Suchergebnisse

This is the final version of the article. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record ; Focus group discussion is frequently used as a qualitative approach to gain an in-depth understanding of social issues. The method aims to obtain data from a purposely selected group of individuals rather than from a statistically representative sample of a broader population. Even though the application of this method in conservation research has been extensive, there are no critical assessment of the application of the technique. In addition, there are no readily available guidelines for conservation researchers. Here, we reviewed the applications of focus group discussion within biodiversity and conservation research between 1996 and April 2017. We begin with a brief explanation of the technique for first-time users. We then discuss in detail the empirical applications of this technique in conservation based on a structured literature review (using Scopus). The screening process resulted in 170 articles, the majority of which (67%, n = 114,) were published between 2011 and 2017. Rarely was the method used as a stand-alone technique. The number of participants per focus group (where reported) ranged from 3 to 21 participants with a median of 10 participants. There were seven (median) focus group meetings per study. Focus group discussion sessions lasted for 90 (median) minutes. Four main themes emerged from the review: understanding of people's perspectives regarding conservation (32%), followed by the assessment of conservation and livelihoods practices (21%), examination of challenges and impacts of resource management interventions (19%) and documenting the value of indigenous knowledge systems (16%). Most of the studies were in Africa (n = 76), followed by Asia (n = 44), and Europe (n = 30). We noted serious gaps in the reporting of the methodological details in the reviewed papers. More than half of the studies (n = 101) did not report the sample size and group size (n = 93), whereas 54 studies did not mention the number of focus group discussion sessions while reporting results. Rarely have the studies provided any information on the rationale for choosing the technique. We have provided guidelines to improve the standard of reporting and future application of the technique for conservation. ; N.T.O. was funded by Cambridge Overseas Trusts, The Wildlife Conservation Society, Wildlife Conservation Network and WildiZe Foundation. NM was funded by the NERC grant (NE/R006946/1), Fondation Wiener Anspach and the Scriven post doctoral fellowships. K.W. was sup-ported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CE11001000104) and Future Fellowship (FT100100413) programs and funded by the Australian Government.

© 2017 The Authors. Scientific knowledge is considered to be an important factor (alongside others) in environmental policy-making. However, the opportunity for environmentalists to influence policy can often occur within short, discrete time windows. Therefore, a piece of research may have a negligible or transformative policy influence depending on when it is presented. These 'policy windows' are sometimes predictable, such as those dealing with conventions or legislation with a defined renewal period, but are often hard to anticipate. We describe four ways that environmentalists can respond to policy windows and increase the likelihood of knowledge uptake: 1) foresee (and create) emergent windows, 2) respond quickly to opening windows, 3) frame research in line with appropriate windows, and 4) persevere in closed windows. These categories are closely linked; efforts to enhance the incorporation of scientific knowledge into policy need to harness mechanisms within each. We illustrate the main points with reference to nature conservation, but the principles apply widely. ; European Union Seventh Framework Programme EU Biodiversity Observation Network (No. 308454); Fondation Wiener Anspach, Belgium; Scriven fellowship; Natural Environment Research Council Cambridge Earth System Science NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1]; Natural Environment Research Council Industrial CASE studentship [NE/M010287/1]; Austrian Science Fund (FWF); Arcadia.

Improving the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy has been a long-standing focus of the conservation community. A plethora of studies have examined conservation science-policy interfaces, including a recent global survey of scientists, policy-makers, and practitioners. This identified a list of top barriers and solutions to evidence use, which have considerable overlap with those identified by other studies conducted over the last few decades. The three top barriers – (i) that conservation is not a political priority, (ii) that there is poor engagement between scientists and decision-makers, and (iii) that conservation problems are complex and uncertain – have often been highlighted in the literature as significant constraints on the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy. There is also repeated identification of the solutions to these barriers. In this perspective, we consider three reasons for this: (1) the barriers are insurmountable, (2) the frequently-proposed solutions are poor, (3) there are implementation challenges to putting solutions into practice. We argue that implementation challenges are most likely to be preventing the solutions being put into practice and that the research agenda for conservation science-policy interfaces needs to move away from identifying barriers and solutions, and towards a detailed investigation of how to overcome these implementation challenges.

