Bridging the Gap: How Can Information Access and Exchange Between Conservation Biologists and Field Practitioners be Improved for Better Conservation Outcomes?
Bridging the Gap: How Can Information Access and Exchange Between Conservation Biologists and Field Practitioners be Improved for Better Conservation Outcomes?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00557.x
复制
发表时间：
2009-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Campbell, Bruce
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sunderland, Terry;Sunderland-Groves, Jacqueline;Campbell, Bruce
人们普遍认为，保护生物学科学与该领域生物多样性保护项目的设计和执行之间存在相当大的差距，科学未能为保护实践提供信息。造成这种实施差距的原因有很多。保护生物学家在科学期刊上发表的大部分论文很少在学术界之外被阅读，而且学术界也没有什么动力将他们的科学转化为实践。反过来，实地从业者很少以能够为保护科学家提供有意义的信息的方式记录他们的实地经验和实验。与获取科学文献、多学科环境中的科学相关性、捐助者期望以及保护理论和实践各个层面缺乏批判性分析有关的问题是加剧分歧的因素。保护生物学家和野外从业人员的工作环境也往往非常不同，每个人都有不同的职业责任和期望，这损害了相互学习专业知识的能力。本文以最近文献中的争论为基础，并利用案例研究来说明表征这种鸿沟的问题，并借鉴了作者在项目管理和学术研究方面的经验。我们确定了与信息交流相关的五个关键问题：科学文献的获取、科学素养水平、缺乏跨学科性、相关性问题以及缺乏保护相关经验的共享，并提出了新的工作方式，以帮助缩小保护科学家和实地从业人员之间的差距。
It is widely accepted that there is a considerable gap between the science of conservation biology and the design and execution of biodiversity conservation projects in the field and science is failing to inform the practice of conservation. There are many reasons why this implementation gap exists. A high proportion of papers published in scientific journals by conservation biologists are seldom read outside of the academic world and there are few incentives for academics to convert their science into practice. In turn, field practitioners rarely document their field experiences and experiments in a manner that can meaningfully inform conservation scientists. Issues related to access to scientific literature, scientific relevance in multidisciplinary environments, donor expectations and a lack of critical analysis at all levels of conservation theory and practice are factors that exacerbate the divide. The contexts in which conservation biologists and field practitioners operate are also often highly dissimilar, and each has differing professional responsibilities and expectations that compromise the ability to learn from each other's expertise. Building on recent debate in the literature, and using case studies to illustrate the issues that characterize the divide, this paper draws on the authors' experiences of project management as well as academic research. We identify five key issues related to information exchange: access to scientific literature, levels of scientific literacy, lack of interdisciplinarity, questions of relevance and lack of sharing of conservation-related experiences and suggest new ways of working that could assist in bridging the gap between conservation scientists and field practitioners.