The Knowledge-Implementation Gap in Conservation Science

Author(s):  
Vivian M. Nguyen ◽  
Catarina C. Ferreira ◽  
Cornelya F. C. Klütsch
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aviv Karasov‐Olson ◽  
Alicia K. Bird ◽  
Amy C. Collins ◽  
Emily E. Graves ◽  
Julea A. Shaw ◽  
...  

This book gathers together 28 personal stories told by leading thinkers and practitioners in conservation – all of whom have something to say about the uncomfortable tension that arises when data meet dogma. Together, they make a powerful argument for conservation science that measures effectiveness and evolves in response to new data, rather than clinging to its treasured foundational ideas. Several chapters raise doubts about some of conservation’s core tenets, including the notion that habitat fragmentation is bad for biodiversity, biodiversity declines are threatening ecosystem function, non-native species are a net negative for conservation, and fisheries management is failing. Another set of chapters warns of the potent power of conservation narratives: undeniably useful to inspire conservation action, but potentially dangerous in locking in thinking against contrary data. These chapters challenge iconic stories about GM crops, orangutans in oil palm forests, frog feminization, salmon versus dams, rehabilitating oiled otters, and wolves in Yellowstone. A final set of chapters addresses conceptual and methodological approaches such as environmental tipping points, global assessments, payment for ecosystem service programs, and working with corporations. Throughout, examples of confirmation bias emerge—not as dishonesty, but as a human foible that is a challenge for all science, not just conservation science. Graduate students, in particular, will find a wealth of ideas to inspire their own research. Each chapter points to additional data that could help resolve lingering debates and improve conservation effectiveness.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 194008292110147
Author(s):  
Dipto Sarkar ◽  
Colin A. Chapman

The term ‘smart forest’ is not yet common, but the proliferation of sensors, algorithms, and technocentric thinking in conservation, as in most other aspects of our lives, suggests we are at the brink of this evolution. While there has been some critical discussion about the value of using smart technology in conservation, a holistic discussion about the broader technological, social, and economic interactions involved with using big data, sensors, artificial intelligence, and global corporations is largely missing. Here, we explore the pitfalls that are useful to consider as forests are gradually converted to technological sites of data production for optimized biodiversity conservation and are consequently incorporated in the digital economy. We consider who are the enablers of the technologically enhanced forests and how the gradual operationalization of smart forests will impact the traditional stakeholders of conservation. We also look at the implications of carpeting forests with sensors and the type of questions that will be encouraged. To contextualize our arguments, we provide examples from our work in Kibale National Park, Uganda which hosts the one of the longest continuously running research field station in Africa.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine L Madliger ◽  
Oliver P Love ◽  
Vivian M Nguyen ◽  
Neal R Haddaway ◽  
Steven J Cooke

Abstract Conservation physiology represents a recently emerging arm of conservation science that applies physiological tools and techniques to understand and solve conservation issues. While a multi-disciplinary toolbox can only help to address the global biodiversity crisis, any field can face challenges while becoming established, particularly highly applied disciplines that require multi-stakeholder involvement. Gaining first-hand knowledge of the challenges that conservation physiologists are facing can help characterize the current state of the field and build a better foundation for determining how it can grow. Through an online survey of 468 scientists working at the intersection of physiology and conservation, we aimed to identify characteristics of those engaging in conservation physiology research (e.g. demographics, primary taxa of study), gauge conservation physiology’s role in contributing to on-the-ground conservation action, identify the perceived barriers to achieving success and determine how difficult any identified barriers are to overcome. Despite all participants having experience combining physiology and conservation, only one-third considered themselves to be ‘conservation physiologists’. Moreover, there was a general perception that conservation physiology does not yet regularly lead to tangible conservation success. Respondents identified the recent conceptualization of the field and the broader issue of adequately translating science into management action as the primary reasons for these deficits. Other significant barriers that respondents have faced when integrating physiology and conservation science included a lack of funding, logistical constraints (e.g. sample sizes, obtaining permits) and a lack of physiological baseline data (i.e. reference ranges of a physiological metric’s ‘normal’ or pre-environmental change levels). We identified 12 actions based on suggestions of survey participants that we anticipate will help deconstruct the barriers and continue to develop a narrative of physiology that is relevant to conservation science, policy and practice.


2021 ◽  
pp. 030913252199391
Author(s):  
Sara H Nelson ◽  
Patrick Bigger

The assertion that ‘ecosystems are infrastructure’ is now common in conservation science and ecosystem management. This article interrogates this infrastructural ontology, which we argue underpins diverse practices of conservation investment and ecosystem management focused on the strategic management of ecosystem functions to sustain and secure human life. We trace the genealogies and geographies of infrastructural nature as an ontology and paradigm of investment that coexists (sometimes in tension) with extractivist commodity regimes. We draw links between literatures on the political economy of ecosystem services and infrastructure and highlight three themes that hold promise for future research: labor, territory, and finance.


Author(s):  
Enrico Di Minin ◽  
Christoph Fink ◽  
Anna Hausmann ◽  
Jens Kremer ◽  
Ritwik Kulkarni

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thami Croeser ◽  
Georgia E. Garrard ◽  
Freya M. Thomas ◽  
Trinh Duc Tran ◽  
Ian Mell ◽  
...  

AbstractNature-based solutions (NBS) are increasingly at the centre of urban strategies to mitigate heatwaves and flooding, improve public health and restore biodiversity. However, on-ground implementation has been slow, inconsistent and often limited to demonstration sites. A broad literature consistently highlights institutional barriers as a major reason for the observed implementation gap. In this study, we developed and deployed an assessment tool to identify barriers to NBS delivery on a European Commission Horizon 2020 project spanning seven cities. We found that practitioners were effectively navigating challenges in the areas where they had significant control, including community engagement, strategy development and technical skills. The greatest barriers were outside the influence of project teams: understaffing, a lack of intra-organisational processes, and risk-averse organisational cultures. These findings emphasise that after cities embrace NBS at the strategic and political level, it is vital that executives follow through with the necessary pragmatic reforms to enable delivery.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document