A Conceptual Framework For Understanding The Perspectives On The Causes of The Science-Practice Gap in Ecology and Conservation

Biol. Rev. (2017), pp. 000–000.
1
doi: 10.1111/brv.12385
A conceptual framework for understanding the

perspectives on the causes of the
science–practice gap in ecology and
conservation
Diana Bertuol-Garcia1,2,∗ , Carla Morsello2,3 , Charbel N. El-Hani2,4 and
Renata Pardini2,5
1
Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, Rua do Matão, travessa 14, 101 CEP 05508-090, São Paulo,
Brazil
2
National Institute of Science and Technology in Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Studies in Ecology and Evolution (IN-TREE),
Universidade Federal da Bahia, Rua Barão do Geremoabo, s/n, Campus de Ondina/UFBA, CEP 40170-290 Salvador, Brazil
3
Escola de Artes, Ciências e Humanidades, Universidade de São Paulo, Rua Arlindo Bettio, 1000 CEP 03828-000 São Paulo, Brazil
4
Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Rua Barão do Geremoabo, s/n, Campus de Ondina/UFBA, CEP 40170-290 Salvador,
Brazil
5
Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, Rua do Matão, travessa 14, 101 CEP 05508-090, São Paulo,
Brazil
ABSTRACT
Applying scientific knowledge to confront societal challenges is a difficult task, an issue known as the science–practice
gap. In Ecology and Conservation, scientific evidence has been seldom used directly to support decision-making, despite
calls for an increasing role of ecological science in developing solutions for a sustainable future. To date, multiple causes
of the science–practice gap and diverse approaches to link science and practice in Ecology and Conservation have
been proposed. To foster a transparent debate and broaden our understanding of the difficulties of using scientific
knowledge, we reviewed the perceived causes of the science–practice gap, aiming to: (i) identify the perspectives of
ecologists and conservation scientists on this problem, (ii) evaluate the predominance of these perspectives over time and
across journals, and (iii) assess them in light of disciplines studying the role of science in decision-making. We based our
review on 1563 sentences describing causes of the science–practice gap extracted from 122 articles and on discussions
with eight scientists on how to classify these sentences. The resulting process-based framework describes three distinct
perspectives on the relevant processes, knowledge and actors in the science–practice interface. The most common
perspective assumes only scientific knowledge should support practice, perceiving a one-way knowledge flow from
science to practice and recognizing flaws in knowledge generation, communication, and/or use. The second assumes
that both scientists and decision-makers should contribute to support practice, perceiving a two-way knowledge flow
between science and practice through joint knowledge-production/integration processes, which, for several reasons, are
perceived to occur infrequently. The last perspective was very rare, and assumes scientists should put their results into
practice, but they rarely do. Some causes (e.g. cultural differences between scientists and decision-makers) are shared with
other disciplines, while others seem specific to Ecology and Conservation (e.g. inadequate research scales). All identified
causes require one of three general types of solutions, depending on whether the causal factor can (e.g. inadequate
research questions) or cannot (e.g. scientific uncertainty) be changed, or if misconceptions (e.g. undervaluing abstract
knowledge) should be solved. The unchanged predominance of the one-way perspective over time may be associated
with the prestige of evidence-based conservation and suggests that debates in Ecology and Conservation lag behind
trends in other disciplines towards bidirectional views ascribing larger roles to decision-makers. In turn, the two-way
perspective seems primarily restricted to research traditions historically isolated from mainstream conservation biology.
* Address for correspondence (Tel.: +55 11 3091 7510; E-mail: dia.bertuol@gmail.com).
Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

2 Diana Bertuol-Garcia and others
All perspectives represented superficial views of decision-making by not accounting for limits to human rationality,
complexity of decision-making contexts, fuzzy science–practice boundaries, ambiguity brought about by science, and
different types of knowledge use. However, joint knowledge-production processes from the two-way perspective can
potentially allow for democratic decision-making processes, explicit discussions of values and multiple types of science
use. To broaden our understanding of the interface and foster productive science–practice linkages, we argue for
dialogue among different research traditions within Ecology and Conservation, joint knowledge-production processes
between scientists and decision-makers and interdisciplinarity across Ecology, Conservation and Political Science in
both research and education.
Key words: environmental policy, environmental management, research–implementation gap, knowing–doing gap,
policy-making, science communication, transdisciplinarity, communities of practice, science, technology and society,
bounded rationality.
CONTENTS
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
(1) Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
(2) Bibliographic search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
(3) Framework development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
(4) Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
(5) Article coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
III. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
(1) Conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
(a) ‘One-way’ perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
(b) ‘Two-way’ perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
(2) Predominance of perceived causes of the science–practice gap in the literature, over the years and
across journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
IV. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
(1) The perceived causes of the science–practice gap in Ecology and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
(2) The perspectives of ecologists and conservation scientists on the science–practice gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
(3) Putting into context the perspectives of ecologists and conservation scientists on the science–practice
gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
(4) Implications for advancing the debate and fostering productive science–practice linkages in Ecology
and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
V. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
VI. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
VII. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
VIII. Supporting Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
I. INTRODUCTION concurrently with the aggravation of environmental

problems. The worldwide increase in human wellbeing has
People throughout the world believe that science has taken place at the cost of important regulating and supporting
often brought positive impacts to society and can services as well as biodiversity (MEA, 2005; Butchart et al.,
help confront many present-day issues (e.g. improving 2010). In the long run, these changes may impair human
healthcare or adapting to climate change) (Eurobarometer, livelihoods (Foley et al., 2005), and, as argued by some, lead
2014; Laplane et al., 2015). However, despite public to a global state shift in the Earth’s biosphere (Barnosky et al.,
confidence in science, applying scientific knowledge to 2012). Facing these pressing challenges, several scientists have
solve real-world problems and support decision-making called for an increasing role of ecological and conservation
is a difficult task. In many fields, such as healthcare science in developing solutions for a sustainable future
(Bero et al., 1998) and education (Anderson, 2007), this (Carpenter & Folke, 2006; Burger et al., 2012).
disconnection between science and practice has been Several studies have shown, however, that scientific
termed the science–practice, research–implementation, evidence in Ecology and Conservation is seldom used directly
research–practice or knowing–doing gap. to support decision-making (Pullin et al., 2004; Sutherland &
In Ecology and Conservation, the debate regarding the Pullin, 2004; Pullin & Knight, 2005; Cook et al., 2012), while
use of scientific knowledge in decision-making has intensified others reported a disconnection between research questions

Perspectives on causes of the science–practice gap 3
and information required by decision-makers (Linklater, and indirectly to influence decision-makers’ thinking
2003; Esler et al., 2010). Hence, many authors have argued (Weiss, 1979). Embracing these often-neglected aspects of
for the existence of a science–practice gap (e.g. Knight et al., decision-making can greatly broaden our understanding
2008; Cabin et al., 2010; Esler et al., 2010; Barmuta, Linke on the difficulties of using scientific knowledge to support
& Turak, 2011), and important ecological journals have decisions, and thus our ability to envision solutions. It
dedicated special sections to the barriers, challenges and may also encourage scientists to reflect on their ideas and
opportunities for narrowing this gap (e.g. Biotropica in 2009 practices, and help highlight paths for advancing the study
and Journal of Applied Ecology in 2014). of the science–practice interface and for a more productive
To bridge the gap, many ecologists and conservation sci- use of science in decision-making.
entists have called for evidence-based or evidence-informed Herein, we draw on an extensive search of the scientific
conservation practices (Pullin & Knight, 2003; Sutherland literature in Ecology and Conservation and qualitative
& Pullin, 2004; Haddaway & Pullin, 2013). Others have text-analysis techniques to organize the perceived causes
emphasized joint knowledge production between scientists of the science–practice gap into a conceptual framework,
and decision-makers (e.g. Shackleton, Cundill & Knight, aiming at identifying the perspectives of ecologists and
2009; Hegger et al., 2012; Aldunce et al., 2016), but these conservation scientists on the problem. We then evaluate
propositions have generally been neglected in mainstream if the predominance of these perspectives changed over time
Conservation Biology (Curtin & Parker, 2014). Recently, and across journals with distinct research traditions. We
the term ‘science–practice gap’ and the prevalence of the discuss these findings in the light of disciplines devoted to
evidence-based approach have been criticized for assuming understanding the role of science in decision-making and its
linearity in science communication, overlooking other knowl- relation to society, pointing out the strengths and limitations
edge types and the intricate processes of decision-making of the perspectives on the science–practice gap encountered
(Adams & Sandbrook, 2013; Toomey, Knight & Barlow, in the ecological and conservation literature.
2016).
Understanding the distinct perspectives on the
science–practice interface within this heterogeneity of argu-
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
ments can increase transparency, revealing diversity, conflicts
and synergies of ideas. Such transparency can foster a
more effective debate that connects isolated propositions (1) Definitions
and avoids dominance of single models or solutions (Carpen- We adopted the expression ‘science–practice gap’ (e.g.
ter et al., 2009). Because perspectives on a given problem are Cabin et al., 2010), adapting to the ecological and conser-
typically associated with causal narratives (e.g. Mattson et al., vation context the definitions presented in Broekkamp &
2006), synthesizing and organizing the perceived causes of Hout-Wolters (2007) for Education. We thus consider ‘eco-
the science–practice gap into common conceptual domains logical and conservation science’ as the structures, processes,
can assist in this endeavour. To date, however, these causes products, and people directly involved in the systematic
are scattered in the literature, including varied aspects such as production of knowledge in Ecology and Conservation
practitioners’ lack of access to scientific journals (Sunderland within academia. ‘Ecological and conservation practice’,
et al., 2009), academic reward systems focused on number in turn, is defined as the structures, processes, products,
of publications (Shanley & López, 2009), or a unidirectional and people directly involved in action and decision-making
flow of knowledge from science to practice (Shackleton et al., in public, private and non-profit organizations responsible
2009; Pardini et al., 2013). for the development of environmental policies and/or
Synthesizing the perceived causes of the science–practice the conservation or management of biodiversity and of
gap into common conceptual domains can also provide a ecological and socio-ecological systems. As defined here,
structure for assessing the perspectives of ecologists and con- the science–practice gap encompasses the distance between
servation scientists in light of disciplines addressing the role research and decision-making/practical actions, between
of science in decision-making and its relation to society, e.g. organizations and/or people involved in science and practice
Science, Technology and Society (STS) studies and Political (hereafter ‘scientists’ and ‘decision-makers’) and between
Science. The debate on the science–practice gap in Ecology scientific knowledge and the knowledge of decision-makers.
and Conservation has apparently overlooked ideas and
conceptualizations from these disciplines (Cairney, 2016),
(2) Bibliographic search
while political scientists have been criticized for giving little
attention to decision-making concerning environmental and We searched the Web of Science Core Collection for articles
conservation issues (Agrawal & Ostrom, 2006). STS studies published since 1900 in journals or proceedings categorized
and Political Science focus on decision-making processes, in Ecology or Biodiversity Conservation, encompassing the
highlighting that decision-making contexts are complex and majority of journals in which ecologists and conservation
entail political interests and social values besides scientific scientists publish (see online Supporting Information:
evidence (Albaek, 1995). They also argue that science can be Appendix S1). We searched for articles including dif-
used in diverse ways, both directly to solve specific problems ferent expressions for the ‘science–practice gap’ (e.g.

‘research–implementation gap’, ‘knowing–doing gap’) sentences taken from the set of 1057, and then reduced it to
and related sentences (e.g. ‘gap between research and a subset of 50 sentences by choosing those that represented
implementation’, ‘linking science and practice’). Three the diversity of perceived causes present in the initial set
groups of synonymous terms – related to ‘science’, to of 200 sentences (i.e. avoiding too many sentences referring
‘practice’ and to ‘gap’ or ‘bridge’– were searched within to a similar cause). This process resulted in three sets of
the title, abstract or key words of articles. At least one 50 sentences (one for each group). Each scientist sorted
term from each group had to be at most five words the 50 sentences into piles by perceived similarity, named
from at least one term of each of the other two groups them and described the inclusion criteria, thus producing
(Fig. S1). Alternatively, articles could include only the an independent classification of perceived causes of the
word ‘transdisciplinarity’, frequently adopted to define the science–practice gap in Ecology and Conservation. After
integration between academic and non-academic knowledge this individual sorting, each group met personally to discuss
(Tress, Tress & Fry, 2005; Reyers et al., 2010a). The final the differences, advantages and disadvantages among the
search was conducted in December 2014 and returned 1524 classifications.
articles. As a result, eight classifications were obtained, which
We screened the articles by reading the title and abstract we later grouped into four distinct types based on the
and, in case of indecision about appropriateness, the main discussed similarities concerning the underlying logic:
text (Fig. 1). We selected 122 articles (Table S1) that were organized by components, by processes, by personal opinion
accessible and discussed factors causing a divide between or with no explicit organization base (Appendix S2).
science and practice in Ecology and Conservation, even if this The first two classifications refer to the same logic of
was not the paper’s main objective (Appendix S1). The first understanding the science–practice interface as a system
author (D.B.G.) selected 77 priority articles whose explicit (e.g. CHSRF, 2000), but one focuses on the different
objective was to discuss the causes of the science–practice components of the system – scientists, decision-makers,
gap or were published in special sections on the topic. different forms of knowledge – while the other focuses on
The priority articles served to develop a first version of the processes – production, dissemination, exchange, use,
the framework, but all 122 articles were used for the final application – that interlink system components.
conceptual framework (Fig. 1). Based on the group discussions, we first listed the
advantages and disadvantages of the four classification types
(3) Framework development (Appendix S2) and then created the following criteria that
The conceptual framework was developed using an inductive we considered desirable for the final conceptual framework:
approach, based on similarities between sentences referring (i) present a clear underlying logical structure; (ii) present
to causes of the science–practice gap in Ecology and mutually exclusive categories; and (iii) allow the identification
Conservation within the selected articles. We used the of different perspectives on the science–practice gap. Both
text analysis technique cutting and sorting, which involves the components and process-based classifications fulfilled
identifying sentences or expressions related to the research the first two criteria. However, while components are an
question, printing them into separated pieces of paper (cutting) important part of any system description, they can be
and arranging them by perceived similarity (sorting) (Bernard linked in diverse ways by different processes, resulting in
& Ryan, 2010). Each pile is named and the inclusion criteria distinct conceptions of the system. Thus, a more thorough
described, representing recurrent themes or categories. description of the perspectives for linking science and practice
Such text-analysis techniques are adequate for identifying depends upon untangling the processes perceived to be
regularities in written data (Bradley, Curry & Devers, involved, which were made explicit only in the classification
2007; Bernard & Ryan, 2010), helping to identify common based on processes. We thus chose the process-based
domains while valuing the original ideas as expressed by the classification.
authors. The chosen classification was then refined in two steps.
During the cutting, we identified, within the set of First, we reorganized categories and created new ones aiming
priority articles, 1057 sentences referring to causes of the at eliminating the debated disadvantages. For example, as
science–practice gap (Fig. 1), including only those for which the chosen classification did not include perceived causes
the causal connection was comprehensible from the sentence associated with personal and cultural characteristics of
itself or including a context of three to four lines before scientists and decision-makers (Appendix S2), we created
and/or after the sentence. Selected sentences encompassed such a category. Then, all 1563 sentences on causes of
causes perceived either by the authors of the paper or the science–practice gap from all articles (including the
by interviewees or respondents, where the paper assessed 45 non-priority ones) were allocated into the classification
opinions (e.g. of scientists and/or decision-makers). categories by one of the authors (D.B.G.). When one
To encompass different ways of thinking, the sorting was sentence did not fit the categories, we modified the categories
independently conducted by eight scientists whose research and/or criteria, without altering the underlying logic, to
involves the science–practice interface (including the ensure the final conceptual framework was representative
authors), organized into three groups (Fig. 1, Appendix S2). of the entire set of sentences referring to causes of the
For each group, we randomly sampled a different set of 200 science–practice gap from all articles. The final conceptual

