People depend on functioning ecosystems, which provide benefits that support human existence and wellbeing. The relationship between people and nature has been experienced and conceptualized in multiple ways. Recently, ecosystem services (ES) concepts have permeated science, government policies, multinational environmental agreements, and science-policy interfaces. In 2017, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) introduced a new and closely related concept-Nature's Contributions to People (NCP). The introduction of NCP has sparked some lively discussion and confusion about the distinguishing characteristics between ES and NCP. In order to clarify their conceptual relation, we identify eleven specific claims about novel elements from the latest NCP literature and analyze how far ES research has already contributed to these corresponding conceptual claims in the existing ES literature. We find a mixed-picture, where on six specific conceptual claims (culture, social sciences and humanities, indigenous and local knowledge, negative contributions of nature, generalizing perspective, non-instrumental values and valuation) NCP does not differ greatly from past ES research, but we also find five conceptual claims (diverse worldviews, context-specific perspective, relational values, fuzzy and fluid reporting categories and groups, inclusive language and framing) where NCP provides novel conceptualizations of people and nature relations.
Salafsky et al. (2019) added their voices to a growing call for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence-based. We agree that guidance for the use of evidence in conservation practice needs to be improved; however, we suggest that evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. In medicine, unlike in conservation, a well-established and well-funded layer of intermediary individuals and organizations engage with medical practitioners, synthesize primary research that is relevant to decision-making, and make it easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them in a suitable form to practitioners faced with time-sensitive and value-laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, which we term "evidence bridges" should identify research topics based on the priorities of practitioners; synthesize evidence; prepare and distribute easy-to-find and easy-touse evidence summaries; and develop and maintain networks of connections with researchers and practitioners. Based on a review of the literature regarding evidence intermediaries in conservation and environmental management, as well as an anonymous questionnaire searching for such organizations, we found few intermediaries that meet all these criteria. Moreover, we found that the few evidence bridges that do exist are unable to reach most conservation practitioners, which include resource managers in government and industry, conservation organizations, and farmers and other private landowners. We argue that the lack of evidence bridges from research to practitioners contributes to "evidence complacency" and limits the use of evidence in conservation action. Nevertheless, several existing organizations do help to reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. While evidence bridges need expertise in research and evidence synthesis, they also require expertise in identifying and communicating with the community of practitioners most in need of clear and concise syntheses of evidence.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding public health mitigation strategies have altered many facets of human life. And yet, little is known about how public health measures have impacted complex socio-ecological systems such as recreational fisheries. Using a web-based online snowball survey, we targeted resident anglers in Ontario, Canada, to obtain preliminary insight on how the pandemic has impacted recreational fishing and related activity. We also explored angler perspectives on pandemic-related restrictions and other aspects of fisheries management. Our results point to the value of recreational fisheries for the mental and physical well-being of participants, as well as the value and popularity of outdoor recreation during a pandemic. Although angling effort and fish consumption appeared to decline during the early phases of the pandemic, approximately 20% of the anglers who responded to our survey selfidentified as new entrants who had begun or resumed fishing in that time. Self-reported motivations to fish during the pandemic suggest that free time, importance to mental and physical health, and desires for self-sufficiency caused some anglers to fish more, whereas a lack of free time, poor or uncertain accessibility, and perceived risks caused some anglers to fish less. Respondents also expressed their desires for more clear and consistent communication about COVID-19 fishing restrictions from governments, and viewed angling as a safe pandemic activity. Information on recreational angler behaviours, motivations, and perspectives during the pandemic may prove valuable to fisheries managers and policy makers looking to optimize their strategies for facing this and other similar crises.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.