Cargando…

Bridging research and practice in conservation

Calls for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence based are growing, and we agree evidence use in conservation practice needs improvement. However, evidence‐based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. In medicine, unlike in conservation, a well‐establi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kadykalo, Andrew N., Buxton, Rachel T., Morrison, Peter, Anderson, Christine M., Bickerton, Holly, Francis, Charles M., Smith, Adam C., Fahrig, Lenore
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9291548/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33738830
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13732
_version_ 1784749161354100736
author Kadykalo, Andrew N.
Buxton, Rachel T.
Morrison, Peter
Anderson, Christine M.
Bickerton, Holly
Francis, Charles M.
Smith, Adam C.
Fahrig, Lenore
author_facet Kadykalo, Andrew N.
Buxton, Rachel T.
Morrison, Peter
Anderson, Christine M.
Bickerton, Holly
Francis, Charles M.
Smith, Adam C.
Fahrig, Lenore
author_sort Kadykalo, Andrew N.
collection PubMed
description Calls for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence based are growing, and we agree evidence use in conservation practice needs improvement. However, 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 relevant to decision making, and make evidence easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them to practitioners faced with time‐sensitive and value‐laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, who we refer to as evidence bridges, should identify research topics based on the priorities of practitioners; synthesize evidence; prepare and distribute easy‐to‐find and easy‐to‐use 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 met all these criteria. 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 help reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. Although 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. Article Impact Statement: Evidence‐based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. We call for intermediary evidence bridges.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9291548
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92915482022-07-20 Bridging research and practice in conservation Kadykalo, Andrew N. Buxton, Rachel T. Morrison, Peter Anderson, Christine M. Bickerton, Holly Francis, Charles M. Smith, Adam C. Fahrig, Lenore Conserv Biol Essays Calls for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence based are growing, and we agree evidence use in conservation practice needs improvement. However, 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 relevant to decision making, and make evidence easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them to practitioners faced with time‐sensitive and value‐laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, who we refer to as evidence bridges, should identify research topics based on the priorities of practitioners; synthesize evidence; prepare and distribute easy‐to‐find and easy‐to‐use 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 met all these criteria. 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 help reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. Although 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. Article Impact Statement: Evidence‐based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. We call for intermediary evidence bridges. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-06-04 2021-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9291548/ /pubmed/33738830 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13732 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Essays
Kadykalo, Andrew N.
Buxton, Rachel T.
Morrison, Peter
Anderson, Christine M.
Bickerton, Holly
Francis, Charles M.
Smith, Adam C.
Fahrig, Lenore
Bridging research and practice in conservation
title Bridging research and practice in conservation
title_full Bridging research and practice in conservation
title_fullStr Bridging research and practice in conservation
title_full_unstemmed Bridging research and practice in conservation
title_short Bridging research and practice in conservation
title_sort bridging research and practice in conservation
topic Essays
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9291548/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33738830
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13732
work_keys_str_mv AT kadykaloandrewn bridgingresearchandpracticeinconservation
AT buxtonrachelt bridgingresearchandpracticeinconservation
AT morrisonpeter bridgingresearchandpracticeinconservation
AT andersonchristinem bridgingresearchandpracticeinconservation
AT bickertonholly bridgingresearchandpracticeinconservation
AT francischarlesm bridgingresearchandpracticeinconservation
AT smithadamc bridgingresearchandpracticeinconservation
AT fahriglenore bridgingresearchandpracticeinconservation