Incorporating social dimensions in planning, managing and evaluating environmental projects

Abstract

Most conservation research aims to inform management of environmental challenges, but scientific evidence is used inconsistently in environmental programmes and practice. We used semi-structured retrospective interviews to ask 12 environmental scientists and 14 practitioners (land managers, park rangers, project managers and planners from natural resource management agencies) about factors that facilitated and hindered the use of scientific input during 15 environmental projects. We used the common factors from interviews to develop a process model describing how scientific input informs programmes and practice. The model emphasised the social dimensions of environmental projects which are often overlooked when these projects are planned, managed and evaluated. It highlighted the pivotal role of relationships in achieving outcomes which include creating practical, useful products and tools, and robust, credible and trusted evidence. By clarifying the process of how scientific knowledge informs environmental programmes and practice, the model enabled us to provide guidance about how to undertake transdisciplinary work and suggest indicators to track progress. Although derived from environmental projects, the guidance is likely to apply to other fields, particularly where different disciplines work together.

Appendix 1

Illustrative quotes from retrospective semi-structured interviews of 12 environmental scientists and 14 practitioners involved in 15 environmental projects. The quotes illustrate each of the common factors affecting science uptake (Table 1). To ensure anonymity of quotes, names have been replaced by letters in square brackets, e.g. [X] and [Y]. The gender of the individual has also been protected by replacing the personal pronoun with [they] and [their].

PROJECT PROCESS

Scientific rigour

Practitioners valued the scientific rigour and quality assurance that scientists brought to the work. For example, one practitioner said, “we will have a really solid body of information on which to base decisions.” Another said, “I need a product that actually represents what’s happening on the ground, can withstand scrutiny…. [the product]'s given me greater strength in argument.”

Explaining the scientific method reduced conflict between scientists and practitioners and built trust. As one scientist said of a challenging project, “there’s a presumption that [we] just do it willy-nilly and there’s no process … When you take a scientific approach and really step through the method [with practitioners] … all of that angst just disappears. They appreciate that there’s a process, they appreciate there’s a scientific rigour to it.”

Collaboration

A collaborative approach was a common factor that facilitated scientific input. It built the relationship as well as capability of practitioners and scientists. A scientist said, “This was … a really great collaborative process because both groups contributed a fair amount of intellectual knowledge. We both came away knowing more after the process than we had when we started.”

In contrast, challenging projects often lacked a collaborative approach which hindered the use of scientific input and outcomes. One practitioner said, “It’s this sort of non-transparency, non-sharing, secretive, non-collaborative approach that [they’ve] taken that has really hindered what we’re trying to do and hindered ... the deliverables for [the organisation].”

Role clarity

Failure to clarify roles or responsibilities, or document deliverables was mentioned more often than clarifying roles and responsibilities (Table 1). A lack of clarity about deliverables was often caused by a failure to build a relationship, communicate and reach agreement about what was needed. This meant requirements were not specified in contracts, so products were developed that were not used or useful. As one scientist said, “it was very open-ended … that’s not necessarily bad if you have a process which identifies a timeline by which you’ll narrow that down … [but] there was too much ambiguity for too long … [scientists] left on their own to search for what they should be doing … and ... find buyers for what you’re going to sell.” A practitioner said, “there were contracts that say [the organisation] … will deliver X, Y, Z … but not … ‘we expect it to be end-user savvy’ … it was really a trusted science sort of model; ‘We’re all scientists … it’ll work out … everyone just go away, do your stuff and then we come back and report’ … I don’t think at any point there were conversations about how do we bring all this together.”

In contrast, documentation did not need to be rigid when there was regular communication and trust between scientists and practitioners. As one scientist said, “I think because we can talk to each other, that’s why a loose contract works. [They] trust(s) me that I will do the stuff in the end.”

A lack of clarity about roles also led to conflict in teams. One scientist said, “I perceived some of that work to be overlapping with mine. Because my manager didn’t intervene appropriately, didn’t manage the situation, it led to quite serious conflict.”

