The major barriers to evidence‐informed conservation policy and possible solutions

Rose, David Christian; Sutherland, William J.; Amano, Tatsuya; González‐Varo, Juan P.; Robertson, Rebecca J.; Simmons, Benno I.; Wauchope, Hannah S.; Kovács, Eszter; Durán, América Paz; Vadrot, Alice B. M.; Wu, Weiling; Dias, Maria P.; Fonzo, Martina M. I. Di; Ivory, Sarah J.; Norris, Lucia; Nunes, Matheus Henrique; Nyumba, Tobias Ochieng; Steiner, Noa; Vickery, Juliet A.; Mukherjee, Nibedita

doi:10.1111/conl.12564

Cited by 104 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This collaborative exercise may include the co-design of research questions and search for adequate funding sources that depend on stakeholder priorities. In this way the observed disagreement between priorities of research scientists and other stakeholders, previously identified in other contexts (Arlettaz et al, 2010;Rose et al, 2018) can be avoided, and societal needs taken into account. Using value of information approaches (Nicol, Ward, Stratford, Joehnk, & Chadès, 2018;Runge, Converse, & Lyons, 2011) might be used to help deciding on priorities, particularly to disentangle the relative importance of social values given by stakeholders to different topics and the real lack of scientific knowledge on those topics.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Priority questions for biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean biome: Heterogeneous perspectives across continents and stakeholders

Moreira

Allsopp

Esler

et al. 2019

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The identification of research questions with high relevance for biodiversity conservation is an important step towards designing more effective policies and management actions, and to better allocate funding among alternative conservation options. However, the identification of priority questions may be influenced by regional differences in biodiversity threats and social contexts, and to variations in the perceptions and interests of different stakeholders. Here we describe the results of a prioritization exercise involving six types of stakeholders from the Mediterranean biome, which includes several biodiversity hotspots spread across five regions of the planet (Europe, Africa, North and South America, and Australia). We found great heterogeneity across regions and stakeholder types in the priority topics identified and disagreement among the priorities of research scientists and other stakeholders. However, governance, climate change, and public participation issues were key topics in most regions. We conclude that the identification of research priorities should be targeted in a way that integrates the spectrum of stakeholder interests, potential funding sources and regional needs, and that further development of interdisciplinary studies is required. The key questions identified here provide a basis to identify priorities for research funding aligned with biodiversity conservation needs in this biome.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Priority questions for biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean biome: Heterogeneous perspectives across continents and stakeholders

Moreira

Allsopp

Esler

et al. 2019

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Limited resources and time frames, and a lack of access to pertinent information, however, mean that the ecological knowledge used in management is often less than ideal (Pullin et al 2003). Under these constraints, there is a need to improve mechanisms to ensure that the best available science is relevant and accessible to policy and management (Rose et al 2018). Fundamental to this is the establishment of relationships between researchers and managers that foster the acquisition and dissemination of science (Safford et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish and flow management in the Murray–Darling Basin: Directions for research

Koehn¹,

Balcombe²,

Zampatti³

2019

Eco Management Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Effective natural resource management requires knowledge exchange between researchers and managers to support evidence‐based decision‐making. To achieve this, there is a need to align research with management and policy needs. This project aimed to identify the flow‐related ecological knowledge needs for freshwater fish to better inform environmental water management in the Murray–Darling Basin, south‐eastern Australia. Our major objective was to provide an up‐to‐date assessment of scientific research and integrate this with the knowledge requirements of relevant managers to guide future research. We reviewed the contemporary scientific literature and engaged managers specifically responsible for delivering flows for fish outcomes via a questionnaire and workshop. Research on fishes of the MDB has generally evolved from single locations and/or times to larger spatio‐temporal scales, including multiple sites, rivers and catchments. There has also been a trend from single life stage studies to incorporation of multiple life stages and population processes. There remain, however, significant deficiencies in knowledge for most native species, many of which are threatened. Four agreed key knowledge gaps were derived from the literature review and managers’ suggestions: (i) population dynamics, (ii) movement, dispersal and connectivity, (iii) survival and recruitment to adults and (iv) recruitment drivers. To inform policy and management, managers desired timely advice, based on robust research and monitoring. Fish species of most relevance to managers were those highly regarded by community stakeholders and whose life histories and population dynamics are potentially influenced by flow. Populations of these mostly large‐bodied, angling species (e.g. Murray Cod, Golden Perch and Silver Perch) have declined, often due to river regulation and, in conjunction with managers’ priorities, are relevant candidates for research to support the management of flow to rehabilitate fish populations in the MDB.

show abstract

“…; Rose et al. ). Publication incentives are one of the most important science policies, but they can restrict scientists from producing useful science (Neff ) and from participating in collaborations (Shanley & López ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

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

Bertuol‐Garcia

Morsello

El-Hani

et al. 2018

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The major barriers to evidence‐informed conservation policy and possible solutions

Cited by 104 publications

References 40 publications

Priority questions for biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean biome: Heterogeneous perspectives across continents and stakeholders

Priority questions for biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean biome: Heterogeneous perspectives across continents and stakeholders

Fish and flow management in the Murray–Darling Basin: Directions for research

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About