Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Closing the Gap Between Knowledge and Implementation in Conservation Science: Concluding Remarks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Closing the Knowledge-Implementation Gap in Conservation Science

Part of the book series: Wildlife Research Monographs ((WIREMO,volume 4))

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the central problems and potential solutions that emerged from this book to address the knowledge–implementation gap in conservation science. On the knowledge production side, more incentives and training for multi- and interdisciplinary research and increased co-production with stakeholders outside of academia are required to foster research aligned with needs of conservation practitioners, decision-makers, and local communities. Particularly in the Global South, capacity building supporting conservation efforts is warranted, with citizen science emerging as a discipline with huge potential to underpin these efforts. Bridging and boundary organizations connecting different stakeholders across scales and jurisdictions are important conduits for knowledge mobilization, although their maturity level varies across continents. Finally, knowledge implementation is highly context-dependent and at various development stages globally. Common denominators of effective knowledge implementation are the involvement of multi- and interdisciplinary teams, highly accessible and standardized biodiversity data, and the inclusion of local knowledge. This chapter also offers additional perspectives to resolve the gap that were not fully covered by the book. For example, understanding societal structures and human decision-making processes, and how they influence information flow within a community, has the potential to refine communication strategies and increase the number of people supporting long-term conservation action.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, Dickson B, Elliott J, Hutton J, Roe D, Vira B, Wolmer W (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306(5699):1146–1149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Adán A-F, Castillo A, Cárdenas-Tapia M, Moreno-Casasola P, Marín A (2020) Scientific research and information flow in the small-scale fisheries of the central Mexican Pacific coast. Ocean Coast Manag 198:105324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aganyira K, Kabumbuli R, Muwanika VB, Nampanzira D, Tabuti JRS, Sheil D (2019) Learning from failure: lessons from a forest-based carbon and charcoal project. Int For Rev 21(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Sims KRE, Healy A, Holland MB (2010) Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. PNAS 107(22):9996–10001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Arlidge W, Firth J, Alfaro-Shigueto J, Ibanez-Erquiaga B, Mangel J, Squires D, Milner-Gulland EJ (2020) Assessing information-sharing networks within small-scale fisheries and the implications for conservation interventions

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora-Jonsson S (2011) Virtue and vulnerability: discourses on women, gender and climate change. Glob Environ Chang 21(2):744–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora-Jonsson S (2014) Forty years of gender research and environmental policy: where do we stand? Women’s Stud Int Forum 47(Part B):295–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan K, Christie P, Clark DA, Cullman G, Curran D, Durbin TJ, Epstein G, Greenberg A, Nelseon MP, Sandlos J, Stedman R, Teel TL, Thomas R, Veríssimo D, Wyborn C (2017) Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol Conserv 205:93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett NJ, Calò A, Di Franco A, Niccolini F, Marzo D, Domina I, Dimitriadis C, Sobrado F, Santoni M-C, Charbonnel E, Trujillo M, Garcia-Charton J, Seddiki L, Cappanera V, Grbin J, Kastelic L, Milazzo M, Guidetti P (2020) Social equity and marine protected areas: perceptions of small-scale fishermen in the Mediterranean Sea. Biol Conserv 244:108531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bixler RP (2021) The knowledge network: identifying actors and structural dimensions of knowledge transfer. In: Ferreira CC, Klütsch CFC (eds) Closing the knowledge-implementation gap in conservation science - Evidence transfer across spatiotemporal scales and different stakeholders. Springer Publishers, Xx pages

    Google Scholar 

  • Call M, Sellers S (2019) How does gendered vulnerability shape the adoption and impact of sustainable livelihood interventions in an era of global climate change? Environ Res Lett 14(8):083005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catalano AS, Redford K, Margoluis R, Knight AT (2018) Black swans, cognition, and the power of learning from failure. Conserv Biol 32(3):584–596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Catalano AS, Lyons-White J, Mills MM, Knight AT (2019) Learning from published project failures in conservation. Biol Conserv 238:108223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chassé P, Blatrix C, Frascaria-Lacoste N (2020) What is wrong between ecological science and policy? Ecol Lett 23(12):1736–1738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman EA, Mwangi E (2013) Women’s participation in forest management: a cross-country analysis. Glob Environ Chang 23(1):193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2010) Aichi Target 11 – Technical Rationale Extended, COP/10/INF/12/Rev.1. https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/rationale/target-11/

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2011) Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2018) COP/14/INF/31 Engaging business in the development of a post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Prepared for the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Fourteenth meeting. Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, 17–29 November 2018. Items 13 and 22 of the provisional agenda. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/9b08/d19e/1fbeec1724642fe73810e71f/cop-14-inf-31-en.pdf