Vegetated coastal ecosystems provide goods and services to billions of people. In the aftermath of a series of recent natural disasters, including the Indian Ocean Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and Cyclone Nargis, coastal vegetation has been widely promoted for the purpose of reducing the impact of large storm surges and tsunami. In this paper, we review the use of coastal vegetation as a "bioshield" against these extreme events. Our objective is to alter bioshield policy and reduce the long-term negative consequences for biodiversity and human capital. We begin with an overview of the scientific literature, in particular focusing on studies published since the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 and discuss the science of wave attenuation by vegetation. We then explore case studies from the Indian subcontinent and evaluate the detrimental impacts bioshield plantations can have upon native ecosystems, drawing a distinction between coastal restoration and the introduction of exotic species in inappropriate locations. Finally, we place bioshield policies into a political context, and outline a new direction for coastal vegetation policy and research.

Vegetated coastal ecosystems provide goods and services to billions of people. In the aftermath of a series of recent natural disasters, including the Indian Ocean Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and Cyclone Nargis, coastal vegetation has been widely promoted for the purpose of reducing the impact of large storm surges and tsunami. In this paper, we review the use of coastal vegetation as a 'bioshield' against these extreme events. We begin with an overview of the scientific literature, in particular focusing on studies published since the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 and discuss the science of wave attenuation by vegetation. We then explore case studies and evaluate the detrimental impacts bioshield plantations may have upon native ecosystems, drawing a distinction between coastal restoration and the introduction of exotic species in inappropriate locations. The values of coastal ecological systems are realized over the long term and we must find better ways to communicate the value of conserving these ecosystems. For example, vegetation can, over the longterm, alter topography and bathymetry through processes of sediment accretion, reducing the vulnerability of the landscape to future inundation (Day et al . 2007). Finally, we place bioshield policies into a political context, and outline a new direction for coastal vegetation policy and research.

© 2021 The Authors. While mangroves are increasingly described as social-ecological systems (SESs), performing SES research is so much more than merely documenting local resource utilisation patterns in case studies. The aim of this paper is to review and show how ecological, human and institutional resilience could be understood and fostered in an era of uncertainty, through the adaptive cycle (AC) heuristic. Uncertainties come in many forms and shapes: climate change, social and economic dynamics, natural disasters, political and institutional disruption and ever-increasing public demands for participation. Social-ecological studies form windows of experimentation that can provide insights beyond their case-specific context. In order to synthesise and structure the cumulative knowledge base arising from existing and future studies, the need for a suitable overarching framework arose. Here, the AC heuristic represents the connectedness between variables of the mangrove SES versus the mangrove's accumulated capital (natural, built, human and social). We posit that the AC heuristic can be used to interpret spatial and temporal changes (ecological, social, economic, political) in mangrove SESs and we exemplify it by using the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami as well as a century-long silviculture case. The AC, combined with the SES scheme, allows integration of the spato-temporal dynamics and the multi-dimensional character of mangrove SESs. We also reviewed the ecosystem functions, services and disservices of mangrove SESs, linking each of them to SES capital and variable (fast or slow) attributes, which in turn are closely linked to the different axes and phases of the AC. We call upon mangrove scientists from the natural, applied, social and human sciences to join forces in fitting diversified empirical data from multiple case studies around the world to the AC heuristic. The aim is to reflect on and understand such complex dynamic systems with stakeholders having various (mutual) relationships at risk of breaking down, and to prepare for interactive adaptive planning for mangrove forests. ; Belgian Science Policy Office 'EVAMAB – Economic valuation of ecosystem services in Man & Biosphere Reserves' - BELSPO (BL/58/UN32); Erasmus Mundus Masters Course in Tropical Biodiversity and Ecosystems (TROPIMUNDO); VLIR-UOS-funded GREENDYKE Project (ZEIN2008PR347); BELSPO-funded MAMAFOREST-Project (SR/00/323); ZMT Academy travel grant; Singapore National Parks Board (NParks); TUYF Charitable Trust; HKU Seed Fund for Research; International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI); UNEP/GEF Blue Forest Project; Pew Charitable Trust; Department of Science and Technology, India INSPIRE Faculty scheme (IFA18-LSPA111);

© 2020 The Authors. 1. Recent attention to the role of Indigenous knowledge (IK) in environmental monitoring, research and decision-making is likely to attract new people to this field of work. 2. Advancing the bringing together of IK and science in a way that is desirable to IK holders can lead to successful and inclusive research and decision-making. 3. We used the Delphi technique with 18 expert participants who were IK holders or working closely with IK from across the Arctic to examine the drivers of progress and limitations to the use of IK along with science to inform decision-making related to wildlife, reindeer herding and the environment. We also used this technique to identify participants' experiences of scientists' misconceptions concerning IK. 4. Participants had a strong focus on transformative change relating to the structure of institutions, politics, rights, involvement, power and agency over technical issues advancing or limiting progress (e.g. new technologies and language barriers). 5. Participants identified two modes of desirable research: coproducing knowledge with scientists and autonomous Indigenous-led research. They highlighted the need for more collaborative and coproduction projects to allow further refinement of approaches and more funding to support autonomous, Indigenous-led research. 6. Most misconceptions held by scientists concerning IK that were identified by participants related to the spatial, temporal and conceptual scope of IK, and the perceived need to validate IK using Western science. 7. Our research highlights some of the issues that need to be addressed by all participants in research and decision-making involving IK and science. While exact approaches will need to be tailored to specific social-ecological contexts, consideration of these broader concerns revealed by our analysis are likely to be central to effective partnerships. ; Anglia Ruskin University; EC H2020 Projects INTAROS and CAPARDUS. Grant Numbers: 727890, 869673; Nordic Council of Ministers

Appendix A. Supplementary data: Supplementary material 1: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0006320719317124-mmc1.pdf (284KB) - Supplementary material 2: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0006320719317124-mmc2.pdf (276KB). ; EUs H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (No 676108); Villum Fonden (VKR023371); National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (203407/2017-2); The Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT180100354); The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment; The Kenneth Miller Trust; Natural Environment Research Council (NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1]); Cambridge International Scholarship from the Cambridge Trust; Newton International Fellowship of the Royal Society; Australian Government, Endeavor Postgraduate Scholarship; Branco Weiss Fellowship Administered by the ETH Zürich; Drapers' Company Fellowship, Pembroke College; Natural Environment Research Council (NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1 and NE/S001395/1]); Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 Research Fellowship; Cambridge Trust Cambridge-Australia Poynton Scholarship; Cambridge Department of Zoology J. S. Gardiner Scholarship.

Conservation science is a crisis-oriented discipline focused on reducing human impacts on nature. To explore how the field has changed over the past two decades, we analyzed 3245 applications for oral presentations submitted to the Student Conference on Conservation Science (SCCS) in Cambridge, UK. SCCS has been running every year since 2000, aims for global representation by providing bursaries to early-career conservationists from lower-income countries, and has never had a thematic focus, beyond conservation in the broadest sense. We found that the majority of projects submitted to SCCS were based on primary biological data collected from local scale field studies in the tropics, contrary to established literature which highlights gaps in tropical research. Our results showed a small increase over time in submissions framed around how nature benefits people as well as a small increase in submissions integrating social science. Our findings suggest that students and early-career conservationists could provide pathways to increase availability of data from the tropics and address well-known biases in the published literature towards wealthier countries. We hope this research will motivate efforts to support student projects, ensuring data and results are published and data made publicly available. ; The project was made possible through funding from: JG: EUs Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie program (No 676108) and VILLUM FONDEN (VKR023371), HA-P; National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (203407/2017-2), TA: The Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT180100354), The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment and The Kenneth Miller Trust, APC: the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1]), LC: Cambridge International Scholarship from the Cambridge Trust, FH: the Newton International Fellowship of the Royal Society, DM: the Australian Government, Endeavor Postgraduate Scholarhip, HM: Branco Weiss Fellowship Administered by the ETH Zürich and Drapers' Company Fellowship, Pembroke College BIS: the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC DTP[NE/L002507/1 and NE/S001395/1]) and the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 Research Fellowship, HW: Cambridge Trust Cambridge-Australia Poynton Scholarship and Cambridge Department of Zoology J. S. Gardiner Scholarship.

This is the author accepted manuscroipt. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record ; Conservation science is a crisis-oriented discipline focused on reducing human impacts on nature. To explore how the field has changed over the past two decades, we analyzed 3245 applications for oral presentations submitted to the Student Conference on Conservation Science (SCCS) in Cambridge, UK. SCCS has been running every year since 2000, aims for global representation by providing bursaries to early-career conservationists from lower-income countries, and has never had a thematic focus, beyond conservation in the broadest sense. We found that the majority of projects submitted to SCCS were based on primary biological data collected from local scale field studies in the tropics, contrary to established literature which highlights gaps in tropical research. Our results showed a small increase over time in submissions framed around how nature benefits people as well as a small increase in submissions integrating social science. Our findings suggest that students and early-career conservationists could provide pathways to increase availability of data from the tropics and address well-known biases in the published literature towards wealthier countries. We hope this research will motivate efforts to support student projects, ensuring data and results are published and data made publicly available. ; European Union Horizon 2020 ; Villum Fonden ; National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) ; Australian Research Council Future Fellowship ; Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment ; Kenneth Miller Trust ; Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) ; Cambridge Trust ; Royal Society ; Australian Government ; Branco Weiss Fellowship ; Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851