Successful information exchange between restoration science and practice
Successful information exchange between restoration science and practice
复制标题
修复科学与实践之间成功的信息交流
DOI：
10.1111/rec.12979
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
A. Sher
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lisa B. Clark;A. Henry;R. Lave;N. Sayre;E. González;A. Sher
科学与实践之间的差距经常被认为是成功恢复成果的一个限制因素;然而，在信息交流方面存在的这种差距很少被衡量。在这里，我们量化的差距的重点是共同的建议，从科学家（即研究人员）和管理人员（即从业人员，土地管理人员）的成功恢复所需要的。我们调查了45个管理者与244个入侵物种（柽柳属）。在美国西南部的清除项目，以确定他们在多大程度上利用了科学家倡导的四种策略：（1）广泛合作，（2）监测超越粗略的视觉方法，（3）使用各种信息来源，（4）考虑项目目标超越入侵物种清除。一半的这些管理人员也接受了采访，以评估管理人员的看法，科学的作用，恢复。还调查了该地区专门从事柽柳相关研究的23名科学家，以评估他们对土地管理者的理解和/或关注程度。我们发现，管理人员遵循科学家的建议，管理人员对科学在土地管理中的作用的看法对所采取的管理行动没有任何影响。科学家报告说，他们受到管理人员的影响，科学家和管理人员的关注比预期的要多。边界组织和河流伙伴关系经常被认为是促进土地管理者和科学家之间有效沟通的重要因素。两个团体都认为缺乏监测和长期项目的资金是将科学家的建议纳入恢复的限制。
The science‐practice gap is often cited as a limitation to successful restoration outcomes; however, the existence of such a gap in information exchange is rarely measured. Here, we quantify the gap by focusing on common recommendations from both scientists (i.e. researchers) and managers (i.e. practitioners, land managers) on what is needed for successful restoration. We surveyed 45 managers associated with 244 invasive species (Tamarix spp.) removal projects across the southwestern U.S. to determine the degree to which they have utilized four strategies advocated by scientists: (1) collaborate widely, (2) monitor beyond cursory visual methods, (3) use a variety of information sources, and (4) consider project goals beyond invasive species removal. Half of these managers were also interviewed to assess managers' perceptions of the role of science in restoration. Twenty‐three scientists specializing in Tamarix‐related research in this region were also surveyed to assess how much they understood and/or shared the concerns of land managers. We found that managers were following scientists' recommendations and that managers' perceptions of the role of science in land management did not have any bearing on the management actions taken. Scientists reported being influenced by managers, and the concerns of scientists and managers were more overlapping than expected. Boundary organizations and river‐wide partnerships were often cited as important in facilitating effective communication between land managers and scientists. A lack of funding for monitoring and for longer‐term projects was cited by both groups as a limitation to incorporating scientists' recommendations into restoration.