framework encompassed 48 categories of perceived causes practice that are considered flawed, inefficient or not
of the science–practice gap organized into four hierarchical occurring (Table 1, Table S4). The first hierarchical level
levels (Table 1). divides the causes into three major categories, representing
markedly different perspectives of ecologists and conservation
(4) Reliability scientists regarding which knowledge or actors are important
in linking science and practice (Fig. 2). Thus, for each
We estimated the reliability of the conceptual framework perspective, the processes linking science and practice are
through the pairwise agreement between one author (D.G.B.) different, constituting the second hierarchical level of the
and two outside evaluators in the allocation of sentences into framework (Fig. 2).
the framework categories (Appendix S3). Each evaluator The first major category (‘One-way’) represents a
was allocated a different set of 150 sentences (∼10% perspective in which both scientists and decision-makers
of the total) taken from all 48 categories (Table 1): one are recognized as actors, but only scientific knowledge is
set encompassed only sentences expressing explicitly and considered important to support decision-making, therefore
precisely the perceived causes of the gap, while the other establishing a unidirectional, one-way flow of knowledge
included sentences taken randomly from each category. The
from science to practice (Fig. 2A). In this case, the linkage
inter-rater pairwise agreement was calculated, for each of
between science and practice is often described with
the four hierarchical levels of the framework, by correcting
terms such as ‘adoption’, ‘transmitting’, ‘transferring’, and
the observed author–evaluator agreement by the agreement
‘translating’, implying a view of scientific knowledge being
expected by chance, estimated via simulations (Appendix
produced in science and assimilated into practice:
S3). The resulting coefficient varies from 0 (observed
agreement equal to that expected by chance) to 1 (perfect We [scientists] must recognize our role in translating
agreement), with values greater than 0.67 accepted as reliable science into management and policy. We have been
(Krippendorff, 2004b). successful at times with this translation, especially when
The reliability coefficient was greater than 0.67 for the first research has been motivated by a specific management
three higher hierarchical levels of the framework for both sets question, but in general our record in this regard is poor.
of sentences (Appendix S3), assuring adequate reliability in ( . . . ) we can do far more to transfer scientific understanding
terms of repeatability of the categorization procedure (Krip- to practice.
pendorff, 2004b). Although coefficients were moderately
(Hall & Fleishman, 2010, p. 121)
lower for the fourth hierarchical level, observed agreement
was still closer to perfect agreement than to agreement By contrast, the perspective of the second major category
expected by chance (> 0.50; Appendix S3). Hence, within (‘Two-way’) assumes that both science and practice should
this lower hierarchical level, we based our interpretations contribute with knowledge to support decision-making,
on which perceived causes of the science–practice gap therefore establishing a bidirectional, two-way flow of
predominated in the ecological and conservation literature knowledge between science and practice via collaborative
only on expressive differences between categories of interactions between scientists and decision-makers (Fig. 2B).
perceived causes (i.e. those differences probably sustained In this case, common terms are ‘exchanges’, ‘partnerships’,
irrespective of the identity of the person categorizing the ‘dialogues’, ‘collaborations’, ‘learning’, ‘integration’ and
sentences). ‘co-production’, suggesting that interactions between
scientists and decision-makers are understood as a process
(5) Article coding with intellectual contributions from both parties rather than
a process facilitating scientific knowledge transfer:
We recorded whether each of the 122 articles included
sentences allocated to each category of the conceptual . . . the lack of interaction between scientists and
framework (Table S1). To analyse the predominance of the practitioners poses further challenges to produce socially
robust knowledge and solve sustainability problems ( . . . )
categories of perceived causes over time and across journals
Attempts to link scientists and practitioners in sustainability
with distinct research traditions, both the publication year
science aim to strengthen the exchange and integration of
and the scientific journal where each article was published
different disciplinary and non-academic knowledge, enabling
were recorded. mutual learning between scientists and practitioners . . .
(Brandt et al., 2013, pp. 1–2)

III. RESULTS
Lastly, the third major category (‘One actor’) is associated
(1) Conceptual framework with a perspective on the science–practice linkage that
We identified 48 lower-level categories of perceived causes also assumes a unidirectional, one-way flow of knowledge
of the science–practice gap arranged into four hierarchical from science to practice, but disregards decision-makers,
levels, representing different processes linking science and considering only scientists to be important actors that should

Table 1. Simplified version of the conceptual framework of perceived causes of the science–practice gap in Ecology and Conservation
found in the scientific literature. The complete version of the framework includes, besides the categories presented here, a category
of ‘other causes’ in every hierarchical level (see Table S4). Detailed criteria for all categories and examples of original sentences are
also in given Table S4. N = number of articles containing sentences related to each category.
Category
First hierarchical Second hierarchical Third hierarchical Fourth hierarchical
level level level level N Brief explanation of perceived cause
ONE-WAY Problems in knowledge Flawed or inefficient Fragmentation 29 The generation of scientific knowledge is
generation research fragmented, disciplinary and conducted without
communication between different areas.
Inadequate questions 38 Research questions and objectives are inadequate
(i.e. do not answer) to the knowledge needs of
decision-makers.
Inadequate scale 27 Research is conducted at spatial and temporal
scales inadequate to practical questions faced by
decision-makers.
Reductionist 11 Scientific approach is reductionist, focusing on
approach isolated factors and not considering environmental
complexity or the joint action of several factors in
practice.
Technical focus 5 Scientific approaches focus mostly on technical
development of methodological procedures, e.g.
spatial prioritization techniques.
Isolation from 20 Research as a whole is conducted isolated or
practice disconnected from practice, without involvement of
decision-makers and ignoring their perspectives and
values.
Long time period for 14 Generation of scientific knowledge is slow, with
scientific-knowledge long time periods elapsing between beginning of
generation research and publication of results.
Limits for research 13 Not all research useful for practice can be
conducted, because of issues of scale, time and limited
resources.
Characteristics of Irrelevant 24 Scientific knowledge is irrelevant, inappropriate
knowledge or of and/or useless for practice, without further
implications explanation given.
Disciplinary 8 Scientific knowledge is disciplinary.
Abstract/theoretical 8 Scientific knowledge consists mainly of abstract,
theoretical and/or conceptual constructions and,
therefore, is barely applicable.
Limited 11 Scientific knowledge generated by single studies is
generalizability not generalizable or has limited generalizability,
hindering extrapolation of results from one place to
another.
Uncertain 21 There are uncertainties associated with scientific
knowledge.
Complicated 17 The existent body of scientific knowledge is
complicated.
Controversial 23 Scientific knowledge is controversial, with often
contradictory results that can change over time and
lack of consensus regarding practical
recommendations.
Unreliable 4 Scientific knowledge generated by particular
studies is unreliable or of poor quality, being
generated without scientific rigour.
Inadequate 19 Recommendations, tools and practical protocols
implications proposed by scientists are inadequate given practical
restrictions of time, space and resources.
Knowledge gaps Lack of knowledge 28 Scientific knowledge regarding questions that are
relevant in practice is lacking.
Lack of implications 22 Recommendations, tools and/or practical
protocols regarding questions that are relevant are
lacking.
Problems in knowledge Problems in knowledge Limited availability 25 Scientists do not make scientific knowledge
communication transfer by scientists available for decision-makers, either because scientific
journals are restricted to academia, because scientists
do not look for other means of communication or
because there is no dissemination of results.

Table 1. Continued
Category
Inadequate 50 Scientific knowledge is translated into inadequate
translation formats, tools or languages or in a distorted way to
decision-makers.
Problems in knowledge Lack of access 37 Scientific knowledge is not accessed by
reception by decision-makers, either because access is difficult for
decision-makers them or because decision-makers do not concern
themselves with accessing scientific knowledge.
Difficulty in 37 Scientific knowledge is not understood or critically
understanding analysed by decision-makers, is incorrectly
understood or is difficult to understand.
Problems in 6 Flaws, errors or inefficiencies affect communication
communication as a of scientific knowledge as a whole, including high
whole costs in terms of time and resources involved in
communicating this knowledge.
Problems in Knowledge disregarded Rejection by 26 Decision-makers reject the use of scientific
knowledge use decision-makers knowledge in practice, either because they have
negative beliefs and attitudes towards science,
preferring to use their personal experiences, or
because they do not trust the knowledge source.
Impediment by the 23 Structures of practice force decision-makers to
organizational disregard scientific knowledge, because of legislative
and/or institutional factors, bureaucratic mechanisms or lack of time in
structure day-to-day activities to use scientific knowledge.
Knowledge selected 11 Scientific knowledge reaching practice is selected
and misused or partially used to support interests of
decision-makers.
Knowledge outweighed 28 Political and economic interests or values and
beliefs of social groups involved outweigh scientific
knowledge in practice.
Problems in the Lack of communication of 10 Practical results are not communicated and/or
feedback from practical results published.
practice
Lack of communication of 6 Decision-makers do not communicate their needs
practical needs or do not ask scientists for help.
General problems Cultural difficulties 43 Behaviours, negative attitudes or misguided perceptions
towards each other and differences between science
and practice in terms of language, values and working
routines hinder the unidirectional flow of scientific
knowledge.
Difficulties associated with Evaluation systems 38 Evaluation and reward systems of scientists or
the organizational decision-makers do not consider acting in linking
context science and practice as an integral part of professional
activities.
Formal education 18 Formal education does not prepare professionals to
take part in the activities involved in linking science
and practice.
Resources 22 Resources are lacking or funding schemes are
incompatible with involvement of scientists and
decision-makers in linking science and practice.
Difficulties associated with Post-normal science 2 A model assuming all forms of knowledge are
models of science and of equally valid devalues the use of scientific knowledge
science–practice and scientists’ opinions in practice.
linkages
Neutral science 6 A model of science assuming science must be
neutral and objective, without any influence of issues
from outside academia, hinders the linking of science
and practice.
Complexity of problems 12 Problems faced in practice are complex, involving
diverse systems interacting with each other and
changing over time, hindering the linking of science
and practice.
TWO-WAY Problems in Lack of interactions 19 Interactions, exchanges, partnerships, dialogues or
interactions collaborations between science and practice are
lacking.