  • Cook NJ, Grillos T, Andersson KP (2019) Gender quotas increase the equality and effectiveness of climate policy interventions. Nat Clim Chang 9:330–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowling RM (2014) Let’s get serious about human behavior and conservation. Conserv Lett 7(3):147–148

    Google Scholar 

  • David P, Rundle-Thiele S, Pang B, Knox K, Parkinson J, Hussenoeder F (2019) Engaging the dog owner community in the design of an effective koala aversion program. Soc Mark Q 25(1):55–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson N, Martin A, Danielsen F (2018) Assessing equity in protected area governance: approaches to promote just and effective conservation. Conserv Lett 11(2):e12388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre-Castro M, Fröcklin S, Börjesson S, Okupnik J, Jiddawi NS (2017) Gender analysis for better coastal management – increasing our understanding of social-ecological seascapes. Mar Policy 83:62–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Lange E, Milner-Gulland EJ, Keane A (2019) Improving environmental interventions by understanding information flows. Trends Ecol Evol 34(11):1034–1047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Silva GC, Regan EC, Pollard EHB, Addison PFE (2019) The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: understanding appetite and addressing challenges. Bus Strateg Environ 28(7):1481–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (1998) Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator experiments. Econ J 108(448):726–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman RS, Law EA, Bennett NJ, Ives CD, Thorn JPR, Wilson KA (2018) How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research. Environ Res Lett 13(5):053001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geldmann J, Manica A, Burgess ND, Coad L, Balmford A (2019) A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116(46):23209–23215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Giakoumi S, McGowan J, Mills M, Beger M, Bustamante RH, Charles A, Christie P, Fox M, Garcia-Borboroglu P, Gelcich S, Guidetti P, Mackelworth P, Maina JM, McCook L, Micheli F, Morgan LE, Mumby PJ, Reyes LM, White A, Grorud-Colvert K, Possingham HP (2018) Revisiting “success” and “failure” of marine protected areas: a conservation scientist perspective. Front Mar Sci 5:223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godet L, Devictor V (2018) What conservation does. Trends Ecol Evol 33(10):720–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green KM, Crawford BA, Williamson KA, DeWan AA (2019) A meta-analysis of social marketing campaigns to improve global conservation outcomes. Soc Market Q 25(1):69–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes G (2007) Protection, politics and protest: understanding resistance to conservation. Conserv Soc 5(2):184–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes G, Cavanagh CJ (2016) A review of the social impacts of neoliberal conservation: formations, inequalities, contestations. Geoforum 75:199–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horgan FG, Kudavidanage EP (2021) Translating research into conservation actions through multi-sector collaboration in tropical Asia. In: Ferreira CC, Klütsch CFC (eds) Closing the knowledge-implementation gap in conservation science – evidence transfer across spatiotemporal scales and different stakeholders. Springer, New York, pp 371–411

    Google Scholar 

  • International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2020). https://www.iucnredlist.org/

  • Jones N, Graziano M, Dimitrakopoulos PG (2020) Social impacts of European protected areas and policy recommendations. Environ Sci Pol 112:134–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan-Hallam M, Bennett NJ (2018) Adaptive social impact management for conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 32(2):304–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kidd LR, Garrard GE, Bekessy SA, Mills M, Camilleri AR, Fidler F, Fielding KS, Gordon A, Gregg EA, Kusmanoff AM, Louis W, Moon K, Robinson JA, Selinske MJ, Shanahan D, Adams VM (2019) Messaging matters: a systematic review of the conservation messaging literature. Biol Conserv 236:92–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King G, Schneer B, White A (2017) How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas. Science 358(6364):776–780

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiss G (2014) Why should the public participate in environmental decision-making? Periodica Polytech Soc Manage Sci 22(1):13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiber D, Harris LM, Vincent ACJ (2015) Gender and small-scale fisheries: a case for counting women and beyond. Fish Fish 16(4):547–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause MS, Droste N, Matzdorf B (2021) What makes businesses commit to nature conservation? Bus Strateg Environ 30(2):741–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mammides C (2020) Evidence from eleven countries in four continents suggests that protected areas are not associated with higher poverty rates. Biol Conserv 241:108353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizrahi M, Diedrich A, Weeks R, Pressey RL (2018) A systematic review of the socioeconomic factors that influence how marine protected areas impact on ecosystems and livelihoods. Soc Nat Resour 32(1):4–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Blackman D (2014) A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conserv Biol 28(5):1167–1177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Adams VM, Cooke B (2019) Shared personal reflections on the need to broaden the scope of conservation social science. People Nat 1(4):426–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir B (2020) Should scientists be activists? https://www.chemistryworld.com/careers/should-scientists-be-activists/4011293.article

