Practical recommendations to help students bridge the research-implementation gap and promote conservation

Centering relationships to place for more meaningful research and engagement

Research has the potential to simultaneously generate new knowledge and contribute meaningful social-ecological benefits; however, research processes and outcomes can also perpetuate extractive patterns that have manifested the climate, biodiversity, and social justice crises. One approach to enhance the societal value of research processes is to strengthen relationships with places of study and the peoples of those places. Deepening relational engagement with the social-ecological context and history of a place can lead to more accurate results and improved public trust in the scientific process and is particularly important for natural scientists who work at the interface of nature and society. We provide three actionable pathways that range from individual to systemic change to enhance place-based relationships within research systems: 1) deepen reflection and communication about relationships with places and peoples; 2) strengthen collaboration among research teams and partners; and 3) transform systems of knowledge creation to foster place-based roots. Action on any of these proposed pathways, but especially action taken across all three, can build empathy and connections to place and people, strengthening the meaningful impact of research both locally and globally.

What is conservation paleobiology? Tracking 20 years of research and development

Conservation paleobiology has coalesced over the last two decades since its formal coining, united by the goal of applying geohistorical records to inform the conservation, management, and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, the field is still attempting to form an identity distinct from its academic roots. Here, we ask a deceptively simple question: What is conservation paleobiology? To track its development as a field, we synthesize complementary perspectives from a survey of the scientific community that is familiar with conservation paleobiology and a systematic literature review of publications that use the term. We present an overview of conservation paleobiology’s research scope and compare survey participants’ perceptions of what it is and what it should be as a field. We find that conservation paleobiologists use a variety of geohistorical data in their work, although research is typified by near-time records of marine molluscs and terrestrial mammals collected over local to regional spatial scales. Our results also confirm the field’s broad disciplinary basis: survey participants indicated that conservation paleobiology can incorporate information from a wide range of disciplines spanning conservation biology, ecology, historical ecology, paleontology, and archaeology. Finally, we show that conservation paleobiologists have yet to reach a consensus on how applied the field should be in practice. The survey revealed that many participants thought the field should be more applied but that most do not currently engage with conservation practice. Reflecting on how conservation paleobiology has developed over the last two decades, we discuss opportunities to promote community cohesion, strengthen collaborations within conservation science, and align training priorities with the field’s identity as it continues to crystallize.

Lessons from bright-spots for advancing knowledge exchange at the interface of marine science and policy

Evidence-informed decision-making is in increasing demand given growing pressures on marine environments. A way to facilitate this is by knowledge exchange among marine scientists and decision-makers. While many barriers are reported in the literature, there are also examples whereby research has successfully informed marine decision-making (i.e., 'bright-spots'). Here, we identify and analyze 25 bright-spots from a wide range of marine fields, contexts, and locations to provide insights into how to improve knowledge exchange at the interface of marine science and policy. Through qualitative surveys we investigate what initiated the bright-spots, their goals, and approaches to knowledge exchange. We also seek to identify what outcomes/impacts have been achieved, the enablers of success, and what lessons can be learnt to guide future knowledge exchange efforts. Results show that a diversity of approaches were used for knowledge exchange, from consultative engagement to genuine knowledge co-production. We show that diverse successes at the interface of marine science and policy are achievable and include impacts on policy, people, and governance. Such successes were enabled by factors related to the actors, processes, support, context, and timing. For example, the importance of involving diverse actors and managing positive relationships is a key lesson for success. However, enabling routine success will require: 1) transforming the ways in which we train scientists to include a greater focus on interpersonal skills, 2) institutionalizing and supporting knowledge exchange activities in organizational agendas, 3) conceptualizing and implementing broader research impact metrics, and 4) transforming funding mechanisms to focus on need-based interventions, impact planning, and an acknowledgement of the required time and effort that underpin knowledge exchange activities.

Translating Marine Animal Tracking Data into Conservation Policy and Management

There have been efforts around the globe to track individuals of many marine species and assess their movements and distribution, with the putative goal of supporting their conservation and management. Determining whether, and how, tracking data have been successfully applied to address real-world conservation issues is, however, difficult. Here, we compile a broad range of case studies from diverse marine taxa to show how tracking data have helped inform conservation policy and management, including reductions in fisheries bycatch and vessel strikes, and the design and administration of marine protected areas and important habitats. Using these examples, we highlight pathways through which the past and future investment in collecting animal tracking data might be better used to achieve tangible conservation benefits.

