Conservation, mismatch and the research–implementation gap
R. M. Jarvis A B , S. B. Borrelle A , B. Bollard Breen A and D. R. Towns AA Institute for Applied Ecology New Zealand, School of Applied Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
B Corresponding author. Email: rjarvis@aut.ac.nz
Pacific Conservation Biology 21(2) 105-107 https://doi.org/10.1071/PC14912
Submitted: 21 October 2014 Accepted: 3 December 2014 Published: 15 May 2015
Journal Compilation © CSIRO Publishing 2015 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Despite calls to better link research and practice, the gap between knowing and doing continues to limit conservation success. Here we report on the outcomes from a workshop at the Society for Conservation Biology Oceania Conference 2014 on bridging the research–implementation gap. The workshop highlighted how the gap is still very real in conservation and the importance of bringing together researchers and practitioners to discuss their work. Workshop participants discussed how the research–implementation gap influenced their conservation efforts, identified five key mismatches between research and practice, and recommended seven ways we can work together to bridge the gap. The outcomes identified by the workshop are highly relevant to conservation efforts around the world.
Additional keywords: communication mismatch, institutional mismatch, knowing–doing gap, priority mismatch, scale mismatch, temporal mismatch.
References
Calver, M. C., Lilith, M., and Dickman, C. R. (2013). A ‘perverse incentive’ from bibliometrics: could National Research Assessment Exercises (NRAES) restrict literature availability for nature conservation? Scientometrics 95, 243–255.| A ‘perverse incentive’ from bibliometrics: could National Research Assessment Exercises (NRAES) restrict literature availability for nature conservation?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fuller, R. A., Lee, J. R., and Watson, J. E. M. (2014). Achieving open access to conservation science. Conservation Biology , .
| Achieving open access to conservation science.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25158890PubMed |
Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lombard, A. T., and Campbell, B. M. (2008). Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research–implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22, 610–617.
| Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research–implementation gap.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18477033PubMed |
Largent, M. A., and Lane, J. I. (2012). STAR METRICS and the science of science policy. The Review of Policy Research 29, 431–438.
| STAR METRICS and the science of science policy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Saunders, D. A., and Burbidge, A. A. (1988). Ecological theory and biological management of ecosystems. Occasional Paper No. 1/88. Department of Conservation and Land Management WA, Perth.
Soulé, M. E. (1985). What is conservation biology? Bioscience 35, 727–734.
| What is conservation biology?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