Table 1. Continued
Category
Epistemological difficulties 20 The nature of knowledge, the processes of
generating knowledge deemed valid or
epistemological differences between science and
practice hinder interactions between them.
Cultural difficulties 24 Behaviours, negative attitudes or misguided
perceptions towards each other and cultural
differences between science and practice in terms of
language, values and working routines hinder
interactions between them.
Difficulties associated with Evaluation systems 19 Evaluation and reward systems of scientists and
the organizational decision-makers do not consider interactions between
context science and practice as an integral part of professional
activities and do not value knowledge produced in
these interactions.
Formal education 7 Formal education does not prepare scientists and
decision-makers to act in an integrated manner.
Resources 6 Resources are lacking or funding schemes are
incompatible with supporting interactions between
science and practice.
High turnover in 2 Employment positions for decision-makers in
practice organizations involved in practice have high
turnover, impeding fruitful interactions with the
scientific community.
Difficulties associated with Unidirectional model 15 A model assuming a unidirectional flow of
models of science and knowledge from science to practice hinders
science–practice interactions between science and practice.
linkages
Model emphasizing 2 A model assuming the science–practice gap is due
scientific only to lack of scientific rigour and the solution to
rigour/quality environmental problems lies in a science of better
quality hinders interactions between science and
practice.
Model emphasizing 8 A model that values only explicit, objective and
objective and impartial (i.e. value-free) knowledge and disregards
impartial other knowledge types hinders interactions between
knowledge science and practice.
ONE ACTOR Problems in action 5 Scientists themselves do not act in, i.e. do not
perform, practical activities, or face difficulties in
performing them.
act in ‘doing’ conservation or ‘putting results into practice’, as well as the feedback from practice to science regarding
besides producing scientific knowledge (Fig. 2C): research needs and practical results (Fig. 2A). Thus, within
this perspective, the second-level categories of causes of the
Researchers dealing with conservation subjects usually do not
science–practice gap are associated with problems deemed
put the results of their work into practice, even when
the primary purpose of their research is the preservation of
to affect one or all of these processes (Fig. 3A).
biodiversity. The category ‘Problems in knowledge generation’ is
further divided into three third-level categories associated
(Gallo et al., 2009, p. 895). with (i) the research process, (ii) the characteristics of the
produced knowledge, and (iii) knowledge gaps (Fig. 3A). In
However, this third major category was rare, being present the first case, the perceived causes of the gap lie on flaws,
in only five articles, and, therefore, was not divided into errors or inefficiencies in scientific research. For example,
further categories. some authors argue that the fragmentation of research efforts
(Githiru et al., 2011) or the reductionist approach in scientific
research (Cabin, 2007) renders research incompatible with
(a) ‘One-way’ perspective
the generation of useful knowledge for practice. In the second
The important processes linking science and practice from case, causes are related to characteristics of scientific research
the perspective ‘One-way’ – which assumes a unidirectional products (either scientific knowledge or proposed practical
flow of knowledge from science to practice – are the recommendations derived from it) that are perceived to
generation, communication and use of scientific knowledge, render them irrelevant to practice, such as the difficulty of

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the procedures used for searching and selecting articles and for developing the conceptual framework of
perceived causes of the science–practice gap in Ecology and Conservation.
using scientific knowledge that is abstract (Sunderland et al., language or tools that are inadequate for decision-makers
2009) or uncertain (Bradshaw & Borchers, 2000). Finally, in (e.g. Finch & Patton-Mallory, 1993). The second one
the third case, perceived causes refer to a lack of knowledge or refers to perceived problems in the reception of knowledge
recommendations regarding relevant questions to practice. by decision-makers: they either do not access scientific
The category ‘Problems in knowledge communication’ is literature, for example, because of lack of time in daily
also divided into three third-level categories (Fig. 3A). The activities (e.g. Shaw, Wilson & Richardson, 2010), or have
first refers to the perception of flaws, errors or inefficiencies trouble understanding scientific knowledge (e.g. Bradshaw &
in communication processes for which scientists are deemed Borchers, 2000). The third one refers to problems perceived
responsible; that is, scientists either do not make scientific to affect the communication process as a whole, such as
knowledge available for decision-makers (e.g. only publishing the high costs in terms of resources and time involved in
in scientific journals read by their own peers; Dramstad & communicating scientific knowledge to practice (Seavy &
Fjellstad, 2012) or translate available knowledge in formats, Howell, 2010).

the perception of scientific knowledge being (i) partially

selected to support decision-makers’ interests (e.g. Peuhkuri,
2002), or (ii) outweighed by other factors (e.g. by political
interests; Barbour et al., 2008).
Although the ‘One-way’ perspective assumes a unidirec-
tional flow of knowledge from science to practice, some
articles also indicate perceived problems in the feedback
from practice to science (‘Problems in the feedback from
practice’, Fig. 3A). In this category, causes are related to a
perceived lack of communication either (i) of practical results
or (ii) of research needs back to scientists. For example, Finch
& Patton-Mallory (1993) argue that land managers have not
always done a good job explaining their needs or soliciting
research help.
Finally, some articles reported causes perceived to affect
more than one process linking science and practice, hindering
as a whole the flow of knowledge originating in scientific
research. We grouped those perceived causes into the
category ‘General problems’, divided into four third-level
categories (Fig. 3A). The first one refers to cultural aspects
(i.e. values, expectations, perceptions, attitudes, and/or
behaviours) of scientists and/or decision-makers deemed
to hinder the knowledge flow from science to practice,
e.g. misguided perceptions and criticisms from one side
towards the other preventing an effective conversion of
scientific findings into management actions (e.g. Cabin,
2007). The second category includes aspects of the
organizational context, associated with the perception that
either (i) professional evaluation systems do not reward
scientists for engaging in processes related to the flow
of scientific knowledge to practice; (ii) formal education
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the three perspectives does not train professionals to engage in these processes;
regarding which knowledge or actor is considered important in
or (iii) resources are lacking to support such activities.
linking science and practice in Ecology and Conservation. Text
in italic represents recognized actors within each perspective Bainbridge (2014), for example, criticizes formal scientific
and boxes represent the processes that are considered flawed education for not exposing students to the functioning and
(i.e. second hierarchical-level categories of perceived causes). methods of policy-making. The third and fourth categories
(A) The perspective ‘One-way’ assumes that only scientific are related to currently predominant models governing
knowledge is important to support decision-making, therefore scientific production and science–practice linkages and to the
establishing a unidirectional flow of knowledge from science to complexity of problems faced by decision-makers (Fig. 3A),
practice (one-way continuous arrow), with possible feedback of which were also perceived to affect all the processes of
practical needs (one-way dashed arrow). (B) The perspective knowledge generation, communication and use as well as
‘Two-way’ assumes that both science and practice should feedback.
contribute with knowledge to support practice, therefore
establishing a bidirectional flow of knowledge between science
and practice via joint knowledge production and interactions (b) ‘Two-way’ perspective
between scientists and decision-makers (two-way continuous Within the perspective ‘Two-way’ – which assumes a
arrow). (C) The perspective ‘One actor’ assumes that only bidirectional knowledge flow between science and
scientists are important actors and should act in conservation,
besides producing scientific knowledge.
practice – we identified only one important process deemed
to link science and practice: joint knowledge production
and integration via interactions between scientists and
The category ‘Problems in knowledge use’ also includes decision-makers (Fig. 2B). Thus, this perspective includes
three third-level categories (Fig. 3A). The first implies a single second-level category ‘Problems in interactions’
that scientific knowledge is disregarded in practice, either (Fig. 3B).
because decision-makers reject it, for example, when new The category ‘Problems in interactions’ is in turn
scientific ideas contradict personal beliefs (McCleery, Lopez subdivided into five third-level categories of perceived causes
& Silvy, 2007), or it is not used because of the structure (Fig. 3B): one related to lack of interactions between science
of organizations involved in practice (e.g. Murphy & and practice, without delving into the underlying reasons,
Kaeding, 1998). The second and third categories refer to and four categories dealing with different factors perceived

Fig. 3. Hierarchical organization of the second- and third-level categories of perceived causes of the science–practice gap in
Ecology and Conservation within the perspectives ‘One-way’ (A) and ‘Two-way’ (B), showing the number (inside circles) and the
proportion (bars) of articles (N = 122) that contained sentences allocated to each category.
to hinder or prevent interactions. The first category of Many perceived causes within ‘Problems in interactions’
factors perceived to hinder interactions – ‘Epistemological (Fig. 3B) are similar to those perceived to affect as a
difficulties’ – encompasses differences between science and whole the unidirectional flow of knowledge from science
practice regarding either the nature of knowledge or to practice in the ‘General problems’ category, within the
which knowledge-generation processes are deemed valid. ‘One-way’ perspective (Fig. 3A). However, perceived causes
For example, Hulme (2014) stresses that while science seeks within ‘Problems in interactions’ are deemed to hinder joint
generalizations, knowledge is context dependent and variable knowledge production and/or integration between scientists
across decision-makers, complicating knowledge integration. and practitioners, while causes within ‘General problems’
The other categories of factors deemed to hinder interactions are perceived to impair the unidirectional flow of knowledge
are related to perceived difficulties associated with cultural from science to practice.
aspects, the organizational context, and predominant models
of science and science–practice linkages (Fig. 3B). The (2) Predominance of perceived causes of the
category ‘Difficulties associated with the organizational science–practice gap in the literature, over the
context’ is further subdivided into (i) professional evaluation years and across journals
systems, (ii) formal education, (iii) lack of resources, and From the 122 reviewed articles, 92 were published in the last
(iv) high turnover of decision-makers’ employment positions. decade. In fact, the proportion of articles mentioning causes
In the latter category, Shackleton et al. (2009) perceived of the science–practice gap in Ecology and Conservation has
the constant change of people involved in practice as a increased over the years, particularly since 2007 (Fig. 4A).
major difficulty in developing social-learning partnerships. Half of the reviewed articles included causes of the
Lastly, the category ‘Difficulties associated with models of science–practice gap from just one major perspective (mainly
science and science–practice linkages’ is subdivided into ‘One-way’), while the other half included causes from
three different models perceived to hinder interactions two, mainly ‘One-way’ and ‘Two-way’, or all three major
between science and practice (e.g. the unidirectional model of perspectives (Fig. 4A). The ‘One-way’ perspective – which
knowledge dissemination from scientists to decision-makers assumes a unidirectional flow of knowledge from science
focusing on knowledge transfer and translation; Shackleton to practice – was the most common perspective overall
et al., 2009). (Fig. 4A), with only three articles not including perceived

(A)
(B)
Fig. 4. Distribution of reviewed articles associated with each major category of perceived causes of the science–practice gap in
Ecology and Conservation between 1991 and 2014 (A) and across scientific journals (B). In A, bars represent the number of reviewed
articles divided by the total number of articles indexed in the categories ‘Ecology’ and ‘Biodiversity Conservation’ in the Web of Science
Core Collection for each publication year. In B, continuous arrows point to journals dominated by articles associated only with the
major category ‘One-way’ and dashed arrows to journals dominated by articles also associated with the major category ‘Two-way’.
Front. Ecol. Environ. = Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment; Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. = Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment; Succ. Limit.
Ecosyst. Sci. = Successes, Limitations, and Frontiers in Ecosystem Science.
causes of the science–practice gap from this perspective Economics also included perceived causes from the perspective
(Fig. 4A). The ‘Two-way’ perspective – which assumes a ‘Two-way’ (Fig. 4B).
bidirectional flow of knowledge between science and Considering the ‘One-way’ perspective, causes referring
practice – was the second most common, while the ‘One to ‘Problems in knowledge generation’ were present in
actor’ perspective – which assumes only scientists to be approximately 80% of the articles, being the most common
important actors – was the least common (Fig. 4A). The in the second hierarchical level, followed closely by
proportion of articles associated with the perspectives ‘Problems in knowledge communication’ and ‘General
‘One-way’ and ‘Two-way’ did not change substantially problems’ (Fig. 3A). Within the category ‘Problems in
over the years, while the few articles including perceived knowledge generation’, causes related to research process
causes from the ‘One actor’ perspective were published or characteristics of knowledge were the most frequent
more recently, between 2008 and 2011 (Fig. 4A). (Fig. 3A). Within the category ‘Problems in knowledge
The reviewed articles were published mostly in Conservation communication’, the number of articles citing causes in
Biology, followed by Journal of Applied Ecology and Landscape knowledge transfer was slightly greater than in knowledge
and Urban Planning (Fig. 4B). The proportion of reviewed reception (Fig. 3A). The inadequate translation of scientific
articles associated with each perspective was similar across knowledge by scientists (within knowledge transfer) was the
most scientific journals (Fig. 4B). However, articles published most cited lower-level category of the entire framework, being
in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Biodiversity and mentioned by 40% of reviewed articles (Table 1). Within
Conservation and Wildlife Society Bulletin were predominantly ‘Problems in knowledge use’, knowledge being disregarded
associated only with the perspective ‘One-way’, while most in practice appeared more frequently in the literature than
articles published in Biotropica, Ecology and Society and Ecological knowledge being selected by decision-makers to fit their

own interests or being outweighed by other factors (Fig. 3A). widely acknowledged problem causing the science–practice
Finally, within the category ‘General problems’, the most gap among ecologists and conservation scientists. The idea
common perceived causes were those related to cultural that current scientific processes may be inadequate to address
aspects or difficulties associated with the organizational societal challenges is also present in the critique of the implicit
context (Fig. 3A), the latter reflecting the high proportion social contract of science (i.e. science supplies knowledge to
of articles mentioning that professional evaluation systems society in exchange for support through taxes and liberty
hinder the flow of knowledge from science to practice to self-regulate; NASEM, 2015). According to Lubchenco
(Table 1). (1998), this contract is no longer sufficient to confront pressing
Regarding the ‘Two-way’ perspective, all categories environmental challenges, and a new contract is needed in
of perceived causes related to ‘Problems in interactions’ which science is directed to the most pressing problems.
were equally frequent in the literature, being found in However, this is a controversial view that disregards that
approximately one fifth of the articles (Fig. 3B). Most articles science searching for explanations that provide intellectual
mentioning causes in the categories ‘Difficulties associated satisfaction (Braithwaite, 1955) is also important both for
with the organizational context’ and ‘Difficulties associated understanding the systems we may wish to conserve (Dayton,
with models of science and science–practice linkages’ refer 2003) and for general advances in technology (Oates, 2013).
to problems perceived to be associated with professional Hence, a focus on diverse ways of conducting science may
evaluation systems and a unidirectional model of knowledge be more useful.
transfer from science to practice, respectively (Table 1). Within the category ‘Problems in knowledge generation’,
When divided by publication year, the proportion often-mentioned causes related both to scientific research
of reviewed articles including causes from second- and and to characteristics of scientific knowledge reinforce this
third-level categories did not change substantially over time perception of inadequacy of scientific processes and products.
(Appendix S4). Fourth-level categories presented too few The fragmentation of research efforts and inadequate
articles to allow division by publication year. All trends research questions and scales (the most frequently cited
described above remain similar when considering only the causes related to the research process) were perceived to
articles expressing exclusively the authors’ ideas, i.e. after render scientific knowledge irrelevant (the most cited cause
excluding the 21 articles that empirically investigated the related to characteristics of knowledge). Thus, the prevalence
opinions of scientists or decision-makers (Appendix S5). of these causes in the literature points to a general perception
that conducting more-relevant research is the main step
towards bridging the science–practice gap, a perception also
IV. DISCUSSION common within the medical field (Cairney, 2016). Indeed,
several articles in Ecology and Conservation discuss what
We reviewed the scientific literature in Ecology and renders scientific knowledge relevant to practice (e.g. Cash
Conservation and, by using an inductive text-analysis et al., 2003; Cook et al., 2013). Ecologists and conservation
approach, organized the perceived causes of the scientists may thus place great importance on transforming
science–practice gap into a process-based conceptual institutional and organizational arrangements of science
framework. We identified three perspectives of ecologists to allow for the generation of knowledge that is relevant
and conservation scientists on the important processes to practice, indicating that they support diverse ways of
linking science and practice that coexist in the literature, conducting science.
frequently within the same articles and journals. Below, we Besides being irrelevant to practice, characteristics
first discuss the predominant causes of the science–practice inherent to scientific knowledge, such as uncertainty
gap perceived by ecologists and conservation scientists, and and controversy, were also frequently cited as causes of
then contextualize the identified perspectives in terms of the science–practice gap. For example, the uncertainty
predominance over time and across journals with distinct associated with scientific knowledge is perceived as
research traditions. Next, we consider insights from scientific hindering its acceptance and use in practice because most
disciplines studying the role of science in decision-making and decision-makers seek certainty (Bainbridge, 2014) and/or
its relation to society to highlight the strengths and limitations are not used to probabilistic modes of discourse (Bradshaw
of ecologists and conservation scientists’ perspectives on the & Borchers, 2000). However, any knowledge about the
science–practice gap. Finally, we describe the implications empirical world is inherently uncertain and conjectural,
for fostering productive linkages between science and and even the most consensual topics are surrounded by
practice in Ecology and Conservation. irreducible uncertainty (Dovers, Norton & Handmer, 1996;
Bradshaw & Borchers, 2000). In Ecology and Conservation,
uncertainty may be an even more pressing problem in the
(1) The perceived causes of the science–practice application of scientific knowledge than in other disciplines,
gap in Ecology and Conservation
partly because they are relatively young sciences and there
Within the perspective ‘One-way’, the great majority of is still much to understand, but also because of the inherent
articles mentioned ‘Problems in knowledge generation’, complexity of ecological and socio-ecological systems (Dovers
suggesting that the generation of scientific knowledge is a et al., 1996; Polasky et al., 2011). Although uncertainty can