A question of dissemination: Assessing the practices and implications of research in tropical landscapes

Current debates in the conservation sciences argue for better integration between research and practice, often citing the importance of the diffusion, dissemination and implementation of scientific knowledge for environmental management and policy. This paper focuses on a relatively well-researched protected area (Madidi National Park) in Bolivia in order to present different interpretations and understandings of the implications and availability of research findings. We draw on findings from quantitative and qualitative methods to determine the extent to which research carried out in the region was disseminated and/or implemented for management actions, and to understand subsequent implications for how local actors perceive the value of research and its role in management and conservation. We discuss the critical consequences of these findings for the future of conservation science and practice in biologically and culturally diverse landscapes, with an explicit call to action for academic institutions to support researchers in developing appropriate dissemination strategies.

A view of the global conservation job market and how to succeed in it

The high demand for conservation work is creating a need for conservation-focused training of scientists. Although many people with postsecondary degrees in biology are finding careers outside academia, many programs and mentors continue to prepare students to follow-in-the-footsteps of their professors. Unfortunately, information regarding how to prepare for today's conservation-based job market is limited in detail and scope. This problem is complicated by the differing needs of conservation organizations in both economically developed and developing regions worldwide. To help scientists identify the tools needed for conservation positions worldwide, we reviewed the current global conservation job market and identified skills required for success in careers in academia, government, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations. We also interviewed conservation professionals across all conservation sectors. Positions in nonprofit organizations were the most abundant, whereas academic jobs were only 10% of the current job market. The most common skills required across sectors were a strong disciplinary background, followed by analytical and technical skills. Academic positions differed the most from other types of positions in that they emphasized teaching as a top skill. Nonacademic jobs emphasized the need for excellent written and oral communication, as well as project-management experience. Furthermore, we found distinct differences across job locations. Positions in developing countries emphasized language and interpersonal skills, whereas positions in countries with advanced economies focused on publication history and technical skills. Our results were corroborated by the conservation professionals we interviewed. Based on our results, we compiled a nondefinitive list of conservation-based training programs that are likely to provide training for the current job market. Using the results of this study, scientists may be better able to tailor their training to maximize success in the conservation job market. Similarly, institutions can apply this information to create educational programs that produce graduates primed for long-term success.

A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science-practice gap in ecology and conservation

Applying scientific knowledge to confront societal challenges is a difficult task, an issue known as the science-practice gap. In Ecology and Conservation, scientific evidence has been seldom used directly to support decision-making, despite calls for an increasing role of ecological science in developing solutions for a sustainable future. To date, multiple causes of the science-practice gap and diverse approaches to link science and practice in Ecology and Conservation have been proposed. To foster a transparent debate and broaden our understanding of the difficulties of using scientific knowledge, we reviewed the perceived causes of the science-practice gap, aiming to: (i) identify the perspectives of ecologists and conservation scientists on this problem, (ii) evaluate the predominance of these perspectives over time and across journals, and (iii) assess them in light of disciplines studying the role of science in decision-making. We based our review on 1563 sentences describing causes of the science-practice gap extracted from 122 articles and on discussions with eight scientists on how to classify these sentences. The resulting process-based framework describes three distinct perspectives on the relevant processes, knowledge and actors in the science-practice interface. The most common perspective assumes only scientific knowledge should support practice, perceiving a one-way knowledge flow from science to practice and recognizing flaws in knowledge generation, communication, and/or use. The second assumes that both scientists and decision-makers should contribute to support practice, perceiving a two-way knowledge flow between science and practice through joint knowledge-production/integration processes, which, for several reasons, are perceived to occur infrequently. The last perspective was very rare, and assumes scientists should put their results into practice, but they rarely do. Some causes (e.g. cultural differences between scientists and decision-makers) are shared with other disciplines, while others seem specific to Ecology and Conservation (e.g. inadequate research scales). All identified causes require one of three general types of solutions, depending on whether the causal factor can (e.g. inadequate research questions) or cannot (e.g. scientific uncertainty) be changed, or if misconceptions (e.g. undervaluing abstract knowledge) should be solved. The unchanged predominance of the one-way perspective over time may be associated with the prestige of evidence-based conservation and suggests that debates in Ecology and Conservation lag behind trends in other disciplines towards bidirectional views ascribing larger roles to decision-makers. In turn, the two-way perspective seems primarily restricted to research traditions historically isolated from mainstream conservation biology. All perspectives represented superficial views of decision-making by not accounting for limits to human rationality, complexity of decision-making contexts, fuzzy science-practice boundaries, ambiguity brought about by science, and different types of knowledge use. However, joint knowledge-production processes from the two-way perspective can potentially allow for democratic decision-making processes, explicit discussions of values and multiple types of science use. To broaden our understanding of the interface and foster productive science-practice linkages, we argue for dialogue among different research traditions within Ecology and Conservation, joint knowledge-production processes between scientists and decision-makers and interdisciplinarity across Ecology, Conservation and Political Science in both research and education.