Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Improving Technical Information Use: What Can Be Learnt from a Manager’s Perspective?

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conservation practice reportedly suffers from low use of technical information. Understanding of factors that affect the influence of technical information on management decision-making is limited. We sought to identify leverage points for improved technical information dissemination in the New South Wales Parks and Wildlife Service, Australia, given the significant recent investments in monitoring and evaluation that had been made. We did so by exploring the inter-relationships between factors affecting the influence of different information types on management decisions. Results indicate that managers have a high inclination toward adaptive behavior, given they operate in an information poor environment. The most influential types of information were those that enabled interaction between information provider and recipient (e.g., staff experience and expertise). An analysis of the concordance in individuals’ responses for different information types showed that neither accessibility nor organizational expectation of use was aligned with influence on decision-making. Alignment of responses also varied by work area. Raising expectations of information use or increasing access to particular types of information is therefore unlikely to result in an increase in influence on management decision-making. Rather than focussing on matching accessibility and expected use of particular information types, our results indicate that technical information uptake is best supported through existing peer networks tailored to specific work areas.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen W, Kilvington M (2005) Getting technical information into watershed decision-making. In: Hatfield JL (ed) The farmers’ decision: balancing economically successful agriculture production and environmental quality. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Iowa, pp 45–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Arlettaz R, Schaub M, Fournier J, Reichlin TS, Sierro A, Watson JEM, Braunisch V (2010) From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. BioScience 60:835–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley SR (2009) Innovation diffusion: implications for evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation 124:35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin O, Crona B, Ernstson H (2006) Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecol Soc 11(2):42

    Google Scholar 

  • Brousselle A, Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M (2009) Using logic analysis to evaluate knowledge transfer initiatives: the case of the research collective on organization of primary care services. Evaluation 15:165–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton P, Goodland R, Croft J (2006) How would we know what works: context and complexity in the evaluation of community involvement. Evaluation 12(3):294–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multi-level world. Ecol Soc 11:8

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook CN, Carter RW, Fuller RA, Hockings M (2012) Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions. J Environ Manage 113:341–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook CN, Hockings M, Carter RW (2010) Conservation in the dark? the information used to support management decisions. Front Ecol Environ 8:181–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coopey J (1995) The learning organisation, power, politics and ideology introduction. Manage Learn 26(2):193–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos A, Souchon AL, Durden GR, Axinn CN, Holzmuller HH (2003) Towards an understanding of cross-national similarities in export information utilization: a perceptual mapping approach. Int Mark Rev 20(1):17–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engwall L, Kipping M (2004) The dissemination of management knowledge. Manage Learn 35(3):243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman MS, March JG (1981) Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Adm Sci Q 26(2):171–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons P, Zammit C, Youngentob K, Possignham HP et al (2008) Some practical suggestions for improving engagement between researchers and policy-kamers in natural resource management. Ecol Manag Rest 9(3):182–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Growcock AJ, Sutherland EF, Stathis PT (2009) Challenges and experiences in implementing a management effectiveness evaluation program in a protected area systems. Australas J Environ Manage 16:218–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley TA (1994) Interaction of wildlife research and forest management: the need for maturation of science and policy. For Chron 70(5):527–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockings M, Cook C, Carter RW, James R (2009) Accountability, reporting or management improvement? Development of a state of the parks assessment system in New South Wales. Environ Manage 43:1013–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homes J, Clark R (2008) Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environ Sci Manage 11:702–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hotimsky S, Cobb R, Bond A (2006) Contracts or scripts? A critical review of the application of institutional theories to the study of environmental change. Ecol Soc 11(1):41

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson C, Carter RW, Hockings M, Kelman J (2011) Maximizing conservation evaluation utilization. Evaluation 17(1):53–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson C, Hughey KFD, Allen WA, Rixecker S, Carter RW (2009) Towards more reflexive use of adaptive management. Soc Natur Resour 22:484–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janse G (2008) Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe—a study on noth sides of the science/policy interface. For Policy Econ 10:183–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RB (1998) Toward a theoretical model of evaluation utilization. Eval Progr Planning 21:93–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman J (2011) Analysis if protected area management effectiveness evaluation data and its application for increasing understanding of management. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia: PhD Thesis

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee RG, Garvin T (2003) Moving from information transfer to information exchange in health and health care. Soc Sci Med 56:449–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leverington F, Hockings M, Lemos Costa K (2008) Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas—a global study. The University of Queensland, IUCN WCPA, TNC, WWF, Australia