be reduced over time, it is not a problem in itself, but (Young & Van Aarde, 2011) or of science rejection by
an inherent characteristic of scientific knowledge, which decision-makers. Rejection, in turn, was perceived to be asso-
may be miscomprehended (Bradshaw & Borchers, 2000), ciated with, among other factors, a lack of trust in knowledge
potentially leading to rejection of ecological knowledge sources (Lauber et al., 2011), resistance to change in manag-
among decision-makers (van Latesteijn, 1998), and to ing paradigms (McCleery et al., 2007) or unjustified expecta-
ambiguity and complication in public debate when science is tions towards scientific knowledge, e.g. certainty (Bradshaw
brought to assist decision-making (Sarewitz, 2004; Cairney, & Borchers, 2000). Irrespective of the reason, the prevalence
2016). in the literature suggests a widespread perception among
The ecological and conservation literature also encom- scientists that ecological and conservation science is rarely
passed perceived causes of the science–practice gap related used and is rejected by practitioners in decision-making.
to another intrinsic characteristic of scientific knowledge, Although less frequent than problems in knowledge
namely its abstract nature. This is surprising as it suggests generation and communication, causes associated with
a misconception from scientists themselves about science ‘General problems’ within the perspective ‘One-way’, which
and its potential for solving problems. Being abstract means were perceived as overall hindering the knowledge flow from
that scientific knowledge aims at generalizations, building science to practice, were commonly mentioned. Many of
general propositions applicable to different situations and these causes were similar to those perceived as hindering joint
contexts (Tress et al., 2005). Precisely because it is general, knowledge production and/or integration between scientists
scientific knowledge has explanatory and predictive power. and decision-makers within the perspective ‘Two-way’.
Nonetheless, knowledge generalizability can be limited in Within both perspectives, problems related to professional
some instances, which has also been perceived as hampering evaluation systems were the most commonly cited within
productive science–practice linkages (‘Limited generaliz- the category ‘Difficulties associated with the organizational
ability’, Table 1). Ecological generalizations, in contrast to context’. This indicates that such systems are perceived as a
generalizations in other disciplines, have a more restricted hurdle to a broad range of processes expected to link science
application domain (Weber, 1999; El-Hani, 2006), and some and practice, for example, because the focus on the quantity
have proposed that developing solutions to specific problems of high-impact publications discourages scientists to dedicate
may often require that new local, context-specific knowl- time to knowledge communication or integration (Born,
edge – and therefore not applicable elsewhere – is produced Boreux & Lawes, 2009; Shanley & López, 2009; Sunderland
(Tress et al., 2005). However, generalized ecological knowl- et al., 2009; Whitmer et al., 2010). Similarly, cultural aspects of
edge (i.e. ecological theories and models), by identifying key scientists and decision-makers arising from different values,
processes or mechanisms, can help to identify which specific attitudes and languages (e.g. Cabin, 2007), or ingrained
information is needed in particular situations or contexts. misconceptions and negative attitudes towards one another
Although problems in knowledge generation were more (e.g. Roux et al., 2006), are also commonly perceived as
salient, inadequate translation, included in the category hampering both the one-way flow of knowledge from science
‘Problems in knowledge communication’, was the most cited to practice and the process of joint knowledge production
lower-level category of the entire framework. Indeed, transla- and/or integration between scientists and decision-makers.
tion difficulties are perceived to result from failures in several Within the perspective ‘Two-way’, the categories
other processes, such as formal education, as well as from ‘Epistemological difficulties’ and ‘Difficulties associated with
characteristics of scientific knowledge such as uncertainty. models of science and science–practice linkages’ (especially a
Formal scientific education does not usually focus on the unidirectional model of knowledge transfer) were as common
processes and methods used in decision-making or on human as the cultural and organizational aspects mentioned above.
interaction skills (Cannon, Dietz & Dietz, 1996; Jacobson Epistemological difficulties – such as different conceptions
& Duff, 1998; Baxter et al., 1999), possibly leading to lack of of scientists and decision-makers on the nature of knowledge
competence on how to present scientific knowledge for audi- and how it should be produced – have already been
ences outside academia, or how to frame scientific knowledge reported as significant challenges hindering integration of
into relevant and meaningful practical recommendations. In different knowledge sources, given that different conceptions
addition, scientific uncertainty was perceived as increasing prevent consensus on how to integrate knowledge or which
the challenge of translating science in a meaningful way to integration outputs are valuable (Raymond et al., 2010). In
decision-makers (Dovers et al., 1996; Bradshaw & Borchers, fact, the hindrance to integrative joint knowledge-production
2000). However, as Bainbridge (2014) suggests, although processes between scientists and decision-makers perceived
most authors place an onus on scientists for improving com- to be caused by the unidirectional model can be explained
munication, decision-makers’ responsibility to understand by such epistemological challenges, as this model places
and engage with science should not be overlooked. greater importance on scientific knowledge, simultaneously
In the category ‘Problems in knowledge use’, the most devaluing other knowledge types, such as the context-situated
commonly cited cause was a disregard for scientific knowl- knowledge of decision-makers.
edge in practice. This was perceived to be a result of either Apparently, scientists in distinct fields perceive similar
an organizational impediment, such as a lack of operational causes affecting the science–practice gap. This is the case for
capacity to implement science-based recommendations cultural difficulties and professional evaluation systems, also

perceived as a hindrance to linking science and practice in

Education (Anderson, 2007; Broekkamp & Hout-Wolters,
2007), Nursing (Closs & Cheater, 1994), and Medicine
(Waddell, 2002; Nutley, Walter & Davies, 2007). However,
certain aspects of scientific knowledge generation, such as
research being conducted at inadequate scales (i.e. either
temporal or spatial scales different from those relevant to
decision-makers) and research being limited because of scale,
time and funding issues, seem to be perceived as a cause of
the science–practice gap only in Ecology and Conservation.
Comparing the conservation and medical fields, Walsh (2015)
identified several perceived barriers specific to conservation,
including the problem of research scale. Indeed, relevant
temporal and spatial scales in Ecology and Conservation
are more varied than in other disciplines, ranging from Fig. 5. Distinct types of solutions to the perceived causes of
genes to ecosystems (Pullin & Knight, 2005). Research the science–practice gap in Ecology and Conservation. (A)
funding and larger samples are also harder to obtain in Solutions that aim at eliminating or changing the causal factor.
Ecology and Conservation (e.g. compared to medicine; Fazey (B) Solutions that aim at recognizing and dealing with problems
et al., 2004). Despite differences in perceived causes, our (causal factors) that cannot be eliminated. (C) Solutions that
conceptual framework suggests that the science–practice aim at changing the perception of causal factors that are based
on misconceptions about the potential of science for supporting
gap in Ecology and Conservation is perceived to be
practice.
as complex and multifaceted as within other scientific
disciplines (Broekkamp & Hout-Wolters, 2007; Nutley et al.,
2007). assumes that only scientific knowledge should support
The variety of perceived causes of the science–practice practice, establishing a unidirectional flow of knowledge
gap in Ecology and Conservation requires three distinct, from science to practice, while the perspective ‘Two-way’
general types of solution (Fig. 5). First, several perceived assumes that both scientists and decision-makers should
causes require solutions directly eliminating the causal factor support practice via a bidirectional process of joint knowledge
(Fig. 5A). For example, inadequate research questions were production and integration. The perspective ‘One actor’ in
often perceived as a causal factor. To eliminate this factor turn disregards decision-makers by assuming that scientists
and change research agendas, lists of priority topics have should put their results into practice. Although this is, to our
been developed by consulting scientists and practitioners knowledge, the first formal review on the science–practice
(e.g. Sutherland et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2015). Second, gap in Ecology and Conservation, the few studies exploring
some perceived causes are related to factors that cannot conceptualizations of the interface in this field mention
be eliminated or changed, such as those regarding intrinsic perspectives similar to those we identified. For example,
characteristics of ecological knowledge (e.g. uncertainty). Roux et al. (2006) portray ongoing initiatives to link science
Here, solutions require the recognition of, and then ways and practice in sustainable ecosystem management as
to deal with, the problem or factor (Fig. 5B), such as adhering to a model of unidirectional knowledge transfer
assisting decision-makers to tackle uncertainty via adaptive and argue instead for bidirectional knowledge-sharing
management or scenario planning (Dovers et al., 1996; processes. Likewise, among the framings of interactions
Polasky et al., 2011). Finally, some perceived causes cannot be between science and environmental or conservation policy
tackled by either eliminating or dealing with the causal factor, presented by Pregernig (2014), several focus mainly on
given they are mostly based on misconceptions (Fig. 5C). For scientific knowledge, while only one recognizes a plurality of
example, the perceived cause of scientific knowledge being knowledge systems.
abstract is either a misconception about the potential of In fact, the two main perspectives on the science–practice
generalized knowledge to guide action or an incorrect use gap we identified also parallel those recognized among
of concepts such as ‘abstract’ or ‘conceptual’. Either way, a scientists from other disciplines, such as Medicine and
more adequate solution would be to encourage discussions on Education. In these disciplines, earlier ideas of research
the nature of knowledge, including historical, philosophical utilization in practice suggested a unidirectional transfer
and sociological approaches to science. of information (Huberman, 1994; Nutley et al., 2007),
equivalent to our major category ‘One-way’. However,
recently, the unidirectional view has been replaced
(2) The perspectives of ecologists and conservation by bidirectional conceptions highlighting dialogue and
scientists on the science–practice gap
joint knowledge production and/or integration between
By classifying the perceived causes of the science–practice researchers and practitioners (Waddell, 2002; Nutley et al.,
gap in Ecology and Conservation into a process-based 2007; Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010), similar to our major
framework, we identified three distinct perspectives or ways category ‘Two-way’. Despite this historical tendency in other
to understand the interface. The perspective ‘One-way’ disciplines, the proportion of articles associated with our two

