Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary

Abstract

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management-relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence-based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research-focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary-spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge–action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making.Logrando que la Ciencia de la Conservación Trasponga la Frontera Conocimiento-AcciónResumenHay muchas barreras para utilizar ciencia para informar a la política y práctica de la conservación. Los científicos de la conservación que desean producir ciencia relevante para el manejo deben equilibrar esta meta con el imperativo de demostrar novedad y rigor en su ciencia. Los tomadores de decisiones que buscan que sus decisiones se basen en evidencias deben equilibrar el deseo de conocimientos con la necesidad de actuar a pesar de la incertidumbre. La generación de ciencia que informe efectivamente a las decisiones de manejo requiere que la producción de información (los componentes del conocimiento) sea sobresaliente (relevante y oportuna), creíble (autoritativa, verosímil y confiable) y legítima (desarrollada mediante un proceso que considera los valores y perspectivas de todos los actores relevantes) a la vista tanto de investigadores como de tomadores de decisiones. Percibimos tres r...

Understanding managers’ and scientists’ perspectives on opportunities to achieve more evolutionarily enlightened management in conservation

“…Managers focused on the need for more training to better understand evolutionary biology, while scientists emphasized the need to improve the science–policy interface to better support managers to make good decisions (Figure 4b). These two solutions could be seen as two sides of the same coin and have certainly been suggested as a key plank in improving the integration of evolutionary theory (Frankham, 2010; Mace & Purvis, 2008), and scientific evidence more generally (Cook, Mascia, Schwartz, Possingham, & Fuller, 2013), into conservation decisions. Evolutionary biologists have arguably been less proactive than ecologists when it comes to engaging with conservation managers about improving management practices (Hendry et al., 2010; Hoban et al., 2013; Smith & Bernatchez, 2008).…”

Spatial variation in haemoglobin concentration of nestling Blue Tits (Cyanistes caeruleus): a long-term perspective

“…Therefore, an understanding of the influences of variation in habitat quality on organism condition and breeding success in association with physiological knowledge may provide instruments to support evidencebased management decisions (Cooke and O'Connor 2010;Bonier 2012;Ellis et al 2012;Cook et al 2013).…”

“…Conservation physiology is an emerging field that applies physiological tools and concepts to conservation in broad ways (Cook et al 2013;Milenkaya et al 2013). Fragmentation and degradation of natural habitats intensifies on a global scale, and it is important to assess the effects of changes in habitat on organisms (Gil and Brumm 2014).…”

“…Gorrisen et al (2005) showed that male Great Tits (Parus major) that bred closest to a pollution source had a more limited song repertoire and were less frequent singers. An additional challenge for urban birds may be that any new vegetation planted by people is usually unlikely to resemble pre-settlement habitat (Cook et al 2013;Thomson et al 2003). Because the measuring of habitat quality in a direct way is often not feasible, the evaluation of individual condition offers an alternative method to assess habitat quality (Homyack 2010;Ellis et al 2012).…”

Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

“…"Salience" refers to the relevance of scientific knowledge to the needs of decisionmakers; "credibility" comes from scientific and technical arguments being trustworthy and expert-based; and "legitimacy" refers to knowledge that is produced in an unbiased way and that fairly considers stakeholders' different points of view. Their framework has inspired researchers to investigate these three attributes and how they affect decision-makers using knowledge (17)(18)(19)(20)(21).…”