  • 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 10:17–38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nutley S, Davies TO (1999) Introducing evidence-based practice: the contrasting experiences of health care and probation service organisation in the UK. Public Policy and Administration 14(4):39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Environment and Heritage (2012) About the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. URL: http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/about. Accessed 6 September 2012

  • Oliver ML (2009) The transfer process: implications for evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation 124:61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullin AS, Stewart GB (2006) Guidelines of systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 20:1647–1656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullin AS, Knight RM, Stone DA, Charman K (2004) Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biol Conserv 119:245–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punch KF (2003) Survey research: the basics. Sage Publications Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers K (1998) Managing science/management partnerships: a challenge of adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 2(2):1

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(1):4

    Google Scholar 

  • Seabrook-Davison MNH, Weihong JJ, Brunton DH (2010) Survey of New Zealand Department of Conservation staff involved in the management and recovery of threatened species. Biol Conserv 143:212–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seavy NE, Howell CA (2010) How can we improve information deliver to support conservation and restoration decisions? Biodiver Conserv 19:1261–1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N, Rivkin JW (2006) When exploitation backfires: unintended consequences of multi-level organisational search. Acad Manag J 49(4):779–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smythe KD, Bernabo JC, Carter TB, Jutro PR (1996) Focussing biodiversity research on the needs of decision makers. Environ Manage 20(6):865–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stathis P, Jacobson C (2009) Institutionalising adaptive management: creating a culture of learning in New South Wales Parks and Wildlife Service. In: Allan C, Stankey G (eds) Adaptive environmental management: a practical guide. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 305–323

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sunderland T, Sunderland-Groves J, Shanley P, Campbell B (2009) Bridging the gap: how can information access and exchange between conservation biologists and field practitioners be improved for better conservation outcomes? Biotropica 41(5):549–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland W, Pullin AD, Doman PM, Knight TM (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19:305–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss CH (1995) Nothing as practical as good theory: exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In: Connell JP, Kubisch AC, Weiss CH (eds) New approaches to evaluating community initiatives. The Aspen Institute, Washington DC, pp 1–19

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research formed part of an Australian Research Council linkage grant, supported by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Parks Victoria, The Director of National Parks (Australia) and the Australian Government Natural Heritage Trust. We extend thanks to all park managers who participated in the survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sustainability Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Locked Bag 4, Sunshine Coast, QLD, 4558, Australia

    C. Jacobson & R. W. Carter

  2. University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, 4343, Australia

    C. Jacobson

  3. School of Agriculture and Food Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, 4343, Australia

    A. Lisle

  4. School of Geography, Planning and Environment, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    M. T. Hockings

Authors
  1. C. Jacobson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Lisle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. W. Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. T. Hockings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Jacobson.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Full List of Survey Questions

  1. 1.

    Role

  2. 2.

    Please indicate your level of ease with using the following types of information for management decision-making

    1. a.

      Technical information presented in written form

    2. b.

      Technical information presented in verbal form

    3. c.

      Specific management information presented in either written or verbal form

  3. 3.

    This question relates for decisions about Natural Values management (e.g., pest and weed management). Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements for the decisions you make in your management role

    1. a.

      I generally have sufficient information for making decisions about Natural Values

    2. b.

      The information I use to make management decisions gives me confidence in the likely outcomes

    3. c.

      I actively seek alternative approaches to management, especially when my actions do not lead to the outcomes I seek

  4. 4.

    This question relates for decisions about Visitor management. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements for the decisions you make in your management role

    1. a.

      I generally have sufficient information for making decisions about Visitor management

    2. b.

      The information I use to make management decisions gives me confidence in the likely outcomes

    3. c.

      I actively seek alternative approaches to management, especially when my actions do not lead to the outcomes I seek

  5. 5.

    This question relates for decisions about Indigenous Heritage management. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements for the decisions you make in your management role

    1. a.

      I generally have sufficient information for making decisions about Indigenous Heritage

    2. b.

      The information I use to make management decisions gives me confidence in the likely outcomes

    3. c.

      I actively seek alternative approaches to management, especially when my actions do not lead to the outcomes I seek

  6. 6.

    This question relates for decisions about Non-Indigenous Heritage Management. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements for the decisions you make in your management role

    1. a.

      I generally have sufficient information for making decisions about Non-Indigenous Heritage management

    2. b.

      The information I use to make management decisions gives me confidence in the likely outcomes

    3. c.

      I actively seek alternative approaches to management, especially when my actions do not lead to the outcomes I seek

  7. 7.

