Exploring and expanding the spaces between research and implementation in conservation science
Introduction
Conservation science is at a crossroads. At a time when scientific reports of unprecedented biodiversity loss, human-induced climate change, and plastics in the ocean are regularly communicated in the media, an increasing number of studies have demonstrated the complex, often negligible, and sometimes contradictory role that scientific facts play in policy and behavior change (Sarewitz, 2004; Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009; Baynham-Herd et al., 2018). For example, one recent study demonstrated that politicians tend to reject evidence that contradicts their prior attitudes, and found that providing more evidence actually increases, rather than decreases, the impact of those attitudes (Baekgaard et al., 2017). Another study on the management of conservation conflicts suggested that intervention recommendations are more likely to be influenced by authors' perceptions of the social basis of conflicts than by robust scientific evidence (Baynham-Herd et al., 2018).
In view of these developments and observations, an existential question arises for conservation science, a field that was largely founded on the belief in the primacy of natural science in decision-making and which presumes to conduct “real world science”: If scientific evidence alone is insufficient for implementing conservation knowledge into practice, what role does conservation science play in addressing the current biodiversity and climate crisis? Answering this question requires a deep exploration of both new and existing opportunities to apply and anchor conservation-relevant knowledge into conservation practice and policy through implementation.
The conservation community has grappled with this question implicitly since the establishment of the Society for Conservation Biology in the mid 1980s (see Soulé, 1985; Ehrenfeld, 1992). As the discipline has evolved and expanded into the wider field of conservation science, the importance of inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches has become further recognized as essential to improving the implementation of scientific knowledge into practical conservation action (Kareiva and Marvier, 2012; Bennett et al., 2017; Sterling et al., 2017). However, as a community we have only more recently begun to more explicitly address this question and its implications for the way we teach, investigate, evaluate, and practice conservation.
One of the forms this process has taken is in the context of a vigorous debate about the relationship between conservation research and implementation (Knight et al., 2008; Kareiva and Marvier, 2012; Toomey et al., 2017). To some, the key issue lies with a “gap” between science and practice: a “mismatch between the ecological knowledge generated by researchers and that applied by practitioners” (Hulme, 2014, p. 1131). Scholars promoting this view argue that the central challenge lies in scientific uptake. In other words, conservation research should be of relevance and accessible to policymakers, conservation managers and other key stakeholders who could put such knowledge into action (Sutherland et al., 2011; Matzek et al., 2013).
However, decades of research in other fields, including communication studies, behavioural psychology, and science and technology studies, have challenged the idea that making information produced by scientists more accessible will lead to better conservation outcomes (Pielke, 2007; Owens, 2012; Newell et al., 2014). These scholars have effectively demonstrated that the linear model of scientific uptake is only effective in relatively simple contexts in which stakeholders have shared goals and solutions that are technical, rather than behavioural or cultural (Sarewitz, 2004; Pielke, 2007; Wyborn et al., 2017).
For the types of “wicked problems” that characterize major global environmental challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss, these authors argue that scientists need to transcend the linear model to engage in different ways with the actors and institutions important for policy change. As Oberg puts it, “if you aspire to conduct studies in support of decision-making, it is crucial that you understand why it is impossible to solve value conflicts with more information” (2011, p. 50).
Over the last decade, these ideas have trickled into the conservation science community, generating a debate within the field on the key drivers and challenges in translating science into conservation action or policy (Lach et al., 2003; Srivastava and Vellend, 2005; Gossa et al., 2014; Karam-Gemael et al., 2018). One area of discussion lies in how the language of research-implementation “gaps” further propagates the problem by framing the relationship between research and practice as a one-way, deficit-style model of communication (Van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2015; Toomey et al., 2017). These and other scholars suggest that we need to think about how conservation science can be reimagined (and possibly retaught) to transcend such linear models for effective action (McKinley et al., 2017; Bennett and Roth, 2018).
This Special Issue on “Implementation Spaces in Conservation Science” aims to further this discussion, presenting 13 papers that describe explorations, challenges, and lessons learnt in navigating the spaces between research and its implementation, especially by decision- and policy-makers. We refer to “spaces” rather than “gaps” to emphasize that science-policy interface is not something to be bridged or filled, but rather to be navigated, explored, embarked upon, seen as an opportunity for growth and new learning (Toomey et al., 2017; Buschke et al., 2019). In this sense, implementation “spaces” represent opportunities for engagement in which shared interests, value conflicts, and complex relations between scientists and publics interact to overcome linear thinking and approaches in scientific practice (Toomey et al., 2017; Buschke et al., 2019).
The collection of papers presented in this Special Issue raises several questions for furthering our understanding of these spaces, in particular:
- (1)
Do we have our priorities right?
- (2)
Are we documenting and learning from our successes and failures through evaluation?
- (3)
And who are we including or excluding in the space between research and implementation?
In this editorial, we explore these three questions and highlight novel insights from the manuscripts to gain new perspectives into our progress in navigating the spaces between research and implementation. To conclude, we will ask whether conservation science is ready for a paradigm shift towards more transdisciplinary and inclusive approaches - not only in the way that we do conservation, but also in how we think about it.
