4.5 Article

The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions

期刊

CONSERVATION LETTERS
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/conl.12564

关键词

conservation policy; evidence-based conservation; evidence-informed conservation; knowledge exchange; political science; science communication; science-policy

资金

  1. Arcadia Fund
  2. Seventh Framework Programme [308454]
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/L002507/1]
  4. Scriven Fellowship
  5. Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment
  6. Austrian Science Fund
  7. Fondation Wiener Anspach
  8. Kenneth Miller Trust
  9. Cambridge Trust Cambridge Australia Poynton Scholarship
  10. Cambridge Department of Zoology JS Gardiner Fellowship
  11. International Climate Initiative (IKI), German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conservation policy decisions can suffer from a lack of evidence, hindering effective decision-making. In nature conservation, studies investigating why policy is often not evidence-informed have tended to focus on Western democracies, with relatively small samples. To understand global variation and challenges better, we established a global survey aimed at identifying top barriers and solutions to the use of conservation science in policy. This obtained the views of 758 people in policy, practice, and research positions from 68 countries across six languages. Here we show that, contrary to popular belief, there is agreement between groups about how to incorporate conservation science into policy, and there is thus room for optimism. Barriers related to the low priority of conservation were considered to be important, while mainstreaming conservation was proposed as a key solution. Therefore, priorities should focus on convincing the public of the importance of conservation as an issue, which will then influence policy-makers to adopt pro-environmental long-term policies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据