Towards linking environmental law and science

Moore, Jonathan W.; Nowlan, Linda; Olszynski, Martin; Jacob, Aerin L.; Favaro, Brett; Collins, Lynda; Williams-Davidson, G.L. Terri-Lynn; Weitz, Jill

doi:10.1139/facets-2017-0106

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, they identify the importance of producing time-critical research, attacking "wicked" problems, using multidisciplinary approaches, and better communicating their findings. Moore et al (2018) brought together environmental scientists and environmental lawyers to understand gaps, barriers, and opportunities to collaboration in the science-law interface and to develop a conceptual model of how different scientific activities can lead to more informed legislative, regulatory, and policy decisions. More recently, Fisher et al (2019) identified four practical steps intended to enhance the impact of environmental science on decision-making: (1) identify and understand your audience (or partners); (2) clarify the need for evidence; (3) gather "just enough" evidence; and (4) share and discuss the evidence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On “success” in applied environmental research — What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental decision-makers and practitioners need and deserve high quality environmental evidence for effective decision-making. We collate and share a suite of best practices for applied environmental researchers to support their capacity to inform such decision-making processes. This raises a number of important questions: What does “relevant” and informative evidence look like? How do we know when evidence has been applied? We assembled an experienced team of knowledge generators and users in Canada to identify insights that have emerged from their work and that could serve as guideposts for others who seek to apply environmental research to policy challenges. By reflecting on successes and failures, we define “success” in applied environmental science as respectfully conducted, partner-relevant research that is accessible, understandable, and shared, and that can create opportunities for change (e.g., in policy, behaviour, management). Next, we generated a list of best practices for delivering “successful” applied environmental research. Our guidance emphasizes the importance of engaging early and often, in a respectful manner, with partners, generating high-quality, relevant research (which requires flexibility), having a plan for communicating and sharing outputs, and being transparent about uncertainties and limitations. Other important considerations include acknowledging partners for involvement and training early career researchers in applied partnership research. Finally, we generated a list of specific, measurable indicators for evaluating success including: quality and quantity of scientific outputs, the relationship with the partner(s), relevance and connectedness of the research, accessibility and availability of outputs to users, provision of outputs that are digestible and usable by different audiences, training and capacity building, and ultimate outcomes (e.g., including social, environmental, and economic outcomes, as well as partner satisfaction). We encourage those embarking on applied environmental research to consider embracing the strategies, to continuously reflect on progress toward shared research goals, and to be flexible. Doing so will increase the likelihood of delivering research that is “successful” and in doing so contribute to overcoming and addressing environmental issues and problems.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On “success” in applied environmental research — What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Applied ecologists are increasingly being called on to support evidence-based environmental and natural resource management [30]. The evidence we provide, therefore, must be based on sound empirical design, statistical analyses, and interpretations of these analyses [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the prevalence of uninformative parameters in statistical models applying model selection in applied ecology

Leroux

2019

PLoS ONE

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in applied ecology provides scientific evidence to guide conservation policy and management. Applied ecology is becoming increasingly quantitative and model selection via information criteria has become a common statistical modeling approach. Unfortunately, parameters that contain little to no useful information are commonly presented and interpreted as important in applied ecology. I review the concept of an uninformative parameter in model selection using information criteria and perform a literature review to measure the prevalence of uninformative parameters in model selection studies applying Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) in 2014 in four of the top journals in applied ecology (Biological Conservation, Conservation Biology, Ecological Applications, Journal of Applied Ecology). Twenty-one percent of studies I reviewed applied AIC metrics. Many (31.5%) of the studies applying AIC metrics in the four applied ecology journals I reviewed had or were very likely to have uninformative parameters in a model set. In addition, more than 40% of studies reviewed had insufficient information to assess the presence or absence of uninformative parameters in a model set. Given the prevalence of studies likely to have uninformative parameters or with insufficient information to assess parameter status (71.5%), I surmise that much of the policy recommendations based on applied ecology research may not be supported by the data analysis. I provide four warning signals and a decision tree to assist authors, reviewers, and editors to screen for uninformative parameters in studies applying model selection with information criteria. In the end, careful thinking at every step of the scientific process and greater reporting standards are required to detect uninformative parameters in studies adopting an information criteria approach.

show abstract

“…There is a need to align scientific evidence with the environmental laws and policies that regulate development of salmon estuaries (Moore et al, ). Specifically, our study, which represents the most comprehensive synthesis to date, indicates that the continued development of estuaries poses risks to salmon which is a factor to consider in decision‐making processes.…”

Section: Towards Informing Estuary Management For Salmonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing estuaries and impacts on juvenile salmon: A systematic review

Hodgson

Wilson

Moore

2020

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estuaries are productive ecosystems providing important habitat for a diversity of species, yet they also experience intense levels of anthropogenic development. To inform decision‐making, it is essential to understand the pathways of impacts of particular human activities, especially those that affect species such as salmon, which have high ecological, social‐cultural and economic values. Salmon systems provide an opportunity to build from the substantial body of research on responses to estuary developments and take stock of what is known. We conducted a systematic English‐language literature review on the responses of juvenile salmon to anthropogenic activities in estuaries and nearshore areas asking: what has been studied, where are the major knowledge gaps and how do stressors affect salmon? We found a substantial body of research (n = 167 studies; 1,369 comparative tests) to help understand responses of juvenile salmon to 24 activities and their 14 stressors. Across studies, 82% of the research was conducted in the eastern Pacific (Oregon and Washington, USA and British Columbia, Canada) showing a limited geographical scope. Using a semiquantitative approach to summarize the literature, including a weight‐of‐evidence metric, we found a range of results from low to moderate–high confidence in the consequences of the stressors. For example, we found moderate–high confidence in the negative impacts of pollutants and sea lice and moderate confidence in negative impacts from connectivity loss and changes in flow. Our results suggest that overall, multiple anthropogenic activities cause negative impacts across ecological scales. However, our results also reveal knowledge gaps resulting from minimal research on particular species (e.g. sockeye salmon), regions (e.g. Atlantic) or stressors (e.g. entrainment) that would be expedient areas for future research. With estuaries acting as a nexus of biological and societal importance and hotspots of ongoing development, the insights gained here can contribute to informed decision‐making.

show abstract

Towards linking environmental law and science

Cited by 14 publications

References 64 publications

On “success” in applied environmental research — What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved?

On “success” in applied environmental research — What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved?

On the prevalence of uninformative parameters in statistical models applying model selection in applied ecology

Changing estuaries and impacts on juvenile salmon: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About