Resources

Resources were a common factor, mentioned more often in relation to hindering scientific input. As one practitioner said, “they couldn’t implement [the process] because the budget got cut in half, the resources got cut down.” A scientist said, “Its use has been impeded ... because … money wasn’t invested.”

A lack of resources, including staff resources, also disrupted relationships. One practitioner said, “when you had a question or you said, ‘who might we chase about this?’ You reel off the names and they say, ‘oh no, they've gone’ or ‘they're busy doing this now’. Even towards the end it was ‘oh, we can't come down, we aren't able to travel’… resources were tied up.”

A lack of resources also affected adoption. A scientist said, “But whether they adopted it or not, who knows? So, the project ended. We … invited scientists along, talked about how great the piece of work was and I got a commitment out of my boss … that [the organisation] would continue to invest in it which, of course, didn’t happen.”

However, a relationship helped maximise limited resources. One scientist said, “[X] and I knew what we wanted to do; it was just a matter of doing the planning together to make sure … there was enough time and resources.”

Problem definition

Practitioners and scientists spoke about working collaboratively to define the problem and design the process to find a solution. One practitioner said, “It’s not a ‘them’ and ‘us’ process …You actually sit down together, and work out what you want to do together, and then you work out what is reasonable, what can be delivered by when.”

A scientist spoke about the importance of reaching an understanding at the beginning about the scope of the work and capacity of the team. “We took quite some time … in the early stages to flesh out the questions that we were going to address, both from the perspective of research questions … but also the management applications, and make sure that we were all on board with those. The other important thing that we did was to clearly articulate what we wouldn't be able to do.”

Data access

The inability to store, transfer or access data was a common factor hindering the uptake of scientific input (Table 1). As one practitioner said about very large data, “in terms of data transfer and storage and access, [it was a] total nightmare … we’ve got hard discs being posted … or driven around, that’s ridiculous.”

Inception

Being involved from inception of a project was important to practitioners and scientists (Table 1). It ensured the needs of practitioners were met and improved outcomes. For example, a practitioner said, “having [X] and [their] team work with us from the beginning to make sure …. everybody's needs were being met, has been terrific.” Another practitioner explained the difference. “[The scientists were] tasked to develop a product. They were not … comfortable with the specifications … but they … did the job and the result was suboptimal. Whereas, when it came to re-doing the work… partly because of … my involvement right from the outset, I was able to work with them in helping to define the problem as well as defining the solution … to help resolve the problem, so we ended up with a much better outcome.”

Multidisciplinarity

Respondents commented on the importance of multi-disciplinary teams with complementary and diverse skills (Table 1). For example, one practitioner said, “we’re all working together, doing slightly different bits of the jigsaw.” Another practitioner said, “[X] and I had a similar vision to where it could go and [they] might have known the technical side of it and I might have known how it could work on the ground.” A scientist agreed, “[They] had skills, I had skills and when we brought them together it worked really well.”

Staff continuity

Project outcomes were affected when staff left organisations. It affected the relationships they had built, and the management and transfer of their knowledge (Table 1). As one practitioner said, the team “completely disappeared … so there's no-one left there who was part of it … [it] is still a project on their books but they don’t understand it and it’s not being resourced … it was built into the process to … really make something of it but we got completely gutted and it just sits in there.”

INDIVIDUALS

The individuals involved in the work affected the outcomes. As one scientist said, “The one thing I’ve learnt is individuals and characters make a difference … By and large, we got good people … but there were a few individuals that you could see were the wrong ones and they made an impact.”

Communication

Frequent or regular communication was a common factor affecting scientific input (Table 1). As one practitioner said, “[we] have a pretty good professional relationship so we would just call each other for anything … that really needed other people’s involvement or when a decision had been made.” Regular communication ensured projects stayed on track and “prevented issues arising.” As a scientist said, “one of the things that really helped this project is that we … kept in touch a fair bit. I’d talk to them probably once a week. I’d talk to [X] and [Y] about how things were going … it prevented issues arising.”

A shift from regular communication to lack of communication reflected a failing relationship. As one scientist said, “Early on, there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing well before the meetings. But as it went on, and the positions became tougher and tougher, the lack of transparency increased.”