  • Naidoo R, Gerkey D, Hole D, Pfaff A, Ellis AM, Golden CD, Herrera D, Johnson K, Mulligan M, Ricketts TH, Fisher B (2019) Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world. Sci Adv 5(4):eaav3006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldekop JA, Holmes G, Harris WE, Evans KL (2016) A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv Biol 30(1):133–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Owens B (2018) Half of Canada’s government scientists still feel muzzled. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/half-canada-s-government-scientists-still-feel-muzzled

  • Pettorelli N, Brotherton PNM, Davies ZG, Ockendon N, Sutherland WJ, Vickery JA (2020) Successfully translating conservation research into practice and policy: concluding thoughts. In: Sutherland WJ, Brotherton PNM, Davies ZG, Ockenden N, Pettorelli N, Vickery JA (eds) Conservation research, policy and practice (Ecological Reviews, pp 325–328). Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-1-108-63821-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp Learn J (2017) Canadian scientists explain exactly how their government silenced science. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/canadian-scientists-open-about-how-their-government-silenced-science-180961942/

  • Riggs RA, Langston JD, Phann S (2020) Actor network analysis to leverage improvements in conservation and development outcomes in Cambodia. Ecol Soc 25(4):28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandbrook C, Adams WM, Büscher B, Vira B (2013) Social research and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 27(6):1487–1490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sbragaglia V, Correia RA, Coco S, Arlinghaus R (2020) Data mining on YouTube reveals fisher group-specific harvesting patterns and social engagement in recreational anglers and spearfishers. ICES J Mar Sci 77(6):2234–2244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith T, Addison P, Smith M, Beagley L (2018) Mainstreaming international biodiversity goals for the private sector: main report & case studies, JNCC report no. 613, JNCC, Peterborough, ISSN 0963–8091. Retrieved from http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-7678

  • Smith T, Beagley L, Bull J, Milner-Gulland EJ, Smith M, Vorhies F, Addison PFE (2020) Biodiversity means business: reframing global biodiversity goals for the private sector. Conserv Lett 13(1):e12690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • St. Martin K, Hall-Arber M (2008) The missing layer: geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 32(5):779–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapp A, Rundle-Thiele S (2016) Integrating social marketing into a multi-disciplinary environment behaviour change: past present and future. In: Spotswood F (ed) Beyond behaviour change: key issues, interdisciplinary approaches and future directions. University of Bristol; The Policy Press, Bristol, pp 135–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toivonen T, Heikinheimo V, Fink C, Hausmann A, Hiippala T, Järv O, Tenkanen H, Di Minin E (2019) Social media data for conservation science: a methodological overview. Biol Conserv 233:298–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toomey AH, Knight AT, Barlow J (2017) Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. Conserv Lett 10(5):619–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turini T, Dörler D, Richter A, Heigl F, Bonn A (2018) The threefold potential of environmental citizen science – generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and enabling civic participation. Biol Conserv 225:176–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veríssimo D (2019) The past, present, and future of using social marketing to conserve biodiversity. Soc Mark Q 25(1):3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward C, Stringer LC, Holmes G (2018) Protected area co-management and perceived livelihood impacts. J Environ Manag 228:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum [WEF] (2019) The global risks report 2019, 14th edn. Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright AJ, Veríssimo D, Pilfold K, Parsons ECM, Ventre K, Cousins J, Jefferson R, Koldewey H, Llewellyn F, McKinley E (2015) Competitive outreach in the 21st century: why we need conservation marketing. Ocean Coast Manage 115:41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WWF (2020) Living planet report 2020 – bending the curve of biodiversity loss. In: Almond REA, Grooten M, Petersen T (eds). WWF, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav SS, Lal R (2018) Vulnerability of women to climate change in arid and semi-arid regions: the case of India and South Asia. J Arid Environ 149:4–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zafra-Calvo N, Garmendia E, Pascual U, Palomo I, Gross-Camp N, Brockington D, Cortes-Vazquez J-A, Coolsaet B, Burgess ND (2019) Progress toward equitably managed protected areas in Aichi target 11: a global survey. Bioscience 69(3):191–197

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Environment and Natural Resources, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Svanvik, Norway

    Cornelya F. C. Klütsch

  2. Department of Conservation Biology, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

    Catarina C. Ferreira

Authors
  1. Cornelya F. C. Klütsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catarina C. Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cornelya F. C. Klütsch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservation Biology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

    Catarina C. Ferreira

  2. Division of Environment and Natural Resources, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Svanvik, Norway

    Cornelya F. C. Klütsch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Klütsch, C.F.C., Ferreira, C.C. (2021). Closing the Gap Between Knowledge and Implementation in Conservation Science: Concluding Remarks. In: Ferreira, C.C., Klütsch, C.F.C. (eds) Closing the Knowledge-Implementation Gap in Conservation Science. Wildlife Research Monographs, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81085-6_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation