Transforming conservation science and practice for a postnormal world

Managers' perceptions of protected area outcomes in Madagascar highlight the need for species monitoring and knowledge transfer

“…This echoes similar recommendations from other recent studies investigating drivers behind the "research-implementation" gap (Cvitanovic, Hobday, van Kerkhoff, & Marshall, 2015;Gossa, Fisher, & Milner-Gulland, 2015;McNie, 2007;Toomey, Knight, & Barlow, 2017;Walsh, Dicks, & Sutherland, 2015). Involving managers in research design means that findings are more likely to be relevant and used to improve management (Dilling & Lemos, 2011;Kemp et al, 2015) and we argue that methods for the co-production and exchange of knowledge between researchers, managers, and local communities offer a way to better address the complexities of PAs and their management for both beneficiaries and managers (Bouska, Lindner, Paukert, & Jacobson, 2016;Colloff et al, 2017;Gardner, 2012;Reyers et al, 2010). PAME evaluation exercises, such as the METT-tool, for example, already fulfill an important role in the assessment of PA performance beyond indicating outcomes, and this could be something to further expand upon in the future as part of improving the utility of PA management research.…”

“…While research partnerships exist between some universities and PAs in Madagascar, the lack of communication between researchers and local PA managers means that valuable data and information rarely ends up informing actual PA management (Rafidimanantsoa et al, 2018). Involving managers in research design means that findings are more likely to be relevant and used to improve management (Dilling & Lemos, 2011;Kemp et al, 2015) and we argue that methods for the co-production and exchange of knowledge between researchers, managers, and local communities offer a way to better address the complexities of PAs and their management for both beneficiaries and managers (Bouska, Lindner, Paukert, & Jacobson, 2016;Colloff et al, 2017;Gardner, 2012;Reyers et al, 2010). This echoes similar recommendations from other recent studies investigating drivers behind the "research-implementation" gap (Cvitanovic, Hobday, van Kerkhoff, & Marshall, 2015;Gossa, Fisher, & Milner-Gulland, 2015;McNie, 2007;Toomey, Knight, & Barlow, 2017;Walsh, Dicks, & Sutherland, 2015).…”

Post‐normal conservation science fills the space between research, policy, and implementation

“…Clarity at the purposive level avoids unnecessary duplication or counter-productive competition by promoting national coherence and integrating biodiversity in multisector governance ( Table 1). The purposive level directs the extended peer community toward a common goal, while remaining versatile enough to allow behavioral adjustments based on changing knowledge, rules, and values (e.g., Colloff et al, 2017).…”

“…These subproblems can then be tackled in logical steps using cross-disciplinary evidence and causal chains Qiu et al, 2018). However, risk is indeterminate for many conservation problems because of emergent uncertainties, incomplete controllability, and multiple legitimate perspectives in socioecological systems (Colloff et al, 2017;Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). Reductionist approaches cannot cope with indeterminate risks, so F I G U R E 1 A conceptualization of the main distinguishing features of conventional, or "normal", science, and post-normal science PNS was proposed to maintain the integrity of science when facts are not only unknown, but essentially unknowable (Elahi, 2011;Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993).…”

“…PNS developed as a reaction to probabilistic risk assessment in normal science (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993;Ravetz, 2006). In normal science, risk is determined by reducing complex issues to tractable subproblems (Colloff et al, 2017;Ravetz, 2006). These subproblems can then be tackled in logical steps using cross-disciplinary evidence and causal chains Qiu et al, 2018).…”