A lack of feedback or communication was more common in challenging projects and hindered the use of science. As one practitioner said, “[They] wouldn't share data or knowledge that was in [their] head … [They were] a real barrier in what we were trying to do.”

Feedback

In successful projects, practitioners and scientists said it was “a two-way process.” They “bounced ideas off each other”, “feed off each other all the time”, “worked with [X] back and forth about how we might go about that” and “use[d] [X] as a sounding board.” One scientist described the process. “we worked very closely so I produced a product and then [they] would … suggest ideas of how it could be improved, and we’d do another iteration … so that it … would meet their needs … our product essentially was developed in collaboration with them as the project progressed.”

A scientist acknowledged an iterative process takes longer but increases the chances of scientific work being used. “It probably did take longer … because of this sort of iterative approach but what it meant was, in the end, [they] had a product that was more useful for [them].”

Positivity

The enthusiasm, passion and dedication of the people involved was a common factor mentioned about successful projects that facilitated the work. These attributes ensured work was completed. For example, a practitioner said, “[they were] going to make the [project] happen regardless of any hurdles that was thrown [their] way … that’s probably the key to why it all came about.”

Scientists appreciated the enthusiasm of the practitioners they worked with, and that their scientific input was appreciated, and would likely be used. As one scientist said, “they were so interested and enthusiastic about what we had done … [and] could really see its importance and potential use in [their organisation].” Another scientist said, “[They are] an amazing dynamo … very enthusiastic, great communicator, … doesn't necessarily understand everything in a technical way but really understands how it all fits together … You feel like you're really contributing to something, and you're appreciated.”

Communication style

Both practitioners and scientists mentioned the importance of individuals who were “easy to get along with”, pleasant, engaging, friendly and personable. One practitioner said, “I can’t speak highly enough of [X] and [their] team. They’ve done a wonderful job and they’re really easy, pleasant nice people to work with. Nothing is ever a problem, which certainly makes my life very easy.”

However, according to one practitioner, a pleasant personality was not essential to deliver a good product. They said, “<laughter> [they] could have been a real arsehole … [the product] still would have been great … [their] character helped [them] deliver the product, but I’ve worked with difficult people who still deliver a good product.”

Although a pleasant personality is not essential, people who were difficult to deal with, disrupted relationships, slowed progress and hindered the uptake of scientific information. One scientist said, “[they] dogged my guys to the point where they wouldn’t talk to [them] … we finally … did a workshop together and … everything was sort of fixed up but it did take a little bit of rectifying … because [they] just kept saying … it’s wrong … questioning people’s abilities can be quite confronting.”

Undermining work, particularly in a public forum, also eroded relationships and trust. As one practitioner said of a challenging project, “It was quite embarrassing … listening to [them] undermine the project … [and] the team's credibility, reputation.… [They] went on a tirade … it wasn’t very appropriate in a public forum.”

Met expectations

Delivering on time as – or above - expectations eased the workload, built trust and fostered the relationship. As one practitioner said, “[They’ve] met every deadline so far … It’s made it really easy.”

In contrast, failure to deliver on time hindered the use of scientific input and eroded trust. As one practitioner said, “… if [they told me] things were not going to make it in time … I could have then spoken to the customer and said, ‘There’s going to be a delay’ and that would have been better than having [the customer] ring me up and trying to stab me with an ice-pick.”

Brokerage

Practitioners valued scientists who functioned as brokers between disciplines, synthesising and communicating work, and translating technical information so it could be understood. One practitioner said, “we have three groups of people in totally different disciplines that really had completely different languages and processes … [X] was a knowledge broker between [them].” Another practitioner said, “[they were] good at … translating the science jargon into easily understood information.” Another said, “[they’re] just really clear … and [they] knows the right way of explaining things. [They’re] a good teacher.”

A scientist described their role in translating between disciplines. “[The practitioners] were talking a different language and I was the interpreter … when [the practitioner was] talking directly to the scientists they were taking it as a criticism … saying the work was wrong, whereas [the practitioner was] saying, … ‘it makes more sense to present it this way … it’s still the same science.’”

