Literature DB >> 21790784

How research-prioritization exercises affect conservation policy.

Murray A Rudd1.   

Abstract

Conservation scientists are concerned about the apparent lack of impact their research is having on policy. By better aligning research with policy needs, conservation science might become more relevant to policy and increase its real-world salience in the conservation of biological diversity. Consequently, some conservation scientists have embarked on a variety of exercises to identify research questions that, if answered, would provide the evidence base with which to develop and implement effective conservation policies. I synthesized two existing approaches to conceptualizing research impacts. One widely used approach classifies the impacts of research as conceptual, instrumental, and symbolic. Conceptual impacts occur when policy makers are sensitized to new issues and change their beliefs or thinking. Instrumental impacts arise when scientific research has a direct effect on policy decisions. The use of scientific research results to support established policy positions are symbolic impacts. The second approach classifies research issues according to whether scientific knowledge is developed fully and whether the policy issue has been articulated clearly. I believe exercises to identify important research questions have objectives of increasing the clarity of policy issues while strengthening science-policy interactions. This may facilitate the transmission of scientific knowledge to policy makers and, potentially, accelerate the development and implementation of effective conservation policy. Other, similar types of exercises might also be useful. For example, identification of visionary science questions independent of current policy needs, prioritization of best practices for transferring scientific knowledge to policy makers, and identification of questions about human values and their role in political processes could all help advance real-world conservation science. It is crucial for conservation scientists to understand the wide variety of ways in which their research can affect policy and be improved systematically. ©2011 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21790784     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01712.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  12 in total

1.  Crossing Science-Policy-Societal Boundaries to Reduce Scientific and Institutional Uncertainty in Small-Scale Fisheries.

Authors:  Abigail M Sutton; Murray A Rudd
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Advancing the adverse outcome pathway framework-An international horizon scanning approach.

Authors:  Carlie A LaLone; Gerald T Ankley; Scott E Belanger; Michelle R Embry; Geoff Hodges; Dries Knapen; Sharon Munn; Edward J Perkins; Murray A Rudd; Daniel L Villeneuve; Maurice Whelan; Catherine Willett; Xiaowei Zhang; Markus Hecker
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.742

3.  A narrative policy approach to environmental conservation.

Authors:  Ricky N Lawton; Murray A Rudd
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2014-03-14       Impact factor: 5.129

Review 4.  A review and meta-analysis of collaborative research prioritization studies in ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental science.

Authors:  Cody J Dey; Adam I Rego; Jonathan D Midwood; Marten A Koops
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Exploring Institutional Mechanisms for Scientific Input into the Management Cycle of the National Protected Area Network of Peru: Gaps and Opportunities.

Authors:  M D López-Rodríguez; H Castro; M Arenas; J M Requena-Mullor; A Cano; E Valenzuela; J Cabello
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 3.266

Review 6.  Addressing priority questions of conservation science with palaeontological data.

Authors:  Wolfgang Kiessling; Nussaïbah B Raja; Vanessa Julie Roden; Samuel T Turvey; Erin E Saupe
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Quantifying research interests in 7,521 mammalian species with h-index: a case study.

Authors:  Jessica Tam; Malgorzata Lagisz; Will Cornwell; Shinichi Nakagawa
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2022-08-13       Impact factor: 7.658

8.  A novel and cost-effective monitoring approach for outcomes in an Australian biodiversity conservation incentive program.

Authors:  David B Lindenmayer; Charles Zammit; Simon J Attwood; Emma Burns; Claire L Shepherd; Geoff Kay; Jeff Wood
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Credibility and advocacy in conservation science.

Authors:  Cristi C Horton; Tarla Rai Peterson; Paulami Banerjee; Markus J Peterson
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 6.560

10.  Priority Questions and Horizon Scanning for Conservation: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Salit Kark; William J Sutherland; Uri Shanas; Keren Klass; Hila Achisar; Tamar Dayan; Yael Gavrieli; Ronit Justo-Hanani; Yael Mandelik; Nir Orion; David Pargament; Michelle Portman; Orna Reisman-Berman; Uriel N Safriel; Gad Schaffer; Noa Steiner; Israel Tauber; Noam Levin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.