I agree that this is a problem.

Part of the issue is that we often know what is needed to address conservation problems but are not able to address them (due to lack of funding, or political will, or trade-offs with other issues) but we still think that describing the problem in greater detail can help ...

I have written a bit about this in the past, e.g., :

Article Conservation and Biodiversity Monitoring in the Tropics: Rea...

As have others, even referring to such research as a "displacement activity" e.g.,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2641637?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

So, depending on the problem, research isn't always able to help that much, but we think that "raising awareness" is worthwhile in any case. It can be debated. Sometimes awareness is important (though in itself it seldom solves a problem)

When I worked in a research station in Uganda we ensured we had regular meetings with park staff and others to ensure we agreed what research questions we looked at, and that we examined practical choices and their implementation. Journals prefer big broad generalizations that have mass readership, but addressing local problems requires a lot of attention to local contexts. The result is that when we do locally useful research it is arguably too site specific for the most prestigious journals (few will cite them). I have tried so I know the challenge. So how can students be encouraged to write these types of articles?

e.g.

Article Bamboo for people, Mountain gorillas, and golden monkeys: Ev...

Article Tree seed rain and seed removal, but not the seed bank, impe...

Article Matrix population models indicate that bark harvest of two m...

Presumably if funders, journals and universities gave more attention to practical outcomes and encouraged researchers to work more closely with practitioners there is plenty that could be done. Then the focus needs to be on trials and application much more than simply claiming to do "useful research" or raising awareness.

see, e.g.,

Article Is wildlife research useful for wildlife conservation in the...

Article Conservation: Focus on implementation

So, how to fix it? A change in incentives can help lead a change in practice.

At the same time, I don't think we should address this in terms of labels like "good" and "bad" research: there can be value in "pure" research or research that raises awareness. I say this because these discussions often get polarised as if we need some types of work and not others--and I dont think that that is the case. Rather we need many kinds of research. We do need to understand the implications of the changes in the world etc. as well as addressing particular problems in particular places. So we need a nuanced approach. But certainly a shift in the overall balance, with diversity and greater encouragement for an emphasis on helping in practice, would be good.

totally agree with '' High quality literature frequently reporting the findings or providing suggestions that itself requires specific qualifications and skills to be understood''

Furthermore, since 1990, the protected area network is slowly increasing over time in Georgia. There are huge debate on the ways how to assign PA (for instance based on diversity hotspot concept). However, in practice, establishing new PA is almost always matter of political decision based on political evaluation. It is not even possible to evaluate diversity hot-spots at a fine scale in Georgia as no enough data on biodiversity distribution exists.

To be clear, Georgia (South Caucasus) is a Pleistocene refugium, well known biodiversity hot-spot and is worth to consider as a case.

Of course, as many PA much better, however, total area of PAs in Georgia does not even exceeds 10%. So is there a communication between conservation science and practice in this case? Most relevant answer is NO!

Fully agree with you. The results of the researches on conservation biology can't touch the practice. The conservation flocks of the government is really very conservative :) and don't care about the results and suggestions; at least this is the case in Turkey.

This is one of the major problems in the miscommunication for useful actions towards conservation. No the question is: How can we change this? What real changes can me make to reduce or even disipate this missing link between science and action?

One way to change this is for conservation scientists in academic jobs to be assessed on conservation impact, as well as the usual academic metrics like citation impact.

What such assessments are supposed to change then?

I agree that this is a problem.

Part of the issue is that we often know what is needed to address conservation problems but are not able to address them (due to lack of funding, or political will, or trade-offs with other issues) but we still think that describing the problem in greater detail can help ...

I have written a bit about this in the past, e.g., :

Article Conservation and Biodiversity Monitoring in the Tropics: Rea...

As have others, even referring to such research as a "displacement activity" e.g.,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2641637?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

So, depending on the problem, research isn't always able to help that much, but we think that "raising awareness" is worthwhile in any case. It can be debated. Sometimes awareness is important (though in itself it seldom solves a problem)

When I worked in a research station in Uganda we ensured we had regular meetings with park staff and others to ensure we agreed what research questions we looked at, and that we examined practical choices and their implementation. Journals prefer big broad generalizations that have mass readership, but addressing local problems requires a lot of attention to local contexts. The result is that when we do locally useful research it is arguably too site specific for the most prestigious journals (few will cite them). I have tried so I know the challenge. So how can students be encouraged to write these types of articles?

e.g.

Article Bamboo for people, Mountain gorillas, and golden monkeys: Ev...

Article Tree seed rain and seed removal, but not the seed bank, impe...

Article Matrix population models indicate that bark harvest of two m...

Presumably if funders, journals and universities gave more attention to practical outcomes and encouraged researchers to work more closely with practitioners there is plenty that could be done. Then the focus needs to be on trials and application much more than simply claiming to do "useful research" or raising awareness.

see, e.g.,

Article Is wildlife research useful for wildlife conservation in the...

Article Conservation: Focus on implementation

So, how to fix it? A change in incentives can help lead a change in practice.

At the same time, I don't think we should address this in terms of labels like "good" and "bad" research: there can be value in "pure" research or research that raises awareness. I say this because these discussions often get polarised as if we need some types of work and not others--and I dont think that that is the case. Rather we need many kinds of research. We do need to understand the implications of the changes in the world etc. as well as addressing particular problems in particular places. So we need a nuanced approach. But certainly a shift in the overall balance, with diversity and greater encouragement for an emphasis on helping in practice, would be good.