major categories did not substantially change over time and Despite the unchanged predominance of the ‘One-way’
there was a clear prevalence of the ‘One-way’ perspective. perspective over time, the distribution of perspectives on
Our findings thus suggest the debate of the science–practice the science–practice gap across ecological and conservation
gap in Ecology and Conservation may lag behind discussions journals was not homogeneous. Even though the proportion
in other disciplines, being still dominated by a perspective of articles associated with each perspective was similar across
assuming a one-way flow of knowledge from science to most journals, some are dominated by articles mentioning
practice and a primacy of scientific knowledge. causes of the gap related only to the unidirectional
The prevalence of the unidirectional view of knowledge perspective ‘One-way’, while in others most articles include
transfer may be associated with the leverage or prestige of also the bidirectional ‘Two-way’ perspective. The former
the evidence-based approach in Ecology and Conservation are associated with conservation and wildlife management
(Toomey et al., 2016). This approach, transposed from traditions, such as Biodiversity and Conservation and Wildlife
Medicine to Conservation, focuses on methods that Society Bulletin, whereas the latter are mostly linked to
systematically collate and synthesize scientific evidence to traditions such as sustainability science and socio-ecological
enhance the flow of knowledge from science to practice resilience, e.g. Ecology and Society and Ecological Economics.
(Pullin & Knight, 2001; Fazey et al., 2004; Sutherland & The focus on joint knowledge production and integration
Pullin, 2004; Dicks, Walsh & Sutherland, 2014b). More than between scientists and decision-makers, besides being less
ten years after its proposal (Pullin & Knight, 2003; Sutherland frequent, may thus have also been primarily restricted to
& Pullin, 2004), the evidence-based approach has become research traditions historically isolated from mainstream
widely established, resulting in journals (e.g. Conservation Conservation Biology (Curtin & Parker, 2014). Together
Evidence), online databases (e.g. www.conservationevidence with the overall dominance of the ‘One-way’ perspective
.com, www.environmentalevidence.org), and international over time, this reinforces the idea of a debate dominated by
collaborations (e.g. Collaboration for Environmental a single unidirectional view of knowledge transference from
Evidence), and has been found to effectively facilitate science to practice, which may prevent the incorporation of
the use of science in practice (Walsh, Dicks & diverse perspectives when planning solutions for improving
Sutherland, 2015). However, although the evidence-based the use of science in decision-making (Carpenter et al., 2009).
approach acknowledges the need to integrate scientific and
non-scientific knowledge in decision-making (Fazey et al., (3) Putting into context the perspectives of
2004; Haddaway & Pullin, 2013; Walsh, 2015), there has ecologists and conservation scientists on the
been a focus on the systematic collation of scientific evidence science–practice gap
and less so on the integration of different knowledge As understanding the process of decision-making can bring a
sources (Adams & Sandbrook, 2013; Walsh, 2015). broader perception of the role of science (Oliver, Lorenc
This dominance may have precluded advances towards & Innvaer, 2014), the debate on the science–practice
perspectives emphasizing interactions between scientists and gap in Ecology and Conservation can be enlightened by
decision-makers and the use of local and practitioners’ considering the input of disciplines such as STS studies and
knowledge to deal with environmental problems. Political Science. Whereas these disciplines focus mainly
In contrast to the evidence-based approach originating on decision-making processes and on the role of science in
in Medicine, integrative approaches for linking science and society (Cairney, 2016), the literature on the science–practice
practice are more common in Education (e.g. McIntyre, gap in Ecology and Conservation addresses primarily
2005; El-Hani & Greca, 2013). These initiatives are inspired the process of knowledge generation and the connection
by contributions emphasizing learning and knowledge between science and practice, either through knowledge
production as an integral part of social practice, such communication or joint knowledge production/ integration
as social-learning theories (e.g. Lave & Wenger, 1991) (depending on the perspective). Below, we present four main
and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). In Ecology topics we believe disciplines such as Political Science and STS
and Conservation, some similar successful experiences of studies could contribute to the debate on the science–practice
joint knowledge production have been reported, such as gap in Ecology and Conservation.
those integrating scientific knowledge with decision-makers’ The first topic refers to several criticisms to the
strategic knowledge (sensu Hulme, 2014) about what is traditional model of decision- and policy-making, in which
legislatively, politically and administratively feasible (Pardini science is the sole provider of relevant information to a
et al., 2013; Rigueira et al., 2013), or initiatives also rational decision-maker, who accesses and evaluates such
incorporating local resource users and their (traditional) information, ranks the benefits and costs of all possible
knowledge (Knight & Cowling, 2006; Shackleton et al., actions, and arrives at a solution that maximizes the
2009). Hence, although the medical field has provided benefits (Collingridge & Reeve, 1986; Albaek, 1995). Instead,
many important lessons for linking science and practice in more recent conceptualizations contemplate a complex
Ecology and Conservation, as attested by the achievements decision-making context (reviewed in Albaek, 1995; Neilson,
of evidence-based approaches, avoiding dominance in the 2001; Nutley et al., 2007; Cairney, 2016), with different
debate regarding the science–practice gap will require relevant factors besides science, such as political interests,
inspiration from other disciplines such as Education. social values, and feasibility of actions. In this complex

context, decision-makers do not act fully rationally and decision-makers (Nutley et al., 2007). Furthermore, STS stud-
are instead ‘boundedly rational’, i.e. they cannot access all ies emphasize that the boundaries between science and policy
relevant information nor act upon it. They just make ‘good are constantly negotiated in a political process (Jasanoff,
enough’ decisions or make only incremental changes without 1987) and that science is embedded within society, as the con-
considering the science. Some conceptualizations even struction of science involves not only scientists but rather all
describe decision-making as chaotic and unpredictable, with society (Jasanoff, 2004). By emphasizing few (one or two) dis-
solutions arising independently of problems and becoming tinct types of actors, all perspectives on the science–practice
attached to them when opportunity arises. In this scenario, gap encountered in the ecological and conservation
one can barely say that decisions are being made. Also, literature are similar in disregarding these fuzzy boundaries
because of diverse social interests that must be considered, between science and policy/practice. Only recently has
political scientists and STS scholars have questioned the the consideration of science not as a separate entity but
technocratic solution of science being the sole provider of as immersed in society entered the science–practice gap
information as this goes against democratic principles of debate in Ecology and Conservation (Toomey et al., 2016).
diversity of opinions and debate (Collingridge & Reeve, The third contribution from disciplines such as STS studies
1986; Albaek, 1995). In fact, solutions based on science and Political Science deals with the relevance of science
may undermine the social identity and local knowledge of for supporting decision-making. Some studies emphasize
involved social groups (Wynne, 1996). that science, when brought to assist decision-making,
The several criticisms to the rational model of actually complicates controversies by adding, to innate
decision-making emphasize the importance of understanding value conflicts, technical disagreements regarding scientific
how decisions are made within an influential socio-political evidence (Collingridge & Reeve, 1986; Sarewitz, 2004). As
context and of considering diverse viewpoints. None of the scientific knowledge is not an absolute truth, but empirically
identified perspectives in the ecological and conservation based assertions subject to criticism, it is indeed liable
literature specifies how decision-makers rely on science or to different interpretations filtered through each person’s
are influenced by their context, and thus are committed to worldview (Collingridge & Reeve, 1986). In the public
naïve views of decision-making (Oliver et al., 2014). However, process of decision-making, each side of the debate naturally
the perspectives ‘One-way’ and ‘One actor’ seem to present finds in the accumulated body of scientific knowledge the
a more rational view of the decision-making process by evidence to support their position and technical arguments to
emphasizing that only scientific knowledge should support criticize the interpretation of the opposing side (Collingridge
decision-making, and neglecting the complexity of this & Reeve, 1986; Sarewitz, 2004). In this sense, the uncertainty
process. Within the perspective ‘One-way’, for instance, one associated with scientific knowledge takes a new dimension
of the most cited lower-level categories concerns scientific when brought to public debate (Sarewitz, 2004), which
knowledge being outweighed by other factors (‘Knowledge has also been called ambiguity (Cairney, 2016). In contrast
outweighed’ within ‘Problems in knowledge use’), while the to uncertainty, ambiguity cannot be reduced by simply
lower-level category that indicates a recognition of the conducting more research (Cairney, 2016).
complexity of decision-making (‘Complexity of problems’ All identified perspectives of ecologists and conservation
within ‘General problems’) was uncommon. By contrast, the scientists on the science–practice gap similarly imply that
perspective ‘Two-way’ seems to take a more realistic view scientific knowledge can be used to assist decision-making,
of decision-making by emphasizing that decision-makers suggesting that the discussion regarding the ambiguity of
have important knowledge – especially strategic knowledge science when transposed to the public debate has not found
(sensu Hulme, 2014) about what is legislatively, politically its way into the ecological and conservation literature.
and administratively feasible – and by recognizing that However, the perspectives ‘One-way’ and ‘Two-way’
decision-making cannot be based solely on science. In included a category of perceived causes related to ‘Cultural
this sense, the perspective ‘Two-way’ may create paths for difficulties’, which comprises different values and beliefs
more democratic decision-making processes valuing other among scientists and decision-makers. The perspective
knowledges and social identities. ‘Two-way’ also included the category ‘Epistemological
Secondly, the disciplines studying the role of science in difficulties’, encompassing different conceptions of scientists
decision-making propose that the science–practice boundary and decision-makers regarding valid processes of knowledge
is more diffuse than normally assumed. Current approaches generation. These cultural and epistemological differences
from Political Science explain decision-making complexity may account for some of the different interpretations assigned
by describing different networks influencing policy decisions to scientific knowledge when used to assist decision-making.
(reviewed in Neilson, 2001; Nutley et al., 2007; Cairney, More importantly, though, the perspective ‘Two-way’
2016). These networks are composed by diverse actors, assumes a process of joint knowledge production through
such as policy-makers from different government levels, collaborative and sustained interactions among scientists,
academics from diverse backgrounds, businesses represen- decision-makers and other stakeholders, which may be a
tatives, consultants, activists, interest-group leaders and the path to deal with value differences in a more reflexive
media. Thus, the relationship between science and practice manner, by allowing the involved actors to be explicit about
does not necessarily occur directly between scientists and and negotiate their value positions.

Finally, the last topic refers to three main ways for scientific processes, which may allow for a more inclusive and
knowledge to be used in decision-making. Instrumental use democratic decision-making process, an explicit discussion
occurs when a specific piece of scientific evidence is used of the ambiguity brought about by science and its underlying
directly to assist a specific decision or solve a clearly defined value positions, and diverse ways for science to be used.
problem (Amara, 2004; Nutley et al., 2007), while symbolic
use occurs when scientific knowledge is used to support (4) Implications for advancing the debate and
and confirm an already established position (Amara, 2004). fostering productive science–practice linkages in
Conceptual use occurs when scientific findings, concepts or Ecology and Conservation
theoretical perspectives influence decision-makers’ thinking
or attitudes towards an issue, bringing new issues to the fore The science–practice gap in Ecology and Conservation
is perceived as a multifaceted problem with different
or turning ‘what were nonproblems into policy problems’
causes arising from two main perspectives. The emphasis
(Weiss, 1979, p. 430). Although instrumental use is the
on a one-way flow of knowledge from science to
most common view of science utilization (Nutley et al.,
practice dominates the debate, which may result from
2007), symbolic and conceptual uses of science are more
the prestige of the evidence-based approach, especially
relevant than previously thought, being equally or more
within research traditions associated with mainstream
important than instrumental use (Amara, 2004). In a complex
conservation biology. There is therefore room for the
decision-making context, the main role of science may be
expansion of a complementary approach for linking
to assist in developing arguments for already made positions
science and practice focusing on collaborative interactions
(Collingridge & Reeve, 1986; Albaek, 1995) or to ‘enlighten’
and joint knowledge production between scientists and
the process with concepts and perspectives (Weiss, 1979).
decision-makers. However, this will require increased
However, because such indirect uses of science are harder to dialogue among research traditions within the ecological
detect, and because we tend to focus on instrumental use, a and conservation field that have historically been isolated
perception of non-use of science can prevail (Caplan, 1979; from each other.
Weiss, 1979; Nutley et al., 2007). In addition, our work suggests the importance of increased
None of the identified perspectives on the science–practice dialogue between Ecology and Conservation Science and
gap explicitly discuss these types of knowledge use, disciplines such as Political Science and STS studies. On
reinforcing the idea of a simplified view of science the one hand, insights from these disciplines suggest that
utilization. However, while some perspectives tend to the perspectives of ecologists and conservation scientists
focus more exclusively on instrumental use, others may on the science–practice interface take naïve views of
potentially allow for alternative uses. The perspective ‘One decision-making processes. Thus, more-effective linkages
actor’ focuses on scientists solving specific problems in between science and practice in Ecology and Conservation
practice, thus emphasizing instrumental use. The ‘One-way’ depend on ecologists and conservation scientists embracing
perspective similarly suggests a focus on instrumental use, as the disciplines that focus on the role of science in
scientific knowledge is considered to be the sole provider decision-making and in society in general. From this
of information to solve a specific problem. Within the standpoint, the process of joint knowledge production
category ‘Problems in knowledge use’, for instance, scientific via collaborative interactions between scientists and
knowledge being selected by decision-makers to support decision-makers from the ‘Two-way’ perspective may help
their interests is perceived as a cause of the gap (‘Knowledge ecologists and conservation scientists effectively to account for
selected’), indicating that symbolic uses are viewed as a misuse more-inclusive and democratic decision-making processes,
of science, instead of a valid way for science to influence allowing for explicit discussions of values and scientific
decision-making. By contrast, the perspective ‘Two-way’ interpretations, and for multiple types of science use. Indeed,
highlights a collaborative process of joint knowledge STS studies have emphasized the idea of co-production
production/integration and social learning among scientists of science and society, where scientific knowledge, cultures
and decision-makers, allowing for greater exchange of ideas and political structures mutually influence and construct
and perceptions, and thus potentially fostering conceptual each other (Jasanoff, 2004). Joint knowledge production
uses of science, although the concept is not made explicit. between scientists and decision-makers to solve specific
Overall, considering these four insights from the disciplines problems can then be understood as a more circumscribed
studying the role of science in decision-making, the three and recognizable form of this broader societal process of
identified perspectives on the science–practice gap in Ecol- co-production (Hegger et al., 2012). It may thus represent a
ogy and Conservation represent similarly superficial views path for more-effective science–practice linkages, supporting
of decision-making, not accounting for the complexity of the incorporation of scientific knowledge in decision-making.
factors influencing decisions, the fuzzy boundaries between On the other hand, political scientists have been criticized
science and practice, the multitude of actors involved, the for giving little attention to decision-making concerning
potential ambiguity of science in decision-making, or differ- environmental and conservation issues (Agrawal & Ostrom,
ent types of knowledge use. However, in some aspects, the 2006). Moreover, while Political Science tends to focus on
perspective ‘Two-way’ seems to imply a more realistic view of national and federal levels of policy-making, environmental
decision-making by focusing on joint knowledge-production and conservation problems considered in the literature

