Abstract
Natural resources management (NRM) is complex and relies on decisions supported by evidence, including Western-based science (WBS) and Indigenous and local knowledge. However, it has been shown that there is a disconnect between WBS and its application, whereby managers often draw on non-empirical sources of information (i.e., intuition or advice from colleagues). This article focuses on the role of WBS in decisions made in management of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the province of British Columbia, Canada. We conducted open-ended interviews with NRM branches of Indigenous and parliamentary governments, as well as with nongovernmental stakeholder groups, to examine (a) sources of WBS consulted in decision-making and (b) barriers to accessing WBS by managers. We found that respondents involved with NRM relied on a diverse set of sources for WBS, seldom relying exclusively on one source. However, respondents relied more on internal sources (government databases) compared to external ones (peer-reviewed journal articles). We also found that respondents described WBS as valuable and generally accessible, yet barriers were identified with respect to the interface and organization of government grey data and literature, paywalls associated with peer-reviewed journals and articles, and institutional capacity, time, and support. We recommend strategies and tools to facilitate accessibility of WBS in support of bridging the knowledge-action divide, including increased publishing of open access data/articles, systematic reviews, use of knowledge brokers, specialized WBS training, and knowledge co-production. It is our hope that identification of barriers and the implementation of improved access to WBS will result in more effective NRM by giving managers access to the tools and knowledge they need for evidence-based decision-making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
There are no linked research datasets for this submission because the data that have been used were collected from human participants with confidentiality and anonymity guarantees under our certificate of ethics approval: University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board (File Number: 02-18- 08). Archiving the data openly may compromise the confidentiality and anonymity of human participants.
Code availability
Thematic coding will be made available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
References
Addison PFE, Cook CN, de Bie K (2016) Conservation practitioners’ perspectives on decision triggers for evidence-based management. J Appl Ecol 53:1351–1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12734
Andrachuk M, Kadykalo AN, Cooke SJ, Young N, Nguyen VM (2021) Fisheries knowledge exchange and mobilization through a network of policy and practice actors. Environ Sci Policy 125:157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.023
Arlettaz R, Schaub M, Fournier J, Reichlin TS, Sierro A, Watson JEM, Braunish V (2010) From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. BioScience 60:835–842. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.10
Artelle KA, Reynolds JD, Treves A, Walsh JC, Paquet PC, Darimont CT (2018) Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management. Sci Adv 4:eaao0167. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao0167
Axinn W, Pearce L (2006) Mixed method data collection strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bayless HR, Wilcox A, Stewart GB, Randall NP (2012) Does research infromation meet the needs of stakeholders? Exploring evidence selection in the global management of invasive species. Evid Policy 8:37–56. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426412X620128
Brugnach M, Dewulf ARPJ, Henriksen HJ, Van der Keur P (2011) More is not always better: coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. J Environ Manag 92:78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.08.029
Cook CN, Carter RW, Fuller RA, Hockings M (2013) Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions. J Environ Manag 113:341–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.002
Cook CN, Hockings M, Carter RW (2010) Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Front Ecol Environ 8:181–186. https://doi.org/10.1890/090020
Cook CN, Mascia MB, Schwartz MW, Possingham HP, Fuller RA (2012) Achieving conservation sciencce that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conserv Biol 27:669
Cooke SJ, Nguyen VM, Chapman JM, Reid AJ, Landsman SJ, Young N, Hinch SG et al. (2020a) Knowledge co-production: a pathway to effective fisheries management, conservation, and governance. Fisheries 46:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10512
Cooke SJ, Rytwinski T, Taylor JJ, Nyboer EA, Nguyen VM, Bennett JR, Young N, Aitken S, Auld G, Lane JF et al. (2020b) On “success” in applied environmental research—What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved? Env Rev 28(4):357–72
Cooke SJ, Jeanson AL, Bishop I, Bryan BA, Chen C, Cvitanovic C, Fen Y et al. (2021) On the theory-practice gap in the environmental realm: Perspectives from and for diverse environmental professionals. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 3:243–255
Creswell JW (2014) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 4th ed. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles
Cvitanovic C, Fulton CJ, Wilson SK, van Kerkhoff L, Cripps IL, Muthiga N (2014) Utility of primary scientific literature to environmental managers: an international case study on coral-dominated marine protected areas. Ocean Coast Manag 102:72–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.003
Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L, Wilson SK, Dobbs K, Marshall NA (2015) Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decisionmakers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast Manag 112:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.002
Decker DJ, Enck JW (1996) Human dimensions of wildlife management: knowledge for agency survival in the 21st century. Hum Dimens Wildl 1:60–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209609359062
Decker DJ, Riley SJ, Siemer WF (2012) Human dimensions of wildlife management. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Downey H, Amano T, Cadotte CN, Cooke SJ, Haddaway NR, Jones JPG et al. (2021) Training future generations to deliver evidence-based conservation and ecosystem management. Ecol Solut Evid 2:e12032. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12032
Fabian Y, Bollman K, Brand K, Heiri C, Olschewski R, Rigling A, Stofer S, Holderegger R (2019) How to close the science-practice gap in nature conservation? Information sources used by practitioners. Biol Con 235:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.011
Ford AT, Ali AH, Colla SR, Cooke SJ, Lamb CT, Pittman J, Shiffman DS, Singh NJ (2021) Understanding and avoiding misplaced efforts in conservation. FACETS 6:252–271. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0058
Girling K, Gibbs K (2019) Evidence in action: An analysis of information gathering and use by canadian parliamentarians. Evidence for Democracy. https://www.springer.com/journal/26 or https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/en/research/reports/evidence-action7/submission-guidelines. Accessed July 15 2021
Gossa C, Fisher M, Milner-Gulland EJ (2014) The research–implementation gap: how practitioners and researchers from developing countries perceive the role of peer-reviewed literature in conservation science. Oryx 49:80–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313001634
Government of British Columbia (2017) Statutory decision-makers. BC Environment and Climate Change Strategy. https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/statutory-decision-makers. Accessed July 6 2021
Guan J, Zhao Q (2013) The impact of university–industry collaboration networks on innovation in nanobiopharmaceuticals. Technol Forecast Soc Change 80:1271–1286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.11.013
Harris DC (2008) Landing native fisheries: Indian reserves and fishing rights in British Columbia, 1849-1925. UBC Press.
Heer T, Girling K (2020) Eyes on Evidence: A framework for evaluating evidence use in Canada. Evidence for Democracy. https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/en/research/reports/eyes-evidence. Accessed October 20 2021
Jarvis RM, Borelle SB, Forsdick NJ, Perez-Hammerle K, Dubois NS, Griffin SR et al. (2020) Navigating spaces between conservation research and practice: Are we making progress? Ecol Solut Evid 1:e12028. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12028
Kadykalo AN, Cooke SJ, Young N (2020) Conservation genomics from a practitioner lens: evaluating the research-implementation gap in a managed freshwater fishery. Biol Con 241:108350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108350
Kadykalo AN, Cooke SJ, Young N (2021a) The role of western-based scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation. People Nat 3:610–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10194
Kadykalo AN, Buxton RT, Morrison P, Anderson CM, Bickerton H, Francis CM, Smith AC, Fahrig L (2021b) Bridging research and practice in conservation. Conser. Biol. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13732
Kadykalo AN, Haddaway NR, Rytwinski T, Cooke SJ (2021c) Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID-19 environmental science and a fit-for-purpose evidence base. Ecol Solut Evid 2:e12041. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12041
Karieva P, Marvier M (2012) What is Conservation Science? BioScience 62:962–969. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5
Koontz TM, Thomas C (2018) Use of science in collaborative environmental management: evidence from local watershed partnerships in the Puget Sound. Environ Sci Policy 88:17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.007
Krausman P, Cain JW (2013) Wildlife management and conservation: contemporary principles and practices. John Hopkins Unviersity Press, Baltimore
Latulippe N, Klenk N (2020) Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 42:7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010
Lemieux CJ, Groulx MW, Bocking S, Beechey TJ, Hutchings J (2018) Evidence-based decision-making in Canada’s protected areas organizations: Implications for management effectiveness. Facets 3:392–414. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2017-0107
Mach KJ, Lemos MC, Meadow AM, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Arnott JC et al. (2020) Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 42:30–37
McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D (2000) Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimtes of itnervation effectivness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 356:1228–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02786-0
Nguyen VM, Young N, Cooke SJ (2017) A roadmap for knowledge exchange and mobilization research in conservation and natural resource management. Conserv Biol 31:789–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12857
Nguyen VM, Young N, Corriveau M, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ (2018) What is “usable” knowledge? Perceived barriers for integrating new knowledge into management of an iconic Canadian fishery. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 76:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2017-0305
Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A et al. (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat Sust 3:182–90
Organ JF, Geist V, Mahoney SP, Williams S, Krausman PR, Batcheller GR et al. (2012) The North American model of wildlife conservation. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12(04). The Wildlife Society, Bethesda
Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Transition towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour Manag 21:49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9040-4
Pielke JRA (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Powell L (2020) Principles for management of fisheries and wildlife: The manager as decision-maker. Cognella Academic Publishing, San Diego
Pullin AS, Knight TM (2001) Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers from medicine and public health. Biol Conserv 15:50–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.99499.x
Pullin AS, Knight TM (2003) Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach. J Nat Conserv 11:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1078/1617-1381-0004
Pullin AS, Knight TM, Stone DA, Charman K (2004) Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biol Conserv 119:245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.11.007
Pullin AS, Knight TM (2005) Assessing conservation management’s evidence base: a survey of management-plan compilers in the United Kingdom and Australia. Conserv Biol 19:1989–1996. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00287.x
Reed MG, Abernethy P (2018) Facilitating co-production of transdisciplinary knowledge for sustainability: working with Canadian Biosphere Reserve practitioners. Soc Nat Resour 31:39–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1383545
Riley SJ, Decker DJ, Carpenter LH, Organ JF, Siemer WF, Mattfeld GF, Parsons G (2002) The essence of wildlife management. Wildl Soc 30:585–593. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3784519
Rose D (2017) The use of research in the UK parliament: lessons for conservation scientists. BES Bull 48:32–35
Roux DJ, Kingsford RT, Cook CN, Carruthers J, Dickson K, Hockings M (2019) The case for embedding researchers in conservation agencies. Conserv Biol 33:1266–1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13324
Roux DJ, Rogers KH, Biggs HC, Ashton PJ, Sergeant, A (2006) Bridging the science-management divide: Moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol. Soc. 11:4 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/
Rytwinski T, Taylor JJ, Donaldson LA, Britton JR, Browne DR, Gresswell RE et al. (2019) The effectiveness of non-native fish removal techniques in freshwater ecosystems: a systematic review. Environ Rev 27:71–94. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2018-0049
Rytwinski T, Cooke SJ, Taylor JJ, Roche DG, Smith PA, Mitchell GW et al. (2021) Acting in the face of evidentiary ambiguity, bias, and absence arising from systematic reviews in applied environmental science. Sci Total Environ 775:145122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145122
Salafsky N, Boshoven J, Burivalova Z, Dubois NS, Gomez A, Johnson A et al. (2019) Defining and using evidence in conservation practice. Conserv Sci Pract 1:e27. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.27
Singh GG, Tam J, Sisk TD, Klain SC, Mach ME, Martone RG, Chan KMA (2014) A more social science: barriers and incentives for scientists engaging in policy. Front Ecol Environ 12:161–166. https://doi.org/10.1890/130011
Smith T, Gibbs K, Westwood A, Taylor S, Walsh K (2017) Oversight at risk: The state of government science in british columbia, an assessment of research capacity, communication and independece in British Columbia provincial ministries and departments. Evidence for Democracy. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35901.97769
Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, Gaffney O, Ludwig C (2015) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. Anthropocene Rev 2:81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785
Stephenson PJ, Bowles-Newark N, Regan E, Stanwell-Smith D, Diagana M, Höft R et al. (2017) Unblocking the flow of biodiversity data for decision-making in Africa. Biol Conserv 213:335–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.003
Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM (2004) The need for evidence based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19:305–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018
Sutherland WJ, Taylor NG, MacFarlane D, Amano T, Christie AP, Dicks LV et al. (2019) Building a tool to overcome barriers in research-implementation spaces: The conservation evidence database. Biol Conserv 238:108199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108199
Sutherland WJ, Wordley CFR (2018) A fresh approach to evidence synthesis. Nature 558:364–366. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05472-8
Thomas DR (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 27:237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
Thomas‐Walters L, Nyboer EA, Taylor JJ, Rytwinski T, Lane JF, Young N, Bennett JR, Nguyen VM, Harron N, et al (2021) An optimistic outlook on the use of evidence syntheses to inform environmental decision‐making. Conserv. Sci. Practice. e426.
Toomey AH, Knight AT, Barlow J (2017) Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. Conserv Lett 10:619–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12315
Walsh JC, Dicks LV, Raymond CM, Sutherland WJ (2019) A typology of barriers and enablers of scientific evidence use in conservation practice. J Environ Manag 250:109481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109481
Walsh JC, Dicks LV, Sutherland WJ (2015) The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners’ management decisions. Conserv Biol 29:88–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12370
Westgate MJ, Haddaway NR, Cheng SH, McIntosh EJ, Marshall C, Lindenmayer DB (2018) Software support for environmental evidence synthesis. Nat Ecol Evol 2:588–590. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0502-x
Whitten T, Holmes D, MacKinnon K (2001) Conservation biology: a displacement behavior for academia? Conserv Biol 15:1e3
Whyte K (2017) Indigenous climate change studies: indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. Engl Lang Notes 55:153–162. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2925514
Young JC, Rose DC, Mumby HS, Benitez-Capistros F, Derrick CJ, Finch T, Garcia C et al. (2018) A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research. Methods Ecol Evol 9:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12828
Young KD, Van Aarde RJ (2011) Science and elephant management decisions in South Africa. Biol Conserv 144:876–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.11.023
Young N, Corriveau M, Nguyen VM, Cooke SJ, Hinch SG (2016a) How do potential knowledge users evaluate new claims about a contested resource? Problems of power and politics in knowledge exchange and mobilization. J Environ Manag 184:380–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.006
Young N, Gingras I, Nguyen VM, Cooke SJ, Hinch SG (2013) Mobilizing new science into management practice: the challenge of biotelemetry for fisheries management, a case study of Canada’s Fraser River. J Int Wildl Law Policy 16:328–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2013.805074
Acknowledgements
MLP is supported by the Queen Elizabeth II Scholarship in Science and Technology (QEII-GSST). ANK and SJC are supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We graciously thank all 65 interview participants.
Funding
This research was supported by Genome British Columbia/Genome Canada grant 242RTE administered by the University of British Columbia.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Consent for publication
All participants gave informed consent to publish results.
Consent to participate
All participants gave voluntary and informed consent to participate in the study. A copy of the consent form will be made available upon reasonable request.
Ethical approval
This study was conducted under the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board (File Number: 02-18- 08).
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Piczak, M.L., Kadykalo, A.N., Cooke, S.J. et al. Natural Resource Managers Use and Value Western-Based Science, but Barriers to Access Persist. Environmental Management 69, 17–30 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01558-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01558-8