The case for policy-relevant conservation science

Rose, David (2015) The case for policy-relevant conservation science. Conservation Biology, 29 (3). pp. 748-754. ISSN 0888-8892

[img]
Preview
PDF (Published manuscript) - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (363kB) | Preview

Abstract

Drawing on the “evidence-based” (Sutherland et al. 2013) versus “evidence-informed” debate (Adams & Sandbrook 2013), which has become prominent in conservation science, I argue that science can be influential if it holds a dual reference (Lentsch & Weingart 2011) that contributes to the needs of policy makers whilst maintaining technical rigor. In line with such a strategy, conservation scientists are increasingly recognizing the usefulness of constructing narratives through which to enhance the influence of their evidence (Leslie et al. 2013; Lawton & Rudd 2014). Yet telling stories alone is rarely enough to influence policy; instead, these narratives must be policy relevant. To ensure that evidence is persuasive alongside other factors in a complex policy-making process, conservation scientists could follow 2 steps: reframe within salient political contexts and engage more productively in boundary work, which is defined as the ways in which scientists “construct, negotiate, and defend the boundary between science and policy” (Owens et al. 2006:640). These will both improve the chances of evidence-informed conservation policy.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: boundary work,evidence-based conservation,evidence-informed policy,framing,science-policy interface,conservacion con base en evidencias,interconexion ciencia-politica,marco,politica informada con evidencias,trabajo fronterizo
Faculty \ School: Faculty of Science > School of Environmental Sciences
Depositing User: Pure Connector
Date Deposited: 20 Sep 2017 05:06
Last Modified: 22 Apr 2020 05:36
URI: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/64922
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12444

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item