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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
References
Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2006) Political science and conservation biology: a dialog of the deaf. Conserv Biol 20:681–682
Baldi A et al (2001) Setting priorities for the conservation of terrestrial vertebrates in Hungary. Biodivers Conserv 10(8):1283–1296
Bauler T (2012) An analytical framework to discuss the usability of (environmental) indicators for policy. Ecol Ind 17:38–45
Bottrill MC, Pressey RL (2012) The effectiveness and evaluation of conservation planning. Conserv Lett. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00268.x
Burgman M (2005) Risk and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Ecology, biodiversity and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Burgman M, Carr A, Godden L, Gregory R, McBride M, Flander L, Maguire L (2011) Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conserv Lett 4:81–87
Carwardine J, O’Connor T, Legge S, Mackey B, Possingham H, Martin T (2011) Priority threat management to protect Kimberley wildlife. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Brisbane
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
Cash DW et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8086–8091
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 88:444–483
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 26:317–327
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
Fazey I et al (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob Environ Chang 25:204–220
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 21:1324–1332
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
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 25:200
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 18:52–65
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
Jacobson C, Lisle A, Carter RW, Hockings MT (2013) Improving technical information use: what can be learnt from a manager’s perspective? Environ Manag 52:221–233
Joseph LN, Maloney RF, Possingham HP (2009) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conserv Biol 23:328–338
Kim MK (2014) The human dimensions of species prioritisation: a case study from Queensland. James Cook University, Australia
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 exercise
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
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 12:1–21
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
Marsh H et al (2007) Optimizing allocation of management resources for wildlife. Conserv Biol. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00589.x
Mascia MB, Brosius JP, Dobson TA, Forbes BC, Horowitz L, McKean MA, Turner NJ (2003) Conservation and the social sciences. Conserv Biol 17:649–650
Mathison S (2005) Encyclopedia of evaluation. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks. doi:10.4135/9781412950558
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
Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage, London
Peeters P (2013) Prioritisation for threatened species in Queensland: achievements, lessons learnt, and the way forward. University of Queensland, Brisbane
Pressey RL, Bottrill M (2009) Approaches to landscape- and seascape-scale conservation planning: convergence, contrasts and challenges. Fauna Flora Int 43:464–475
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 25:1547–1560
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
Thomas DR (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 27:237–246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748
van den Hove S (2007) A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39:807–826
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 47:134–143
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
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kiatkoski Kim, M., Evans, L., Scherl, L.M. et al. The User, not the Tool: Perceptions of Credibility and Relevance Affect the Uptake of Prioritisation. Environmental Management 57, 836–846 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0653-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0653-3