Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 836–846 | Cite as

The User, not the Tool: Perceptions of Credibility and Relevance Affect the Uptake of Prioritisation

  • Milena Kiatkoski Kim
  • Louisa Evans
  • Lea M. Scherl
  • Helene Marsh
Article

Abstract

Prioritisation methods have been used in conservation planning for over 20 years. The scientific literature focuses on the technical aspects of prioritisation, providing limited information on factors affecting the uptake of priorities. We focused on the Back on Track species prioritisation program in Queensland, Australia, used to prioritise species conservation efforts across Queensland from 2005. The program had low uptake by intended users. Our study aimed to identify the perceived limitations in the technical-scientific quality of this species-based prioritisation process and its outcomes in terms of credibility (scientific adequacy of the technical evidence) and relevance (of information to the needs of decision-makers). These criteria have been used to understand the uptake of scientific information in policy. We interviewed 73 key informants. Perceptions of credibility were affected by concerns related to the use of expert judgement (rather than empirical evidence) to assess species, impressions that key experts were not included in the planning process, and the lack of confidence in the information supporting prioritisation. We identified several trade-offs and synergies between the credibility and relevance of priorities to potential users. The relevance of the output plans was negatively affected by the lack of clarity about who were potential users and implementers of the priorities identified. We conclude with recommendations to enhance the credibility and relevance of such initiatives.

Keywords

Prioritisation Credibility Relevance Conservation planning Users Uptake 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Graduate Research School, the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Professor Helene Marsh’s Services Fund (James Cook University) and the Skyrail Foundation. M.K.K. was supported by a JCU Postgraduate Research Scholarship and a stipend scholarship from Professor Helene Marsh’s Services Fund. The authors acknowledge the time and knowledge shared by interviewees and the support from the Threatened Species Unit from the Queensland Government. We also appreciate the comments and suggestions from three anonymous reviewers.

Supplementary material

267_2015_653_MOESM1_ESM.docx (280 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 280 kb)

References

  1. Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2006) Political science and conservation biology: a dialog of the deaf. Conserv Biol 20:681–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldi A et al (2001) Setting priorities for the conservation of terrestrial vertebrates in Hungary. Biodivers Conserv 10(8):1283–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauler T (2012) An analytical framework to discuss the usability of (environmental) indicators for policy. Ecol Ind 17:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bottrill MC, Pressey RL (2012) The effectiveness and evaluation of conservation planning. Conserv Lett. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00268.x Google Scholar
  5. Burgman M (2005) Risk and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Ecology, biodiversity and conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgman M, Carr A, Godden L, Gregory R, McBride M, Flander L, Maguire L (2011) Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conserv Lett 4:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carwardine J, O’Connor T, Legge S, Mackey B, Possingham H, Martin T (2011) Priority threat management to protect Kimberley wildlife. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  8. Carwardine J, O’Connor T, Legge S, Mackey B, Possingham HP, Martin TG (2012) Prioritizing threat management for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Lett 5:196–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00228.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cash DW et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis JL, Tremblay E (2010) Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q 88:444–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diez E, McIntosh BS (2011) Organisational drivers for, constraints on and impacts of decision and information support tool use in desertification policy and management. Environ Model Softw 26:317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eycott AE, Marzano M, Watts K (2011) Filling evidence gaps with expert opinion: the use of Delphi analysis in least-cost modelling of functional connectivity. Landsc Urban Plan 103:400–409. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.08.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fazey I et al (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob Environ Chang 25:204–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzpatrick A, Murray TE, Paxton RJ, Brown MJF (2007) Building on IUCN regional red lists to produce lists of species of conservation priority: a model with Irish bees. Conserv Biol 21:1324–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox HE et al (2012) Reexamining the science of marine protected areas: linking knowledge to action. Conserv Lett 5:1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00207.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuentes M et al (2014) A decision framework for prioritizing multiple management actions for threatened marine mega-fauna, applied in a data-poor context Ecological Applications. Ecol Appl 25:200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hegger D, Lamers M, Van Zeijl-Rozema A, Dieperink C (2012) Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environ Sci Policy 18:52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heink U et al (2015) Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: challenges and opportunities. Sci Public Policy. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scu082 Google Scholar
  19. Jacobson C, Lisle A, Carter RW, Hockings MT (2013) Improving technical information use: what can be learnt from a manager’s perspective? Environ Manag 52:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joseph LN, Maloney RF, Possingham HP (2009) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conserv Biol 23:328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim MK (2014) The human dimensions of species prioritisation: a case study from Queensland. James Cook University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim MK, Evans LS, Scherl LM, Marsh H (in preparation) The who and how of conservation planning: applying the lens of normative governance to a species-based prioritisation exerciseGoogle Scholar
  23. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Rouget M, Balmford A, Lombard AT, Campbell BM (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conserv Biol 22:610–617. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00914.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koetz T, Farrell KN, Bridgewater P (2012) Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the intergovernmental platform for biodiversity and ecosystem services international environmental agreements: politics. Law Econ 12:1–21Google Scholar
  25. MacMillan DC, Marshall K (2006) The Delphi process: an expert-based approach to ecological modelling in data-poor environments. Anim Conserv 9:11–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2005.00001.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marsh H et al (2007) Optimizing allocation of management resources for wildlife. Conserv Biol. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00589.x Google Scholar
  27. Mascia MB, Brosius JP, Dobson TA, Forbes BC, Horowitz L, McKean MA, Turner NJ (2003) Conservation and the social sciences. Conserv Biol 17:649–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mathison S (2005) Encyclopedia of evaluation. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks. doi: 10.4135/9781412950558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 10:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Peeters P (2013) Prioritisation for threatened species in Queensland: achievements, lessons learnt, and the way forward. University of Queensland, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  32. Pressey RL, Bottrill M (2009) Approaches to landscape- and seascape-scale conservation planning: convergence, contrasts and challenges. Fauna Flora Int 43:464–475Google Scholar
  33. Pullinger MG, Johnson CJ (2010) Maintaining or restoring connectivity of modified landscapes: evaluating the least-cost path model with multiple sources of ecological information. Landsc Ecol 25:1547–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sarkki S, Niemelä J, Tinch R, van den Hove S, Watt A, Young J (2014) Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: a critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces. Sci Public Policy 41:194–206. doi: 10.1093/scipol/sct046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomas DR (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 27:237–246. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van den Hove S (2007) A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39:807–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walsh JC, Watson JEM, Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Possingham HP (2013) Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study. ORYX 47:134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Whitehead AL et al (2014) Integrating biological and social values when prioritizing places for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 28:992–1003. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milena Kiatkoski Kim
    • 1
  • Louisa Evans
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lea M. Scherl
    • 1
  • Helene Marsh
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Earth and Environmental SciencesJames Cook UniversityDouglasAustralia
  2. 2.ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef StudiesJames Cook UniversityDouglasAustralia
  3. 3.College of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations