Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science–practice interface in ecology and conservation

Abstract

The debate in the literature on the science–practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision‐making process and calling for problem‐relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.

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

“…Agreement between scientists and policy-makers was similarly found byBertuol-Garcia et al (2018), which counters the received wisdom that academics and policy makers would disagree on the reasons preventing evidence use.…”

“…Conservationists have long been encouraged to play their part in linking science to policy decisions (Meffe and Viederman, 1995) and there is an extensive literature on conservation science-policy interfaces (e.g. Bertuol-Garcia et al, 2018;Evans et al, 2017;Marshall et al, 2017;Walsh et al, 2015;Young et al, 2014). We have seen a number of major conservation science-policy research projects, including SPIRAL 1 (e.g.…”

We Can Better Manage Ecosystems by Connecting Solutions to Constraints: Learning from Wetland Plant Invasions

“…Knowledge co-production is appropriate when neither management urgency nor public pressure are exceedingly high because the process can be lengthy. It requires strong scientist-practitioner collaborations and sustained institutional support for these potentially more time-intensive and costly processes (Bertuol-Garcia et al, 2018b;Dubois et al, 2020); however, such manager involvement very efficiently reduces uncertainty associated with the logistical challenges of management implementation (partial controllability, Box 1).…”

“…When managers and scientists co-design and co-implement invasive species management experiments, the exchange of ideas, knowledge, and experience is central to the process, whether implemented as one of the specific structured approaches described above (see Structured Approaches to Improve Management of Wetland Plant Invaders) or more general approaches (e.g. "translational ecology", Hallett et al, 2017; "bi-directional information exchange", Bertuol-Garcia et al, 2018b). These strategies recognize the substantial value that can be gained by leveraging expert knowledge from practitioners (Sher et al, 2020), which is often overlooked and undervalued (Drescher et al, 2013).…”

Relações humano-natureza na comunidade pesqueira de Siribinha, Conde-BA: uma investigação por meio do desenvolvimento e da aplicação de uma nova ferramenta

“…Hence, Q-Methodology combines some of the advantages of purely quantitative-deductive or qualitativeinductive approaches for identifying human-nature relationships (see Introduction). Indeed, because it can describe the complexity of people's ways of thinking, the methodology is especially suited for the study of controversial topics (Barry & Proops 1999) and has been increasingly applied to untangle the social aspects involved in conservation and sustainability issues (e.g, Barry & Proops 1999;Krueger et al 2001;Mattson et al 2006;Sandbrook et al 2011;Neff & Larson 2014;Cairns et al 2014;Holmes et al 2016;Bertuol-Garcia et al 2020).…”