frequently relate to more local problems (Agrawal & Ostrom, perspective disregards decision-makers by assuming that
2006) such as protected areas’ management or restoration scientists should put their results into practice.
of degraded land. At the macro-levels of policy-making, (4) Although the identified perspectives parallel those in
complexity may be greater and the ambiguity brought about other disciplines, such as Medicine and Education, our
by science may further complicate the debate, while at the findings suggest a mismatch between the prevalence of
local and micro-level of frontline practice and management, the unidirectional view in the ecological and conservation
there may be fewer factors to consider and a hindrance to literature and the historical tendency towards bidirectional
effective decision-making may lie upon how knowledge is views ascribing larger roles to decision-makers in other
produced and communicated/integrated. By understanding disciplines.
how the different decision levels influence both the factors (5) The prevalence of the unidirectional perspective
relevant for decision-making and the role science can on the science–practice interface may be associated with
play, we can arrive at a more comprehensive view of the the prestige of the evidence-based approach, while the
science–practice interface. This suggests the importance of bidirectional perspective seems primarily restricted to
synthesis and interdisciplinary work across disciplines such particular traditions, such as socio-ecological resilience and
as Ecology, Conservation, Political Science and STS studies. sustainability science.
However, for collaborative, integrative joint (6) The debate on the science–practice gap in
knowledge-production processes to be effective in incorpo- Ecology and Conservation reflects an outdated view of
rating scientific knowledge into decision-making, as well as decision-making, by not accounting for limits to human
for fostering interdisciplinary studies on the science–practice rationality, the complexity of actors, factors and interests
interface, scientists and decision-makers should be trained influencing decisions, the fuzzy boundaries between science
and prepared to engage in dialogue with people from diverse and practice, the potential ambiguity brought about by
backgrounds (Pardini et al., 2013). Hence, transforming science and the different types of knowledge use.
undergraduate and graduate programs in Ecology and (7) However, while the unidirectional perspective implies
Conservation so that students gain contact with different a more simplistic and rational view of decision-making,
disciplines, including courses on the socio-political dimen- the bidirectional perspective, through the process of
sion of decision-making (Cannon et al., 1996; Jacobson & joint knowledge production, can potentially account for
Duff, 1998; Toomey et al., 2016), and nurturing a stronger more inclusive and democratic decision-making processes,
scientific education for those students who intend to work as allowing for explicit discussions of values and scientific
decision-makers (Lewinsohn et al., 2015) should be a priority. interpretations, and for multiple types of science use.
(8) A more-productive relationship between science and
practice in Ecology and Conservation may be achieved
V. CONCLUSIONS by increasing dialogue both among different research
traditions within the field and with other disciplines, fostering
joint knowledge-production processes between scientists and
decision-makers as well as interdisciplinary research across
(1) In the ecological and conservation literature, the Ecology, Conservation, STS studies and Political Science,
science–practice gap is perceived as a multifaceted problem and transforming undergraduate and graduate courses to
with a multitude of causes. Some of these causes are also train both scientists and decision-makers to engage with
recognized among scientists from other disciplines, such as people from diverse backgrounds.
Medicine, while others are specific to the ecological and
conservation arena (e.g. mismatched spatial and temporal
scales between scientific research and environmental
problems). VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
(2) The variety of perceived causes of the science–practice
gap in Ecology and Conservation requires three general We are grateful to Tim Benton, two anonymous referees,
types of solutions: solutions eliminating or changing the Pedro Luis Bernardo da Rocha, Thomas Lewinsohn and
causal factor (e.g. inadequate research questions), solutions Jean Paul Metzger for comments that considerably improved
requiring the recognition of, and then ways to deal with, the the manuscript, to Jessica Walsh, Nibedita Mukherjee, David
problem (e.g. scientific uncertainty), and solutions solving Christian Rose and Rebecca Smith for participating in the
misconceptions (e.g. scientific knowledge being abstract). sorting activities, to William Sutherland and Lynn Dicks for
(3) The variety of perceived causes arises from three comments on the methodology, to Rafael Chaves and Victor
perspectives on the relationship between science and practice Chaves for helpful discussions, and to Patricia Ruggiero
in Ecology and Conservation. The first assumes that only and Renata Orofino for participating as evaluators to
scientific knowledge should support practice, establishing a measure reliability. We thank the ‘SCCS Miriam Rothschild
unidirectional flow of knowledge from science to practice, Internship Programme’, FAPESB - Fundação de Amparo
while the second assumes a bidirectional flow of knowledge, à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia and CNPq – Conselho
with both scientists and decision-makers collaboratively Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
contributing with knowledge to support practice. The last (PNX0016_2009) for financial support. D.B.G. received

a fellowship from FAPESP – Fundação de Amparo à Bradley, E. H., Curry, L. A. & Devers, K. J. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for
health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services
Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2014/26182-0), and Research 42, 1758–1772.
C.N.E. and R.P. received a research fellowship from CNPq Bradshaw, G. A. & Borchers, J. G. (2000). Uncertainty as information: narrowing
(301259/2010-0 and 308205/2014-6, respectively). the science-policy gap. Conservation Ecology 4, 7.
Braithwaite, R. (1955). Scientific Explanation, a Study of the Function of Theory, Probability
and Law in Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Newig, J.,
Reinert, F., Abson, D. J. & von Wehrden, H. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary
VII. REFERENCES research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics 92, 1–15.
Broekkamp, H. & Hout-Wolters, B. v. (2007). The gap between educational
References marked with asterisk have been cited within the supporting information research and practice: a literature review, symposium, and questionnaire. Educational
Adams, W. M. & Sandbrook, C. (2013). Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47, Research and Evaluation 13, 203–220.
329–335. Burger, J. R., Allen, C. D., Brown, J. H., Burnside, W. R., Davidson, A.
*Addison, P. F. E., Rumpff, L., Bau, S. S., Carey, J. M., Chee, Y. E., Jarrad, D., Fristoe, T. S., Hamilton, M. J., Mercado-Silva, N., Nekola, J. C.,
F. C., McBride, M. F. & Burgman, M. A. (2013). Practical solutions for making Okie, J. G. & Zuo, W. (2012). The macroecology of sustainability. PLoS Biology 10,
models indispensable in conservation decision-making. Diversity and Distributions 19, e1001345.
490–502. Butchart, S. H., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann,
Agrawal, A. & Ostrom, E. (2006). Political science and conservation biology: a J. P., Almond, R. E., Baillie, J. E., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J.,
dialog of the deaf. Conservation Biology 20, 681–682. Carpenter, K. E., Carr, G. M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A. M., Csirke,
Albaek, E. (1995). Between knowledge and power: utilization of social science in J., et al. (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328,
public policy making. Policy Sciences 28, 79–100. 1164–1168.
*Albert, C., Hauck, J., Buhr, N. & von Haaren, C. (2014). What ecosystem Cabin, R. J. (2007). Science-driven restoration: a square grid on a round earth?
services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among Restoration Ecology 15, 1–7.
landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landscape Ecology 29, 1301–1313. Cabin, R. J., Clewell, A., Ingram, M., McDonald, T. & Temperton, V. (2010).
Aldunce, P., Bórquez, R., Adler, C., Blanco, G. & Garreaud, R. (2016). Bridging restoration science and practice: results and analysis of a survey from the
Unpacking resilience for adaptation: incorporating practitioners’ experiences 2009 society for ecological restoration international meeting. Restoration Ecology 18,
through a transdisciplinary approach to the case of drought in Chile. Sustainability 8, 783–788.
905. Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan UK,
Amara, N. (2004). New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic London.
utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication 26, Cannon, J. R., Dietz, J. M. & Dietz, L. A. (1996). Training conservation biologists
75–106. in human interaction skills. Conservation Biology 10, 1277–1282.
*Anderson, P. (2014). Bridging the gap between applied ecological science and Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. The
practical implementation in peatland restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 51, American Behavioral Scientist 22, 459–470.
1148–1152. Carpenter, S. R. & Folke, C. (2006). Ecology for transformation. Trends in Ecology
Anderson, T. R. (2007). Bridging the educational research teaching practice gap. & Evolution 21, 309–315.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 35, 465–470. Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Scheffer, M. & Westley, F. (2009). Resilience:
*Antrop, M. (2001). The language of landscape ecologists and planners – a accounting for the noncomputable. Ecology and Society 14, 13.
comparative content analysis of concepts used in landscape ecology. Landscape Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston,
and Urban Planning 55, 163–173. D. H., Jäger, J. & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable
*Arkema, K. K., Abramson, S. C. & Dewsbury, B. M. (2006). Marine development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, of the United States of America
ecosystem-based management: from characterization to implementation. Frontiers in 100, 8086–8091.
Ecology and the Environment 4, 525–532. *Castilla, J. C. (2000). Roles of experimental marine ecology in coastal management
*Armstrong, D. P. & McCarthy, M. A. (2007). Big decisions and sparse data: and conservation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 250, 3–21.
adapting scientific publishing to the needs of practical conservation. Avian Conservation *Castillo, A., Torres, A., Velazquez, A. & Bocco, G. (2005). The use of
and Ecology 2, 14. ecological science by rural producers: a case study in Mexico. Ecological Applications
Bainbridge, I. (2014). How can ecologists make conservation policy more evidence 15, 745–756.
based? Ideas and examples from a devolved perspective. Journal of Applied Ecology 51, CHSRF (2000). Health Services Research and... Evidence-Based Decision-Making. Canadian
1153–1158. Health Services Research Foundation, Ottawa.
Barbour, M. T., Poff, N. L., Norris, R. H. & Allan, J. D. (2008). Perspective: Closs, S. J. & Cheater, F. M. (1994). Utilization of nursing research: culture, interest
communicating our science to influence public policy. Journal of the North American and support. Journal of Advanced Nursing 19, 762–773.
Benthological Society 27, 562–569. Collingridge, D. & Reeve, C. (1986). Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in
Barmuta, L. A., Linke, S. & Turak, E. (2011). Bridging the gap between ‘planning’ Policy Making. St. Martin’s Press, New York.
and ‘doing’ for biodiversity conservation in freshwaters. Freshwater Biology 56, Cook, C. N., Carter, R. W., Fuller, R. A. & Hockings, M. (2012). Managers
180–195. consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions.
Barnosky, A. D., Hadly, E. A., Bascompte, J., Berlow, E. L., Brown, J. H., Journal of Environmental Management 113, 341–346.
Fortelius, M., Getz, W. M., Harte, J., Hastings, A., Marquet, P. A., Cook, C. N., Mascia, M. B., Schwartz, M. W., Possingham, H. P. & Fuller,
Martinez, N. D., Mooers, A., Roopnarine, P., Vermeij, G., Williams, J. W., R. A. (2013). Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action
et al. (2012). Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486, 52–58. boundary. Conservation Biology 27, 669–678.
Baxter, G., Hockings, M., Carter, R. & Beeton, R. (1999). Trends in wildlife *Courter, J. R. (2012). Graduate students in conservation biology: bridging the
management and the appropriateness of Australian university training. Conservation research–implementation gap. Journal for Nature Conservation 20, 62–64.
Biology 13, 842–849. *Crist, P. J., Kohley, T. W. & Oakleaf, J. (2000). Assessing land-use impacts on
*Bergsten, A. & Zetterberg, A. (2013). To model the landscape as a network: a biodiversity using an expert systems tool. Landscape Ecology 15, 47–62.
practitioner’s perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 119, 35–43. Curtin, C. G. & Parker, J. P. (2014). Foundations of resilience thinking. Conservation
Bernard, H. R. & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. Biology 28, 912–923.
Sage, Los Angeles. *Dale, V. H. (1998). Managing forests as ecosystems: a success story or a challenge
Bero, L. A., Grilli, R., Grimshaw, J. M., Harveym, E., Oxman, A. D. & ahead? In Successes, Limitations, and Frontiers in Ecosystem Science (eds M. L. Pace and P.
Thomson, M. A. (1998). Getting research findings into practice: closing the gap M. Groffman), pp. 50–68. Springer, New York.
between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions *Davies, A. L., Colombo, S., Hanley, N. & Thompson, D. (2014). Improving the
to promote the implementation of research findings. British Medical Journal 317, application of long-term ecology in conservation and land management. Journal of
465–468. Applied Ecology 51, 63–70.
Born, J., Boreux, V. & Lawes, M. J. (2009). Synthesis: sharing ecological Dayton, P. K. (2003). The importance of the natural sciences to conservation (nn
knowledge – the way forward. Biotropica 41, 586–588. American Society of Naturalists Symposium paper). The American Naturalist 162,
*Bowd, R., Quinn, N., Kotze, D. C., Hay, D. G. & Mander, M. (2012). 1–13.
The identification of potential resilient estuary-based enterprises to encourage *DeSimone, S. A. (2013). Restoration and science: a practitioner/scientist’s view from
economic empowerment in South Africa: a toolkit approach. Ecology and Society rare habitat restoration at a Southern California preserve. Restoration Ecology 21,
17, 15. 149–152.