By working with practitioners, scientists said they learned how to present information more effectively. As one scientist said, “You could just see them switching on when they were looking at the maps…[so] We deliberately tried to create that information in that form that would engage people … we worked pretty hard on that.”

Expertise

Practitioners valued scientists because they were experts, who were rigorous and respected in their field, and who published in scientific literature. One practitioner said, “We probably could have found someone eventually to do something similar but I don’t think it would have had the quality of [X]’s work because of [their] long association with this type of research … [they have] that depth of knowledge … that was fundamental.”

A respected scientist who was practical and pleasant was even more valuable. As one practitioner said, “[they are] very highly respected, [their] science is very highly respected, [they’ve] got a very pragmatic approach and … [they’ve] got a very pleasant and engaging manner which means [they] not only provides a lot of intellectual input … but everybody enjoys working with [them].”

Management

Practitioners and scientists valued individuals who could manage people, and particularly resolve conflict which occurred more often in challenging projects. One scientist said, “[They] started harassing my [staff] and so I actually took [them] aside … and told [them] to stop. … I’d never seen anything like it …Very good scientist though … so you make, not excuses, but … it was a bit yucky.”

Working on challenging projects with difficult people allowed individuals to improve their people management skills. As one practitioner said, “I’ve learnt about how to deal with people, and deal with some people who are not easy to deal with."

In one challenging project, information was withheld when conflict was not resolved and poor behaviour not managed. As one practitioner said, “there’s no consequences of acting badly…. Who’s going to talk to them? Who are they going to listen to? ... I don’t have the real authority to tell [them] not to do it … So it’s not resolved … [they] wouldn’t share data or knowledge.”

Experience

Both practitioners and scientists valued working with experienced people; it smoothed the process, eased the workload and built trust and the relationship. For example, a practitioner said, “[X] is a really skilled, experienced field researcher … [with] years and years of … working with [the organisation’s] staff, and I really trust and value [their] assistance … I rely on [X] to deal with most of [the contracts, systems] so I don’t have to … [they] knows the systems, … the processes, … the organisation at that level much better than I do … That is of enormous value to me.”

Leadership

Practitioners valued a scientist who led and championed the work, so projects were completed. One practitioner said, “if we’d been asked to do it without assistance from [X], it would have been a priority for us, but it just would have fallen through the cracks.” Another said, “I just don’t think it would've happened if [X] wasn't there.”

Networks

Scientists with strong professional networks who were “well-connected” were valued by practitioners because they brought additional resources or different perspectives to projects. For example, one practitioner said, “[their] connections to universities and bringing in PhD students and other researchers that can contribute toward the process and provide expert advice … that’s been an important aspect of [their] involvement.”

RELATIONSHIP

Relationship

Scientists and practitioners in successful and challenging projects spoke about the relationship; it was the most frequently mentioned factor affecting the use of scientific input (Table 1). As one practitioner said, “these projects work really, really well if you develop good working relationships. That was the key to why we had such a long association but also achieved some fairly significant outcomes.” A scientist agreed. “Why things work comes down to a personal relationship; if you get on well with that person, things seem to work … that sort of comes in to a mutual respect and you listen to each other and all that sort of stuff.”

According to one practitioner, the relationship was more important than systems and processes at facilitating the use of scientific input. They said, “We had a lot of systems … but to me they’re not the real systems or processes that allowed us to maximise [the use of scientific input]. It was basically the relationship that we built … the sessions that we had with [X].”

Staff turnover and restructures can disrupt relationships and, therefore, the use of scientific input. A practitioner said “I got to know lots of them really well but they all lost their job …. the new people that came in didn’t really understand, I guess they didn’t have the background … I had no rapport with them … that made it even harder.”

Trust

Trust was a common factor (Table 1) that helped build and sustain the relationship. As a scientist said, “If somebody is professional and works well, and is trustworthy professionally then, I think, there’s a personal link there as well.” Another scientist said, “our mutual respect for each other has grown out of the original project … [so they]'ll quite often contact me for a range of different things. It's a good feeling, if someone trusts you and wants to work with you and asks for advice.”

