The case for policy-relevant conservation science

David Rose

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

51 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)748-754
Number of pages7
JournalConservation Biology
Volume29
Issue number3
Early online date24 Dec 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2015

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

Cite this