*Dettman, C. L. & Mabry, C. M. (2008). Lessons learned about research and challenges at the interface between ecology and society. Frontiers in Ecology and the
management: a case study from a Midwest lowland savanna, USA. Restoration Ecology Environment 8, 284–291.
16, 532–541. *Guisan, A., Tingley, R., Baumgartner, J. B., Naujokaitis-Lewis, I.,
*Dicks, L. V., Hodge, I., Randall, N. P., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Siriwardena, Sutcliffe, P. R., Tulloch, A. I. T., Regan, T. J., Brotons, L.,
G. M., Smith, H. G., Smith, R. K. & Sutherland, W. J. (2014a). A McDonald-Madden, E., Mantyka-Pringle, C., Martin, T. G., Rhodes,
transparent process for ‘evidence-informed’ policy making. Conservation Letters 7, J. R., Maggini, R., Setterfield, S. A., Elith, J., et al. (2013). Predicting species
119–125. distributions for conservation decisions. Ecology Letters 16, 1424–1435.
Dicks, L. V., Walsh, J. & Sutherland, W. J. (2014b). Organising evidence for *Habel, J. C., Gossner, M. M., Meyer, S. T., Eggermont, H., Lens, L.,
environmental management decisions: a ‘4S’hierarchy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution Dengler, J. & Weisser, W. W. (2013). Mind the gaps when using science to
29, 607–613. address conservation concerns. Biodiversity and Conservation 22, 2413–2427.
Dovers, S. R., Norton, T. W. & Handmer, J. W. (1996). Uncertainty, ecology, Haddaway, N. & Pullin, A. S. (2013). Evidence-based conservation and
sustainability and policy. Biodiversity and Conservation 5, 1143–1167. evidence-informed policy: a response to Adams & Sandbrook. Oryx 47, 336–338.
Dramstad, W. E. & Fjellstad, W. J. (2012). Twenty-five years into ‘our common Hall, J. A. & Fleishman, E. (2010). Demonstration as a means to translate
future’: are we heading in the right direction? Landscape Ecology 28, 1039–1045. conservation science into practice. Conservation Biology 24, 120–127.
*Drolet, D., Locke, A., Lewis, M. A. & Davidson, J. (2014). User-friendly and *Hecht, A. & Parkin, M. J. (2008). Integrating research and management. Journal of
evidence-based tool to evaluate probability of eradication of aquatic non-indigenous Wildlife Management 72, 1279–1280.
species. Journal of Applied Ecology 51, 1050–1056. Hegger, D., Lamers, M., Van Zeijl-Rozema, A. & Dieperink, C. (2012).
*Duchelle, A. E., Biedenweg, K., Lucas, C., Virapongse, A., Radachowsky, Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation
J., Wojcik, D. J., Londres, M., Bartels, W. L., Alvira, D. & Kainer, K. projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science & Policy 18,
A. (2009). Graduate students and knowledge exchange with local stakeholders: 52–65.
possibilities and preparation. Biotropica 41, 578–585. *Hoban, S., Arntzen, J. W., Bertorelle, G., Bryja, J., Fernandes, M., Frith,
*Durant, S. M., Bashir, S., Maddox, T. & Laurenson, M. K. (2007). Relating K., Gaggiotti, O., Galbusera, P., Godoy, J. A., Hauffe, H. C., Hoelzel,
long-term studies to conservation practice: the case of the Serengeti Cheetah Project. A. R., Nichols, R. A., Perez-Espona, S., Primmer, C., Russo, I. R. M., et al.
Conservation Biology 21, 602–611. (2013). Conservation genetic resources for effective species survival (ConGRESS):
El-Hani, C. N. (2006). Generalizações ecológicas. Oecologia Brasiliensis 10, 17–68. bridging the divide between conservation research and practice. Journal for Nature
El-Hani, C. N. & Greca, I. M. (2013). ComPratica: a virtual community of practice Conservation 21, 433–437.
for promoting biology teachers’ professional development in Brazil. Research in Science Huberman, M. (1994). Research utilization: the state of the art. Knowledge and Policy 7,
Education 43, 1327–1359. 13–33.
*Enengel, B., Muhar, A., Penker, M., Freyer, B., Drlik, S. & Ritter, F. (2012). Hulme, P. E. (2014). Bridging the knowing-doing gap: know-who, know-what,
Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape know-why, know-how and know-when. Journal of Applied Ecology 51, 1131–1136.
development—an analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research Jacobson, S. K. & Duff, M. D. (1998). Training idiot savants: the lack of human
phases. Landscape and Urban Planning 105, 106–117. dimensions in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 12, 263–267.
Esler, K. J., Prozesky, H., Sharma, G. P. & McGeoch, M. (2010). How wide is
Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of
the ‘knowing-doing’ gap in invasion biology? Biological Invasions 12, 4065–4075.
Science 17, 195–230.
Eurobarometer (2014). Public Perceptions of Science, Research and Innovation, Special
Jasanoff, S. (2004). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In States of Knowledge:
Eurobarometer 419. European Commission, TNS Opinion & Social, Luxembourg.
The Co-production of Science and Social Order (ed S. Jasanoff), pp. 13–45. Routledge,
*Eviner, V. T. & Hawkes, C. V. (2008). Embracing variability in the application of
London and New York.
plant-soil interactions to the restoration of communities and ecosystems. Restoration
*Johnston, J., Volz, S., Bruce, K., Chipman, R., Luchsinger, J., McConnell,
Ecology 16, 713–729.
J. & Owens, R. (1999). Information transfer for wildlife management. Wildlife Society
Fazey, I., Salisbury, J. G., Lindenmayer, D. B., Maindonald, J. & Douglas,
Bulletin 27, 1043–1049.
R. (2004). Can methods applied in medicine be used to summarize and disseminate
Jones, A. C., Mead, A., Kaiser, M. J., Austen, M. C. V., Adrian, A. W.,
conservation research? Environmental Conservation 31, 190–198.
Auchterlonie, N. A., Black, K. D., Blow, L. R., Bury, C., Brown, J. H.,
Finch, D. M. & Patton-Mallory, M. (1993). Closing the gap between research
Burnell, G. M., Connolly, E., Dingwall, A., Derrick, S., Eno, N. C., et al.
and management. Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds 229, 12–16.
(2015). Prioritization of knowledge needs for sustainable aquaculture: a national and
*Firth, P. L. (1998). Fresh water: perspectives on the integration of research, education,
global perspective. Fish and Fisheries 16, 668–683.
and decision making. Ecological Applications 8, 601–609.
*Fitzgerald, L. A. & Stronza, A. L. (2009). Applied biodiversity science: *Jørgensen, D., Nilsson, C., Hof, A. R., Hasselquist, E. M., Baker, S., Chapin,
bridging ecology, culture, and governance for effective conservation. Interciencia 34, F. S., Eckerberg, K., Hjältén, J., Polvi, L. & Meyerson, L. A. (2014). Policy
563–570. language in restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 22, 1–4.
*Flitcroft, R. L., Dedrick, D. C., Smith, C. L., Thieman, C. A. & Bolte, J. P. *Karl, J. W., Herrick, J. E. & Browning, D. M. (2012). A strategy for rangeland
(2009). Social infrastructure to integrate science and practice: the experience of the management based on best available knowledge and information. Rangeland Ecology
long tom watershed council. Ecology and Society 14, 36. & Management 65, 638–646.
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. *Kininmonth, S., Donovan, T. & Edgar, S. (2003). Fusing scientific modelling with
R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., Helkowski, J. H., knowledge management systems. In Proceedings Modsim 2003: International Congress on
Holloway, T., Howard, E. A., Kucharik, C. J., Monfreda, C., et al. (2005). Modelling and Simulation, pp. 696–701. University of Western Australia, Nedlands.
Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574. *Kirchhoff, M. D., Schoen, J. W. & Franklin, T. M. (1995). A model for
Gallo, L. A., Marchelli, P., Chauchard, L. & Penalba, M. G. (2009). Knowing science-based conservation advocacy -– Tongass-National-Forest case-history.
and doing: research leading to action in the conservation of forest genetic diversity Wildlife Society Bulletin 23, 358–364.
of Patagonian temperate forests. Conservation Biology 23, 895–898. *Klauer, B., Manstetten, R., Petersen, T. & Schiller, J. (2013). The art of
*Gawne, B., Price, A., Koehn, J. D., King, A. J., Nielsen, D. L., Meredith, long-term thinking: a bridge between sustainability science and politics. Ecological
S., Beesley, L. & Vilizzi, L. (2012). A bayesian belief network decision Economics 93, 79–84.
sSupport tool for watering wetlands to maximise native fish outcomes. Wetlands 32, Knight, A. T. & Cowling, R. M. (2006). Into the thick of it: bridging the
277–287. research-implementation gap in the thicket biome through the thicket forum.
Githiru, M., Lens, L., Adriaensen, F., Mwang’ombe, J. & Matthysen, E. South African Journal of Science 102, 406–408.
(2011). Using science to guide conservation: from landscape modelling to increased *Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Boshoff, A. F., Wilson, S. L. & Pierce, S. M.
connectivity in the Taita Hills, SE Kenya. Journal for Nature Conservation 19, (2011). Walking in STEP: lessons for linking spatial prioritisations to implementation
263–268. strategies. Biological Conservation 144, 202–211.
*Gobster, P. H. (2014). Re-wilding Europe’s traditional agricultural landscapes: *Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M. & Campbell, B. M. (2006). An operational model
values and the link between science and practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 126, for implementing conservation action. Conservation Biology 20, 408–419.
65–65. Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lombard, A. T. &
*Gosselin, F. (2008). Management on the basis of the best scientific data or Campbell, B. M. (2008). Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation
integration of ecological research within management? Lessons learned from the areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22, 610–617.
northern spotted owl saga on the connection between research and management in *Krippendorff, K. (2004a). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, 2nd
conservation biology. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 777–793. Edition. Sage Publications, Los Angeles.
*Griffiths, R. A. (2004). Mismatches between conservation science and practice. Krippendorff, K. (2004b). Reliability in content analysis: some common
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, 564–565. misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research 30, 411–433.
*Groffman, P. M., Stylinski, C., Nisbet, M. C., Duarte, C. M., Jordan, R., *Kroll, A. J. (2007). Integrating professional skills in wildlife student education. Journal
Burgin, A., Previtali, M. A. & Coloso, J. (2010). Restarting the conversation: of Wildlife Management 71, 226–230.

*Kueffer, C., Underwood, E., Hadorn, G. H., Holderegger, R., Lehning, M., *Norton, B. G. (1998). Improving ecological communication: the role of ecologists
Pohl, C., Schirmer, M., Schwarzenbach, R., Stauffacher, M., Wuelser, G. in environmental policy formation. Ecological Applications 8, 350–364.
& Edwards, P. (2012). Enabling effective problem-oriented research for sustainable Nutley, S. M., Walter, I. & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How Research
development. Ecology and Society 17, 8. can Inform Public Services. The Policy Press, Bristol.
Laplane, M., Badaró, A., Falcão, D., Moreira, I. d. C., Castelfranchi, Y., Oates, K.K. (2013). The importance of basic research. The Huffington
Rizzo, F., Oliveira, I. d., Paiva, M. & Carrijo, T. (2015). Percepção pública da Post. Available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-kashmanian-oates-phd/
ciência e tecnologia 2015 - Ciência e tecnologia no olhar dos brasileiros. Centro de Gestão e science-role-models_b_2821942.html Accessed 20.02.2016.
Estudos Estratégicos, Brasília. Oliver, K., Lorenc, T. & Innvaer, S. (2014). New directions in evidence-based
van Latesteijn, H. C. (1998). A policy perspective on land use changes and risk policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Research Policy and Systems
assessment. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 67, 289–297. 12, 34.
*Latta, S. C. (2000). Making the leap from researcher to planner: lessons from avian *Ormerod, S. J., Barlow, N. D., Marshall, E. J. P. & Kerby, G. (2002). The
conservation planning in the Dominican Republic. Conservation Biology 14, 132–139. uptake of applied ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology 39, 1–7.
Lauber, T. B., Stedman, R. C., Decker, D. J. & Knuth, B. A. (2011). *Osmond, D. L., Nadkarni, N. M., Driscoll, C. T., Andrews, E., Gold, A. J.,
Linking knowledge to action in collaborative conservation. Conservation Biology 25, Allred, S. R. B., Berkowitz, A. R., Klemens, M. W., Loecke, T. L., McGarry,
1186–1194. M. A., Schwarz, K., Washington, M. L. & Groffman, P. M. (2010). The role
*Laurance, W. F., Koster, H., Grooten, M., Anderson, A. B., Zuidema, P. of interface organizations in science communication and understanding. Frontiers in
A., Zwick, S., Zagt, R. J., Lynam, A. J., Linkie, M. & Anten, N. P. R. (2012). Ecology and the Environment 8, 306–313.
Making conservation research more relevant for conservation practitioners. Biological *Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Chornesky, E. A., Collins, S. L., Dobson,
Conservation 153, 164–168. A. P., Duke, C. S., Gold, B. D., Jacobson, R. B., Kingsland, S. E., Kranz,
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Practice. Cambridge R. H., Mappin, M. J., Martinez, M. L., Micheli, F., Morse, J. L., Pace, M.
University Press, Cambridge, UK. L., et al. (2005). Ecological science and sustainability for the 21st century. Frontiers in
Lewinsohn, T. M., Attayde, J. L., Fonseca, C. R., Ganade, G., Jorge, L. R., Ecology and the Environment 3, 4–11.
Kollmann, J., Overbeck, G. E., Prado, P. I., Pillar, V. D., Popp, D., da Pardini, R., Rocha, P. L. B., El-Hani, C. & Pardini, F. (2013). Challenges and
Rocha, P. L. B., Silva, W. R., Spiekermann, A. & Weisser, W. W. (2015). opportunities for bridging the research-implementation gap in ecological science
Ecological literacy and beyond: problem-based learning for future professionals. and management in Brazil. In Conservation Biology: Voices from the Tropics (eds N. S.
Ambio 44, 154–162. Sodhi, L. Gibson and P. H. Raven), pp. 77–95. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
Linklater, W. L. (2003). Science and management in a conservation crisis: a case *Patten, D. (1993). Integrating science and decision-making. Riparian Management:
study with rhinoceros. Conservation Biology 17, 968–975. Common Threads and Shared Interests: A Western Regional Conference on River Management
*Livingston, R. J. (1991). Historical relationships between research and Strategies, Vol. 226, pp. 167–172. Albuquerque.
resource-management in the Apalachicola River estuary. Ecological Applications 1, Peuhkuri, T. (2002). Knowledge and interpretation in environmental conflict fish
361–382. farming and eutrophication in the Archipelago Sea, SW Finland. Landscape and Urban
Lubchenco, J. (1998). Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract
Planning 61, 157–168.
for science. Science 279, 491–497.
*Pierce, S. M., Cowling, R. M., Knight, A. T., Lombard, A. T., Rouget, M. &
*Luks, F. & Siebenhuner, B. (2007). Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The
Wolf, T. (2005). Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning:
contribution of the German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability
interpretation for implementation. Biological Conservation 125, 441–458.
governance. Ecological Economics 63, 418–426.
*Pietri, D. M., Gurney, G. G., Benitez-Vina, N., Kuklok, A., Maxwell, S. M.,
*Mace, G. M. & Purvis, A. (2008). Evolutionary biology and practical conservation:
Whiting, L., Vina, M. A. & Jenkins, L. D. (2013). Practical recommendations to
bridging a widening gap. Molecular Ecology 17, 9–19.
help students bridge the research-implementation gap and promote conservation.
*Macleod, C. J. A., Blackstock, K. L. & Haygarth, P. M. (2008). Mechanisms to
Conservation Biology 27, 958–967.
improve integrative research at the science-policy interface for sustainable catchment
*Poff, N. L., Allan, J. D., Palmer, M. A., Hart, D. D., Richter, B. D.,
management. Ecology and Society 13, 48.
Arthington, A. H., Rogers, K. H., Meyers, J. L. & Stanford, J. A. (2003).
*Manolis, J. C., Chan, K. M., Finkelstein, M. E., Stephens, S., Nelson, C. R.,
River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making.
Grant, J. B. & Dombeck, M. P. (2009). Leadership: a new frontier in conservation
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1, 298–306.
science. Conservation Biology 23, 879–886.
Polasky, S., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C. & Keeler, B. (2011). Decision-making
*Maris, V. & Bechet, A. (2010). From adaptive management to adjustive
under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change.
management: a pragmatic account of biodiversity values. Conservation Biology 24,
966–973. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26, 398–404.
*Marzluff, J. M., Raphael, M. G. & Sallabanks, R. (2000). Understanding *Pouyat, R. V., Weathers, K. C., Hauber, R., Lovett, G. M., Bartuska,
the effects of forest management on avian species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, A., Christenson, L., Davis, J. L. D., Findlay, S. E. G., Menninger, H.,
1132–1143. Rosi-Marshall, E., Stine, P. & Lymn, N. (2010). The role of federal agencies
Mattson, D. J., Byrd, K. L., Rutherford, M. B., Brown, S. R. & Clark, in the application of scientific knowledge. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8,
T. W. (2006). Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: mapping 322–328.
contending perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy 9, 392–405. Pregernig, M. (2014). Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive
McCleery, R. A., Lopez, R. R. & Silvy, N. J. (2007). Transferring research to and institutional effects: examples from conservation and environmental policy.
endangered species management. Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 2134–2141. Biodiversity and Conservation 23, 3615–3639.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge *Prendergast, J. R., Quinn, R. M. & Lawton, J. H. (1999). The gaps
Journal of Education 35, 357–382. between theory and practice in selecting nature reserves. Conservation Biology 13,
MEA (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Millenium Ecosystem 484–492.
Assessment, Washington. Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. (2001). Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers
*Meinard, Y. & Quetier, F. (2014). Experiencing biodiversity as a bridge over the from medicine and public health. Conservation Biology 15, 50–54.
science-society communication gap. Conservation Biology 28, 705–712. Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. (2003). Support for decision making in
*Messmer, T. A., Reiter, D. & West, B. C. (2001). Enhancing wildlife sciences’ conservation practice: an evidence-based approach. Journal for Nature Conservation 11,
linkage to public policy: lessons from the predator-control pendulum. Wildlife Society 83–90.
Bulletin 29, 1253–1259. Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. (2005). Assessing conservation management’s evidence
*Müller, J. & Opgenoorth, L. (2014). On the gap between science and conservation base: a survey of management-plan compilers in the United Kingdom and Australia.
implementation—a national park perspective. Basic and Applied Ecology 15, Conservation Biology 19, 1989–1996.
373–378. Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M., Stone, D. A. & Charman, K. (2004). Do
Murphy, S. C. & Kaeding, B. (1998). Fishing bridge: 25 years of controversy regarding conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making?
grizzly bear management in Yellowstone National Park. Ursus 10, 385–393. Biological Conservation 119, 245–252.
NASEM (2015). Does the Public Trust Science? Trust and Confidence at the Interfaces of the Life *Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M. & Watkinson, A. R. (2009). Linking reductionist
Sciences and Society: A Workshop Summary. National Academies of Science, Engineering science and holistic policy using systematic reviews: unpacking environmental policy
and Medicine, Washington. questions to construct an evidence-based framework. Journal of Applied Ecology 46,
*Nassauer, J. I. & Opdam, P. (2008). Design in science: extending the landscape 970–975.
ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology 23, 633–644. Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M. &
Neilson, S. (2001). Knowledge Utilization and Public Policy Processes: A Literature Review. Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental
International Development Research Center, Ottawa. management. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 1766–1777.
*Norse, D. & Tschirley, J. B. (2000). Links between science and policy making. *R Development Core Team (2008). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 82, 15–26. Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.