Trust was fostered when teams delivered on time as expected. As one scientist said, “[They are] somebody that you can believe and trust, and is easy to work with; if [they] says [they are] going to do something, [they do] it.”

Trust also increased the likelihood of repeat business. As a practitioner said, “If you trust a person, you’ll always go back to them.”

Understanding

Practitioners mentioned the importance of being involved so the scientific work matched their needs and was useful and useable. As one practitioner said, “Understanding what I wanted … was the key thing and tweaking the product like [they] did …[they] gave a similar product to [another organisation] but ours was unique in some ways and that uniqueness reflected my needs.”

Working closely with practitioners helped scientists understand what was needed and develop more practical solutions. A scientist said, “some of the ideas that…. occurred to me at the beginning were … not very practical. It helped me a lot to be able to talk with [X] … it took me that one-on-one interaction … and a certain rapport to … start really focusing on what it is that would help them.”

Failure to engage with practitioners meant their needs and constraints were not understood. It affected the uptake of science, and led to products being developed that were not fit-for-purpose. Describing a challenging project, one practitioner said, “customer engagement - there was none of that … It was really the old style, ‘Here is our science. You’re silly … if you don’t take it on board.’”

The difference in working environments of practitioners and scientists could lead to misunderstanding about each other’s needs and constraints, including appropriate timeframe for providing information. For example, one practitioner said, “the only criticism I can make really [of the scientists] relates to just the different environments that we operate in. As a manager, I deal with 30 different issues in a day, and have to turn things around very quickly and make decisions based on very limited amounts of information. Whereas I get the sense that the scientists are uncomfortable with that approach and preferred things to move a lot slower and don't necessarily have the same time pressures applied in their day-to-day work … sometimes I've really had to push [them] for information and advice so that I can meet deadlines.”

Learning

Building capability was a common factor mentioned by both practitioners and scientists (Table 1). One practitioner said, “It’s not just bringing someone in, giving the results and leaving. It’s about building everyone’s capacity because that gives a better outcome.”

Scientists said they gained experience in the practical application of science. One scientist said, “I’ve learnt … more about how you can and can’t apply things on the ground … that’s really important from the science perspective, because you’re trying to apply your science to management all the time, you want to see what are the constraints.”

By working with scientists, practitioners said they boosted their technical skills and learned about the scientific process so they could better use the work and explain it. For example, one practitioner said, “it was a testament to [them] that I have high competence in using the data and explaining it because that’s certainly not a natural skill of mine.” Practitioners also said they improved their knowledge of the environment by working with scientists so they could better manage it.

Both scientists and practitioners learned about each other’s cultures, and how to provide information that was timely and practical. A practitioner explained, “it’s been an iterative process of us developing more of an understanding of the science, and them developing more of an understanding of the environment that we’re operating in, and how to deliver that communication in the most effective and timely way.” A scientist agreed, “I think some scientists are very reluctant to put something into operation quickly; it’s almost like they want to make it perfect. So, I think what has changed [because of the project] … is they’ve accepted a degree of ‘imperfectness’ … to get it done. That’s a big shift … they’ve had to become a bit more pragmatic and … less protective of their science.”

Working closely meant information about the local environment informed research and, in turn, research informed local knowledge. As one scientist explained, “It’s a two-way thing. Our thinking, as we’re doing it, is changing as well … we’re having a conversation … they’re telling us what they’re seeing out in the field and we’re telling them about our models and … all the thinking is changing.”

By sharing local knowledge, the scientific process could be improved. A practitioner said, “[the scientist] involved them in developing the programme saying, ‘teach me about the area’ and then [X] could come up with a methodology. It was a really good collaborative approach.”

Shared vision

In successful projects, scientists and practitioners spoke about having a “common goal”, “shared vision”, being “on the same page” or seeing “eye-to-eye” (Table 1). As one practitioner said, “I think shared purpose is essential in any relationship for it to be as effective as it could be.”