    Please rate your access to the following types of information

    1. a.

      Staff experience

    2. b.

      Monitoring programs (include ad-hoc monitoring under staff experience)

    3. c.

      Planning documents

    4. d.

      Strategies such as Divisional Plans, Branch Strategies etc.

    5. e.

      Internet/Intranet/corporate databases

    6. f.

      Research communications (memos, newsletters etc.)

    7. g.

      Informal communications with experts within PWG

    8. h.

      Informal communications with experts outside of PWG

    9. i.

      Community opinion (excluding experts)

  8. 8.

    Please rate the expectations (from more senior managers) of you to use the following types of information

    1. a.

      Staff experience

    2. b.

      Monitoring programs (include ad-hoc monitoring under staff experience)

    3. c.

      Planning documents

    4. d.

      Strategies such as Divisional Plans, Branch Strategies, etc.

    5. e.

      Internet/Intranet/corporate databases

    6. f.

      Research communications (memos, newsletters, etc.)

    7. g.

      Informal communications with experts within PWG

    8. h.

      Informal communications with experts outside of PWG

    9. i.

      Community opinion (excluding experts)

  9. 9.

    Please rate the overall value for management decision-making of the following types of information (e.g., scene setting, contextual information, thinking about management options)

    1. a.

      Staff experience

    2. b.

      Monitoring programs (include ad-hoc monitoring under staff experience)

    3. c.

      Planning documents

    4. d.

      Strategies such as Divisional Plans, Branch Strategies etc.

    5. e.

      Internet/Intranet/corporate databases

    6. f.

      Research communications (memos, newsletters etc.)

    7. g.

      Informal communications with experts within PWG

    8. h.

      Informal communications with experts outside of PWG

    9. i.

      Community opinion (excluding experts)

  10. 10.

    For decisions about Natural Values (e.g., decisions about weed management), please rate the influence of each of the information types

    1. a.

      Staff experience

    2. b.

      Monitoring programs (include ad-hoc monitoring under staff experience)

    3. c.

      Planning documents

    4. d.

      Strategies such as Divisional Plans, Branch Strategies etc.

    5. e.

      Internet/Intranet/corporate databases

    6. f.

      Research communications (memos, newsletters etc.)

    7. g.

      Informal communications with experts within PWG

    8. h.

      Informal communications with experts outside of PWG

    9. i.

      Community opinion (excluding experts)

  11. 11.

    For decisions about Indigenous Heritage management, please rate the influence of each of the information types

    1. a.

      Staff experience

    2. b.

      Monitoring programs (include ad-hoc monitoring under staff experience)

    3. c.

      Planning documents

    4. d.

      Strategies such as Divisional Plans, Branch Strategies etc.

    5. e.

      Internet/Intranet/corporate databases

    6. f.

      Research communications (memos, newsletters etc.)

    7. g.

      Informal communications with experts within PWG

    8. h.

      Informal communications with experts outside of PWG

    9. i.

      Community opinion (excluding experts)

  12. 12.

    For decisions about Non-Indigenous heritage management, please rate the influence of each of the information types

    1. a.

      Staff experience

    2. b.

      Monitoring programs (include ad-hoc monitoring under staff experience)

    3. c.

      Planning documents

    4. d.

      Strategies such as Divisional Plans, Branch Strategies, etc.

    5. e.

      Internet/Intranet/corporate databases

    6. f.

      Research communications (memos, newsletters, etc.)

    7. g.

      Informal communications with experts within PWG

    8. h.

      Informal communications with experts outside of PWG

    9. i.

      Community opinion (excluding experts)

  13. 13.

    For decisions about Visitor management, please rate the influence of each of the information types

    1. a.

      Staff experience

    2. b.

      Monitoring programs (include ad-hoc monitoring under staff experience)

    3. c.

      Planning documents

    4. d.

      Strategies such as Divisional Plans, Branch Strategies, etc.

    5. e.

      Internet/Intranet/corporate databases

    6. f.

      Research communications (memos, newsletters etc.)

    7. g.

      Informal communications with experts within PWG

    8. h.

      Informal communications with experts outside of PWG

    9. i.

      Community opinion (excluding experts)

Appendix 2

See Table 6.

Table 6 Correlation matrix between responses for influence of different types of information different types of decisions, in relation to their accessibility, expected use and value
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacobson, C., Lisle, A., Carter, R.W. et al. Improving Technical Information Use: What Can Be Learnt from a Manager’s Perspective?. Environmental Management 52, 221–233 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0084-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0084-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation