that were adopted by the agency for tracking progress toward ecosystem recovery and strategic planning. After substantial literature review, interviews, workshops, and indicator ranking exercises, 15 indicators were broadly accepted and important to all audiences. Although the scientists, decision makers, and stakeholders used different criteria to identify and prioritize indicators, they all agreed that indicators associated with each of 6 broad domains (social, cultural, psychological, physical, economic, and governance) were critical to assess the holistic concept of well-being related to ecosystem restoration. Decision makers preferred indicators that mirrored stakeholder preferences, whereas social scientists preferred only a subset. The Puget Sound indicator development process provides an example for identifying, selecting, and monitoring diverse concepts of well-being related to environmental restoration in a way that promotes recognition, participation, and a fair distribution of environmental benefits across the region.

show abstract

Section: The Most Persistent Observation In the Literature On Utilizamentioning

confidence: 99%

The science and politics of human well-being: a case study in cocreating indicators for Puget Sound restoration

Biedenweg¹,

Harguth²,

Stiles³

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead of the often intractable goal of aligning policy with research, this approach seeks a more comprehensive understanding of the variables at play in the decisionmaking process. It suggests that scientists are thoroughly enmeshed in the value adjudication processes needed to establish best practices (Rudd 2011b) where the conservation of biological diversity can be positively influenced (Jenkins et al 2012). The goal is an empirical understanding of the actual, not imagined, place social and natural science evidence plays in each value-laden decision-making context.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scale of potential problems such as biological diversity loss (Barnosky et al 2011;Rudd 2011a) and catastrophic climate change (Weitzman 2011) puts an obligation on scientists engage in research that helps address the ''most urgent needs of society'' (Lubchenco 1998, p. 494). The message from within the science community is that scientists must approach research with clarity and direction, and consider its eventual impact on society (Owens 2005;Lawton 2007;Jenkins et al 2012). Despite calls for scientific engagement in societal decisions, environmental scientists, like in other fields, often express dissatisfaction at their level of impact in the policy sphere (Robinson 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Narrative Policy Approach to Environmental Conservation

Lawton

Rudd

2014

AMBIO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the urgency and seriousness of the loss of biological diversity, scientists from across a range of disciplines are urged to increase the salience and use of their research by policy-makers. Increased policy nuance is needed to address the science-policy gap and overcome divergent views of separate research and policy worlds, a view still relatively common among conservation scientists. Research impact considerations should recognize that policy uptake is dependent on contextual variables operating in the policy sphere. We provide a novel adaptation of existing policy approaches to evidence impact that accounts for nonevidentiary ''societal'' influences on decision-making. We highlight recent analytical tools from political science that account for the use of evidence by policy-makers. Using the United Kingdom's recent embrace of the ecosystem approach to environmental management, we advocate analyzing evidence research impact through a narrative lens that accounts for the credibility, legitimacy, and relevance of science for policy.

show abstract

“…Active researchers can quickly respond to emerging information needs (Jenkins et al. ) by addressing mundane questions that may not attract interest from academic researchers (Farwig et al. ) but are essential for management (Cook et al.…”

Section: Value Of Embedding Scientists Within Conservation Agenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The case for embedding researchers in conservation agencies

Roux

Cook

Carruthers

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although protected areas represent a pivotal response to escalating anthropogenic threats, they face many pressures, inside and outside their boundaries. Amid these challenges, effective conservation is guided by evidence‐based decision making supported by dynamic processes of learning and knowledge exchange. Although different models promote knowledge exchange, embedding research scientists within conservation agencies is best suited to supporting evidence‐based conservation. Based on available literature and our experiences on several continents, we considered the benefits, challenges, and opportunities associated with embedding research scientists within conservation agencies and the research required to better understand the effectiveness of the embedding model for evidence‐based conservation. Embedded researchers provide long‐term commitment to building social capital among academic and nonacademic stakeholders; act as skilled gatekeepers who increase 2‐way flow of knowledge between scientists and managers; attract, coordinate, and support management‐relevant external research projects; drive the design and maintenance of long‐term monitoring; and align their research with information needs. Notwithstanding the many benefits, research capacity of conservation agencies is declining worldwide. A significant challenge is that the values, structures, functions, and effectiveness of the embedding model of knowledge exchange remain poorly evaluated and documented. Also, embedded researchers have to balance their desire for creativity and flexibility with the standardization and quality control required by their public sector agencies; may be perceived as not credible because they are not truly independent of their agency; and have to couple scientific productivity with skills for transdisciplinary research, social facilitation, and stakeholder engagement. Systematic research on embedding and other models of knowledge exchange, across different world contexts, is required to better understand the benefits, costs, and institutional arrangements associated with different models.

show abstract

Increasing Conservation Impact and Policy Relevance of Research through Embedded Experiences

Cited by 30 publications

References 14 publications

The science and politics of human well-being: a case study in cocreating indicators for Puget Sound restoration

The science and politics of human well-being: a case study in cocreating indicators for Puget Sound restoration

A Narrative Policy Approach to Environmental Conservation

The case for embedding researchers in conservation agencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About