Yes, encouraging researchers to work with practitioners as closely as possible is one of the most promising way to make use research achievements. Would be nice this to be clear for decision makers in governmental bodies (and not only). Unfortunately, not many supports this idea

Absolutely! in order for research to have an impact it needs to change behavior. - Someone actually has to make a better decision. - Transdisciplinary intervention development as well as Decision Analysis tools could be more widely applied in conservation. These are based on conceptual formulations of impact pathways (holistic assessments, with decision makers and stakeholders at the table) as foundations for probababilistic models to forecast decision outcomes.

Partial examples of Decision Analysis approaches applied to conservation decisions:

Regan et al https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/03-5419

Possingham https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-6003-6_30

Harwood https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320700000367

I think that requiring researchers to report - and be at least partly assessed on - their conservation impact, will encourage and reward the changes in behavior suggested above. We are trying this in the Center for Integrative Conservation at the Chinese Academy of Science's Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden. Four years ago we started giving a modest financial reward (4000 RMB in research funds) for publications describing new species (in journals that rarely meet the impact factor thresholds for CAS's usually paper reward system) and this has worked well to boost formal descriptions of new taxa discovered during ecological and phylogenetic studies, but I can't see how this can be applied to conservation impact.

This is a true scenario and gap between science and policy and practice. Although sophisticated and advanced approaches are important for an in-depth understanding of conservation issues. But based on local experience, practitioners frequently do not incorporate or utilise the findings from conservation studies because of the sophisticated approach and findings that many find it difficult to grasp and apply. Despite these approaches are ideal, factors such as the capacity to implement and availability of resources is another factor that hinders effective practice and application. I think one of the solutions we can offer is to develop simple and holistic approaches (i.e., methodologies) that are easy-to-use and understand by practitioners. In addition, translation of scientific findings to popular science or guides may also help connect these gaps.

In this issue, the EU countries are very different from Georgia for the better. Usually, efforts to protect certain species of animals/plants held in protected areas are based on the results of research conducted by researchers. Especially if these results were published.

Here are some examples.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313475484_Removing_the_abyss_between_conservation_science_and_policy_decisions_in_Brazil

Best,

I don't see it that way. I work with conservation and here everyone has some level of scientific training, most of them doctor or master and scientific papers circulate with the same regularity as official documents. Many of the difficulties of the bridge between knowledge producers and decision makers lie with the average scientist. "Absolute truth" built without practical purpose boggles all stakeholders with data, information and knowledge without practical guidance. Isolationist academicism prefers "scientific freedom," and the rare times one boldly exposes oneself loses practicality by considering only one approach to the issue (if environmental, one forgets that one should consider social, economic, political issues ...). Usually the thoughtful decision or the middle ground does not please anyone and all sides accuse each other. An important factor in the gap between decision makers and knowledge producers is that the latter purposely distance themselves. The situation comes to the point that doctors who work with management are accused of not producing science. Managers are thirsty for knowledge and researchers love to contribute, but things just have to be conducted differently than either of them thinks, he soon "hurts, says he doesn't play anymore, takes his ball with him"

Hi everyone,

A group of researchers in Switzerland recently conducted a survey to better understand the alleged science-practice gap (see below). Well, here’s an extract from their article’s abstract: «[...] Experience-based information sources (e.g. personal experience, direct exchange with colleagues and experts) are more important for professionals in nature conservation than evidence-based sources (e.g. various print products such as guidelines, specialized journals in national languages, text books targeted to professionals). They were also more often used. Articles from international scientific journals are hardly ever consulted by conservation professionals. It is thus important that scientists engage as experts and take time for direct personal contact and exchange with conservation professionals (e.g. by offering field trips). Given that professionals have little time in their daily business for searching and implementing new scientific knowledge and results, short, audience-targeted and synthetizing publications in national languages as well as specialized websites should be provided by researchers. These measures are key to reduce the gap between science and practice in nature conservation.»

The article by Fabian Y et al. (2019) can be found here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332589797_How_to_close_the_science-practice_gap_in_nature_conservation_Information_sources_used_by_practitioners

Cheers, Claudio

Hi everyone,

according to the survey referred to in my last reply (Sept. 25), practitioners are more or less politely ignoring the scientific literature, i.e. «our precious contribution» to conservation. Now, a colleague of mine and co-authors (see below) just published a similar article, based on a literature survey on amphibian chytridiomycosis mitigation. Turning the tables, they asked how useful our contributions really are, to aid and guide conservation projects. Well, «[...] these results suggest that although high quality science is accumulating on amphibian chytridiomycosis, often with important implications for mitigation, it leaves the challenge of imagining and developing solutions to would-be managers. To reinforce the connection between science and management, research on amphibian disease mitigation must go beyond the suggestion phase, increasing field trials and adaptive implementation in the real world. At the broader level, it is necessary to stimulate and strengthen applied research that converts basic knowledge into information that is immediately relevant to managers.»

The article by Canessa S et al. (2019) can be found here:

Article Mitigation of amphibian disease requires a stronger connecti...

Cheers, Claudio