Section snippets
Getting our priorities right
New concepts in conservation science have increasingly considered human dimensions and interdisciplinary perspectives in scientific practices that simultaneously maximize the conservation of biodiversity and the improvement of human well-being (Kareiva and Marvier, 2012). It has long been argued that a better understanding of the human or social dimensions of environmental issues will improve conservation (see Bennett et al., 2017). However, challenges in navigating the spaces between research
Improving research design and impact
Robust evaluation of conservation strategies, programs and actions (Pressey et al., 2017) is critical for the effective navigation of research-implementation spaces in conservation. Evaluation is needed while planning for conservation interventions, for example, when evaluating costs of implementation of restoration programs (Brancalion et al. 2019 - in this issue; Strassburg et al., 2019) or measuring our progress towards goals concerted in international agreements (Secretariat of CBD, 2014).
Developing a better understanding of what it takes to include others
Applying the principles of inclusiveness by involving multiple actors (e.g. researchers, civil society, organizations, industry and policymakers) and voices from different cultural, social, and geographic origins at an early stage of conservation planning and decision-making processes has been identified as key to “responsible research and innovation” (Owen et al., 2012; Nielsen et al., 2017a,b). Research has demonstrated that various types of social diversity and experience (such as gender,
Conclusion or is conservation science ready for a “transdisciplinary turn”?
This Special Issue on “Implementation Spaces in Conservation Science” demonstrates a crux in the field, where we are faced with an awareness of the inadequacy of providing recommendations and “best practices” for the implementation of conservation science, while at the same time we are not yet steeped in the thinking, approaches and tools needed to move forward. This brings us back to the question posed at the start of this editorial: what is the role of conservation science in addressing the
Acknowledgements
We thank all authors of this Special Issue for their contributions and the fruitful collaboration. Special thanks go to Andrew Knight, who provided valuable feedback as a co-editor of this Special Issue.
References (58)
- et al.
Conservation conflicts: behavioural threats, frames, and intervention recommendations
Biol. Conserv.
(2018) - et al.
Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation
Biol. Conserv.
(2017) - et al.
Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization
Ecol. Econ.
(2012) - et al.
Poor alignment of priorities between scientists and policymakers highlights the need for evidence-informed conservation in Brazil
Perspect. Ecol. Conserv.
(2018) Usable climate knowledge for adaptive and co-managed water governance
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
(2015)- et al.
Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: interpretation for implementation
Biol. Conserv.
(2005) - et al.
From displacement activities to evidence-informed decisions in conservation
Biol. Conserv.
(2017) - et al.
Consequences of delaying actions for safeguarding ecosystem services in the Brazilian Cerrado
Biol. Conserv.
(2019) - et al.
The inclusion of non-market values in systematic conservation planning to enhance policy relevance
Biol. Conserv.
(2013) How science makes environmental controversies worse
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2004)
Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation
Biol. Conserv.
The residual nature of protected areas in Brazil
Biol. Conserv.
Using citizen science data to support conservation in environmental regulatory contexts
Biol. Conserv.
Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
The role of evidence in politics: motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians
Br. J. Polit. Sci.
Realizing the Transformative Potential of Conservation Through the Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities
The implementation crisis in conservation planning: could “mental models” help?
Conserv. Lett.
Post‐normal conservation science fills the space between research, policy, and implementation
Conserv. Sci. Pract.
Striking Underrepresentation of Biodiversity-Rich Regions Among Editors of Conservation Journals
Protected area effectiveness in reducing conversion in a rapidly vanishing ecosystem: the Brazilian Cerrado
Conserv. Lett.
Conservation biology: its origins and definition
Science
Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality
Science
Actionable knowledge for ecological intensification of agriculture
Front. Ecol. Environ.
The research–implementation gap: how practitioners and researchers from developing countries perceive the role of peer-reviewed literature in conservation science
Oryx
How the entire scientific community can confront gender bias in the workplace
Nat. Ecol. Evol.
The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?
PLoS Biol.
Bridging the knowing–doing gap: know-who, know-what, know-why, know-how and know-when
J. Appl. Ecol.
What is conservation science?
BioScience
Cited by (32)
Tropical deforestation: Elections vs. bad governance
2023, Biological ConservationPromotion of adopting preventive behavioral intention toward biodiversity degradation among Iranian farmers
2023, Global Ecology and ConservationExploring Floridians' perceptions of pollinator-friendly gardening to identify critical adoption barriers and strategies
2023, Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningLessons learned from the Second International Agrobiodiversity Congress: Adopting agricultural biodiversity as a catalyst for transformative global food systems
2023, Current Opinion in Environmental Science and HealthGlobal South leadership towards inclusive tropical ecology and conservation
2023, Perspectives in Ecology and ConservationFemale ecologists are falling from the academic ladder: A call for action
2022, Perspectives in Ecology and ConservationCitation Excerpt :Implementing gender-oriented policies to avoid setbacks driven by the pandemic is thus urgent (Maas et al., 2020; Staniscuaski et al., 2021b). A gender-balanced community at all hierarchical levels in the field of Ecology and Conservation can lead to better and more innovative science (AlShebli et al., 2018; Duffy et al., 2021; Maas et al., 2020; Nielsen et al., 2017) and thus guarantee more effective conservation practices (Maas et al., 2019). Just as less diverse ecosystems perform worse than more diverse ones (Tilman et al., 2014), homogeneous research teams could bring narrower perspectives and more limited conclusions in ecological studies and conservation measures (Duffy et al., 2021).