Reyers, B., Roux, D. J., Cowling, R. M., Ginsburg, A. E., Nel, J. L. & *Underwood, A. J. (1995). Ecological research and (and research into)
O’Farrell, P. J. (2010a). Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. environmental-management. Ecological Applications 5, 232–247.
Conservation Biology 24, 957–965. *Underwood, A. J. (1998). Relationships between ecological research and
*Reyers, B., Roux, D. J. & O’Farrell, P. J. (2010b). Can ecosystem services environmental management. Landscape and Urban Planning 40, 123–130.
lead ecology on a transdisciplinary pathway? Environmental Conservation 37, Vanderlinde, R. & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research
501–511. and practice: views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British
Rigueira, D. M. G., Coutinho, S. L., Pinto-Leite, C. M., Sarno, V. L. C., Educational Research Journal 36, 299–316.
Estavillo, C., Campos, S., Dias, V. S. & de Chastinet, C. B. A. (2013). Perda *Van der Windt, H. J. & Swart, J. A. A. (2008). Ecological corridors, connecting
de habitat, leis ambientais e conhecimento científico: proposta de critérios para a science and politics: the case of the Green River in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied
avaliação dos pedidos de supressão de vegetação. Caititu 1, 21–42. Ecology 45, 124–132.
Roux, D. J., Rogers, K. H., Biggs, H. C., Ashton, P. J. & Sergeant, A. (2006). *Vimal, R., Mathevet, R. & Thompson, J. D. (2012). The changing landscape of
Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge ecological networks. Journal for Nature Conservation 20, 49–55.
transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 11, 4. Waddell, C. (2002). So much research evidence, so little dissemination and uptake:
*Rudd, M. A. (2011). How research-prioritization exercises affect conservation policy. mixing the useful with the pleasing. Evidence Based Nursing 5, 38–40.
Conservation Biology 25, 860–866. Walsh, J.C. (2015). Barriers and solutions to implementing evidence-based conservation. PhD
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Thesis: University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Environmental Science & Policy 7, 385–403. Walsh, J. C., Dicks, L. V. & Sutherland, W. J. (2015). The effect of scientific
Seavy, N. E. & Howell, C. A. (2010). How can we improve information delivery evidence on conservation practitioners’ management decisions. Conservation Biology
to support conservation and restoration decisions? Biodiversity and Conservation 19, 29, 88–98.
1261–1267. *Walters, C. J. (1998). Improving links between ecosystem scientists and managers.
*Seely, M., Klintenberg, P. & Kruger, A. S. (2008). The unmet challenge of In Successes, Limitations, and Frontiers in Ecosystem Science (eds M. L. Pace and P. M.
connecting scientific research with community action. In The Future of Drylands (eds Groffman), pp. 272–286. Springer, New York.
C. Lee and T. Schaaf), pp. 687–697. Springer, Dordrecht. Weber, M. (1999). The aim and structure of ecological theory. Philosophy of Science 66,
Shackleton, C. M., Cundill, G. & Knight, A. T. (2009). Beyond just research: 71–93.
experiences from Southern Africa in developing social learning partnerships for *Weinstein, M. P., Litvin, S. Y. & Krebs, J. M. (2014). Restoration ecology:
resource conservation initiatives. Biotropica 41, 563–570. ecological fidelity, restoration metrics, and a systems perspective. Ecological Engineering
Shanley, P. & López, C. (2009). Out of the loop: why research rarely reaches policy 65, 71–87.
makers and the public and what can be done. Biotropica 41, 535–544. Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration
Shaw, J. D., Wilson, J. R. U. & Richardson, D. M. (2010). Initiating dialogue Review 39, 426–431.
between scientists and managers of biological invasions. Biological Invasions 12, Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge
4077–4083. University Press, Cambridge, UK.
*Simonetti, J. A. (2011). Conservation biology in Chile: are we fulfilling our social Whitmer, A., Ogden, L., Lawton, J., Sturner, P., Groffman, P. M., Schneider,
contract? Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 84, 161–170. L., Hart, D., Halpern, B., Schlesinger, W., Raciti, S., Bettez, N., Ortega,
*Singh, G. G., Tam, J., Sisk, T. D., Klain, S. C., Mach, M. E., Martone, R. G. & S., Rustad, L., Pickett, S. T. & Killilea, M. (2010). The engaged university:
Chan, K. M. A. (2014). A more social science: barriers and incentives for scientists providing a platform for research that transforms society. Frontiers in Ecology and the
engaging in policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12, 161–166. Environment 8, 314–321.
*Sitas, N., Prozesky, H. E., Esler, K. J. & Reyers, B. (2014). Opportunities *Winter, M., Devictor, V. & Schweiger, O. (2013). Phylogenetic diversity and
and challenges for mainstreaming ecosystem services in development planning: nature conservation: where are we? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28, 199–204.
perspectives from a landscape level. Landscape Ecology 29, 1315–1331. Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public
*Soberon, J. M. & Sarukhan, J. K. (2009). A new mechanism for uptake of science. In Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and
science-policy transfer and biodiversity governance? Environmental Conservation 36, Technology (eds A. Irwyn and B. Wynne), pp. 19–46. Cambridge University Press,
265–267. Cambridge.
*Stevens, C. J., Fraser, I., Mitchley, J. & Thomas, M. B. (2007). Making ecological Young, K. D. & Van Aarde, R. J. (2011). Science and elephant management decisions
science policy-relevant: issues of scale and disciplinary integration. Landscape Ecology in South Africa. Biological Conservation 144, 876–885.
22, 799–809. *Zavaleta, E., Miller, D. C., Salafsky, N., Fleishman, E., Webster, M., Gold,
*Stromberg, J. C., Chew, M. K., Nagler, P. L. & Glenn, E. P. (2009). Changing B., Hulse, D., Rowen, M., Tabor, G. & Vanderryn, J. (2008). Enhancing the
perceptions of change: the role of scientists in Tamarix and river management. engagement of the U.S. private foundations with conservation science. Conservation
Restoration Ecology 17, 177–186. Biology 22, 1477–1484.
Sunderland, T., Sunderland-Groves, J., Shanley, P. & Campbell, B. (2009).
Bridging the gap: how can information access and exchange between conservation
biologists and field practitioners be improved for better conservation outcomes?
Biotropica 41, 549–554.
Sutherland, W. J., Adams, W. M., Aronson, R. B., Aveling, R., Blackburn,
T. M., Broad, S., Ceballos, G., Côté, I. M., Cowling, R. M., Da Fonseca,
G. A. B., Dinerstein, E., Ferraro, P. J., Fleishman, E., Gascon, C., Hunter,
VIII. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
M., et al. (2009). One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global
biological diversity. Conservation Biology 23, 557–567.
*Sutherland, W. J., Fleishman, E., Mascia, M. B., Pretty, J. & Rudd, M.
Additional supporting information may be found in the
A. (2011). Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging online version of this article.
issues in science and policy. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2, 238–247. Appendix S1. Additional information on the bibliographic
Sutherland, W. J. & Pullin, A. S. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, 305–308. search. (1) Database scope. (2) Criteria for selecting the
*Szaro, R. C., Berc, J., Cameron, S., Cordle, S., Crosby, M., Martin, L., articles.
Norton, D., O’Malley, R. & Ruark, G. (1998). The ecosystem approach:
science and information management issues, gaps and needs. Landscape and Urban Fig. S1. Organization of terms and connectors of the search
Planning 40, 89–101. string used in the Web of Science Core Collection.
*Termorshuizen, J. W. & Opdam, P. (2009). Landscape services as a bridge
between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology 24, Table S1. List of the 122 articles selected for the review of
1037–1052. perceived causes of the science–practice gap in Ecology and
*Theobald, D. M., Spies, T., Kline, J., Maxwell, B., Hobbs, N. T. & Dale, V.
H. (2005). Ecological support for rural land-use planning. Ecological Applications 15, Conservation.
1906–1914.
Toomey, A. H., Knight, A. T. & Barlow, J. (2016). Navigating the space
Appendix S2. Additional information on the sorting
between research and implementation in conservation. Conservation Letters 10, activities. (1) Groups of scientists for the sorting activity.
619–625. (2) Classifications of perceived causes obtained in the sorting
Tress, B., Tress, G. & Fry, G. (2005). Defining concepts and the process of knowledge
production in integrative research. In From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: activities with advantages and disadvantages discussed in the
Aspects of Integration, Education and Application, pp. 13–26. Springer, Heidelberg. group meetings (Table S2).

Appendix S3. Additional information on the conceptual Appendix S4. Relative proportion of articles including each
framework reliability. (1) Detailed methods. (2) Results (Table lower-level category of perceived causes of the conceptual
S3). framework, in total and divided by publication year (Figs
Table S4. Complete version of the conceptual framework of S2–S5).
perceived causes of the science–practice gap in Ecology and Appendix S5. Research results after excluding the 21
Conservation, with detailed descriptions of criteria defining articles that investigated empirically the opinions of scientists
each category and the number of sentences found in the and/or decision-makers (Figs S6–S11, Table S5).
literature for each category.
(Received 12 August 2016; revised 3 October 2017; accepted 12 October 2017 )

A Conceptual Framework For Understanding The Perspectives On The Causes of The Science-Practice Gap in Ecology and Conservation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Conceptual Framework For Understanding The Perspectives On The Causes of The Science-Practice Gap in Ecology and Conservation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Conceptual Framework For Understanding The Perspectives On The Causes of The Science-Practice Gap in Ecology and Conservation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biol. Rev. (2017), pp. 000–000.

A conceptual framework for understanding the

* Address for correspondence (Tel.: +55 11 3091 7510; E-mail: dia.bertuol@gmail.com).

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

I. INTRODUCTION concurrently with the aggravation of environmental

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

(Brandt et al., 2013, pp. 1–2)

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

the perception of scientific knowledge being (i) partially

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

perceived as a hindrance to linking science and practice in

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

(Received 12 August 2016; revised 3 October 2017; accepted 12 October 2017 )

Biological Reviews (2017) 000–000 © 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society

You might also like