The Knowledge-Implementation Gap in Conservation Science

Nguyen, Vivian M.; Ferreira, Catarina; Klütsch, Cornelya F. C.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-81085-6_1

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, several barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use [27,32]. This gap is vast and pervasive in conservation [27,33]. There has been recent progress on improving scientific processes to generate knowledge that can be readily applied, the most notable approach being knowledge coproduction [34].…”

Section: = Co-producedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceptualizing conservation

Cooke

Michaels

Nyboer

et al. 2022

PLOS Sustain Transform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early definitions of conservation focused largely on the end goals of protection or restoration of nature, and the various disciplinary domains that contribute to these ends. Conservation science and practice has evolved beyond being focused on just issues of scarcity and biodiversity decline. To better recognize the inherent links between human behaviour and conservation, “success” in conservation is now being defined in terms that include human rights and needs. We also know that who engages in conservation, and how, dictates the likelihood that conservation science will be embraced and applied to yield conservation gains. Here we present ideas for reconceptualizing conservation. We emphasize the HOW in an attempt to reorient and repurpose the term in ways that better reflect what contemporary conservation is or might aspire to be. To do so, we developed an acrostic using the letters in the term “CONSERVATION” with each serving as an adjective where C = co-produced, O = open, N = nimble, S = solutions-oriented, E = empowering, R = relational, V = values-based, A = actionable, T = transdisciplinary, I = inclusive, O = optimistic, and N = nurturing. For each adjective, we briefly describe our reasoning for its selection and describe how it contributes to our vision of conservation. By reconceptualizing conservation we have the potential to center how we do conservation in ways that are more likely to result in outcomes that benefit biodiversity while also being just, equitable, inclusive, and respectful of diverse rights holders, knowledge holders, and other actors. We hope that this acrostic will be widely adopted in training to help the next generation of conservation researchers and practitioners keep in mind what it will take to make their contributions effective and salient.

show abstract

Section: = Co-producedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceptualizing conservation

Cooke

Michaels

Nyboer

et al. 2022

PLOS Sustain Transform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The global scientific output has grown considerably and continues to do so (Figure 2). Despite this, massive knowledge gaps remain to be addressed (e.g., Nguyen et al, 2021; Scheffers et al, 2012), resulting in a pressing need for more research on biodiversity conservation and—or so we think—additional journals to publish this newly‐generated knowledge. Arguably, journals are urgently needed with a broader interdisciplinary take‐on to biodiversity conservation.…”

Section: Why Launch a New China‐based Conservation Journal?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrative Conservation: A new journal from the conservation frontline

Yang

Schneider

Campos‐Arceiz

2022

Integrative Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation practitioners’ and researchers’ needs for bridging the knowledge–action gap

Sabo,

Berger-Tal,

Blumstein

et al. 2024

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the field of biodiversity conservation, there is a growing need for research to translate to real-world impacts. Currently there exists a gap between research outcomes and on the ground action, commonly referred to as the knowledge-action gap. Previous research has focused on identifying the causes of the gap, but less research has focused on how to bridge it. We conducted an online survey with conservation researchers and practitioners to identify barriers in the science-to application pipeline and to understand how potential solutions would need to account for their information needs and workflows. Through a qualitative analysis of the open-ended survey responses, we found that information about tools and approaches to address conservation challenges is needed, but decision makers also need information to help them account for context specific barriers and opportunities. Solution-specific information alone, however, is often insufficient for practitioners, who also require the resource capacity and capable personnel to work with that information. Word of mouth and scholarly databases are the most common ways of learning about new tools and techniques, but lack of time, funding and personnel are barriers to implementing them. In addition, respondents identified a need for increased engagement with the conservation social sciences. We argue that a user-centered design approach should underpin any proposed solution to the gap and suggest that an online tool could be one effective solution.

show abstract

The Knowledge-Implementation Gap in Conservation Science

Cited by 3 publications

References 85 publications

Reconceptualizing conservation

Reconceptualizing conservation

Integrative Conservation: A new journal from the conservation frontline

Conservation practitioners’ and researchers’ needs for bridging the knowledge–action gap

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About