A common purpose was fostered by discussion so both the relationship and trust grew over time. As one scientist said, “because … we have regular meetings and regular contact with people, we build up that sort of trust and rapport and understanding of the common goals that we have … It’s really built up over a number of years.”

In contrast, a lack of shared vision or common purpose hindered the project and its outcomes. As one scientist said about a challenging project, “you can say what you think you’re going achieve, but did everybody sign on to the vision? Probably not.”

OUTCOMES

Our results indicated projects achieve outcomes when a trusting relationship developed. This enabled scientists and practitioners to gain experience in how to engage each other, and how to communicate and share information so both learned from their experience. As a result, robust, trusted information and evidence was created, and practical, useful products and tools were developed.

By building a trusting relationship, scientists and their organisation increased the likelihood of repeat business (and more resources for environmental projects) and facilitated research by other scientists. As one practitioner said, “as a result of the project … my interest in research has increased and I'm willing to try and facilitate as much as possible other research [here].”

PRACTICALITY AND CREDIBILITY

Practicality

By working together, scientists learned how research would be applied by practitioners which helped them create practical solutions, products and tools that were useful and fit-for-purpose. As a scientist said, “working with someone who’s making practical decisions about what to do on the ground … made me realise … the importance of … doing the analysis at the scale that’s relevant to that decision making.”

Practitioners valued scientists who contributed to practical outcomes. For example, “[their] approach is about practical application of science and achieving outcomes in the field that are realistic and achievable, and actually contribute to what we’re trying to do there. So, [they’ve] been able to facilitate research that’s contributed to improved site management, and that’s what it’s all about from my point of view.”

Credibility

Organisations also benefited from successful projects; practitioners commented about having robust evidence for decision making, being better able to prioritise investment, developing collaborative solutions to improve programmes, and having received value for money. One practitioner said, “With the relationship with [X], the legacy is you know that we’ll work collaboratively together and… come up with a good solution of how to improve programs.”

Working together ensured scientists delivered useful evidence for decision making. As one scientist said, “that was about engaging with stakeholders in the project. Articulating what was being done from a science perspective …and then seeking their input on … whether we were measuring the right things, asking the right questions [so we would] have another line of evidence that can be brought to the table.”

Science-informed environmental programmes and practice

By working closely together, building a relationship and sharing knowledge, practitioners said they learned more about the environment so they could better manage it. As one practitioner said, “I was a bit of a sponge throughout the whole project, just soaking up information from [them] … I know so much more about these [areas] now than anyone has ever known about before, which has helped management [of the area] greatly.”

For example, a practitioner [a planner] said, “a road was going to be put… through … one of the two biggest patches of [X] woodland anywhere in the country…. so we … argued for separate landscaping … [and] included … fauna-friendly underpasses. It added several hundred thousand dollars to the actual project … [the scientist’s] analysis enabled us to argue for those things. And [the developers] roped off sections of the road … [and] agreed to plant tall eucalypts … so … linkage is being maintained.”

By involving landholders, scientists helped them learn to value the environment and protect it. One practitioner said, “We had a significant increase in … the number of landholders that wanted to do remnant veg[etation] works on their farms. … Fencing off, improvement, enhancing, having a management regime on it … they don’t just flog it and put stock in it or turn it into water storage. They actually protected it and managed it and tried to improve it.”

Another practitioner said, “now, five years down the track … we’re really starting to see the benefits … of the project ... we’re discovering … species that we’ve never seen before … now rats are gone … we’ve done up the campground … and really started to promote greater visitation …. every time I go out there, there’s something new … there’s threatened bird species that we found … [the] vegetation change … anyone can notice that, you don't have to be a scientist … one of the best things is the involvement of … the local community [in] monitoring … I was able to do a comprehensive weed survey … as we went [and locate weeds] … that we would never have seen before. Since then we’ve been able to use a helicopter to spray them.”

Practitioners and scientists described other benefits for the environment which included: protecting threatened species; restoring and conserving biodiversity; better planning for climate change; better land management; better management of protected areas in NSW including eradication of weeds, and more visitors with different demographics.