Creating connections to maximize the mobilization of ecological knowledge into effective practice

IF 2.6 Q2 ECOLOGY
Carolyn M. Kurle
{"title":"Creating connections to maximize the mobilization of ecological knowledge into effective practice","authors":"Carolyn M. Kurle","doi":"10.1002/2688-8319.12311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Publishing research relevant to the management of biological resources and ecological systems is one of the aims of <i>Ecological Solutions and Evidence</i> (ESE). Collection of the necessary ecological data, and the chances that their analyses are successfully applied to conservation and management strategies, is frequently much improved when practitioners and academics work together on all aspects of a scientific project (Meadow et al., <span>2015</span>; Walsh et al., <span>2019</span>).</p><p>To encourage, guide and hopefully increase the prevalence of co-designed projects, ESE hosted an Applied Ecology Resources (AER) Live workshop on the topic of creating and navigating successful co-designed research opportunities in 2021 (AER, <span>2021</span>). We followed this up with an editorial on the topic (Kurle et al., <span>2022</span>), co-design workshops at the 2023 annual meetings of the Ecological Society of America and the British Ecological Society, and a forthcoming co-design guide to help facilitate these partnerships. Finally, in the hopes of inspiring more ecologists to create and conduct co-designed research projects, we invited scientists to submit their Practice Insights, Perspectives, and Research Articles featuring examples of successful co-production of knowledge and its applications to effective ecological solutions in this Special Feature.</p><p>What follows is a wide-ranging collection of insights and advice for fostering co-designed projects, details of collaborative research for maintaining and restoring biodiversity and studies illustrating the importance of incorporating Indigenous knowledge and multiple stakeholders for expanding scientific participation, increasing successful outcomes and deepening access across multiple areas of expertise. We hope that this collection will inspire and challenge all of us to increase our efforts to forge scientific partnerships to broaden the reach of our ecological investigations and enhance their applications for more effective management and conservation.</p><p>We recognize that there are still barriers to reaching across a perceived divide between practitioners and academics to create and carry out successful co-designed research (Bertuol-Garcia et al., <span>2018</span>; Walsh et al., <span>2019</span>), and we hope that the advice and success stories contained in this group of articles will inspire action to overcome those barriers.</p><p>Couturier et al. (<span>2023</span>) present two stories of their experiences with long-term co-design partnerships, including potential challenges and best practices for increasing successful outcomes for biodiversity through collaborative ecosystem monitoring, assessment, and creation of effective conservation and management strategies. Piczak et al. (<span>2022</span>) use the example of Aquatic Habitat Toronto's (AHT) partnerships among a number of agencies to illustrate how enhancing knowledge co-production bridges the gap between ‘knowledge generators’ and ‘knowledge users’, thereby increasing the success of restoration ecology outcomes.</p><p>Reaching back in time to generate meaningful modern data, Dietl et al. (<span>2023</span>) share lessons learned from their experiences building knowledge co-production using paleobiological data from the Historical Oyster Body Size (HOBS) project to cultivate actionable conservation science. Their perspective is an encouragement to resource managers and conservation paleobiologists to cultivate partnerships so that the ‘secrets of the past’ can be applied to present-day conservation solutions.</p><p>Others focused on how to foster such partnerships, with Powell et al. (<span>2023</span>) synthesizing data from Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analyses gathered from four case studies, detailing experiences of those co-managing woody invasive alien species in Argentina. Their work provides advice for those interested in co-managing invasive species and natural resources in South America and beyond. Smith et al. (<span>2023</span>) created the Conservation Evidence Program, which is predicated on the simple idea that ‘improving the effectiveness of conservation practice requires better use of evidence’. To that end, they engaged with over 1000 conservation agents to co-design a practical Evidence Toolkit containing five strategies for ‘delivering improved conservation practice’. Their work also contains multiple recommendations for maximizing positive conservation outcomes from co-designed projects.</p><p>The United Nations’ challenge to restore millions of hectares of land during 2021–2030 (the ‘decade on restoration’) will require considerable effort and guidance as to how best to implement research and practical protocols to maximize the recovery of biodiversity across restored ecosystems worldwide. Co-designing research will be pivotal in achieving these targets, and Pizza et al. (<span>2023</span>) demonstrated this by creating a collaboration between academic scientists, a native seed producer and land stewards to better understand factors related to maximizing plant habitat restorations. Their work demonstrates that the restoration of tallgrass prairies is not amplified when using seed sources considered ‘local’; rather, greater seeding rates and increased management of the restoration site after seeding are the elements needed to increase the likelihood that native species will successfully establish.</p><p>Biodiversity loss is uniquely problematic in agricultural systems and conservation outcomes in these landscapes can be improved when farmers and researchers come together for co-designed projects. Hölting et al. (<span>2022</span>) make this point in their report detailing methods by which researchers and farming organizations work together for the improvement of biodiversity management in agrarian ecosystems in Europe. To better understand why outcomes from ecological restorations vary widely, Warneke et al. (<span>2023</span>) studied plant re-establishment after wildfire damage to a native upland forest on the Island of Hawai‘i. Their work was a highly collaborative effort among several government agencies and academics that resulted in successful management outcomes, multiple research publications and recommendations regarding factors influencing restoration outcomes after wildfire.</p><p>The inclusion of local and Indigenous knowledge into the data-gathering process creates opportunities for co-designed research that further widen access to information that can deepen the understanding of a habitat and its wildlife (Stern &amp; Humphries, <span>2022</span>). Christie et al. (<span>2023</span>) detail their process of co-creating a questionnaire designed to collect local and Indigenous information to better evaluate the effects of climate change on aquatic species and habitats in the Arctic. Putting Indigenous knowledge into practice, Khanyari et al. (<span>2023</span>) underscore the value of projects co-designed with local people as they created tools to mitigate negative impacts on livestock brought on by human–wildlife interactions on the western extension of the Tibetan plateau through participatory action research (PAR) practices.</p><p>Reflecting on such co-designed research, Richard et al. (<span>2023</span>) highlight the challenges and strengths experienced through their co-designed partnership with the Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada and Inuit partners for long-term monitoring of common eider ducks (<i>Somateria mollissima</i>) in the Arctic.</p><p>Conservation, management and restoration success stories are frequently magnified when multiple stakeholders are included in the processes of creating and implementing effective environmental policies (Laurila-Pant et al., <span>2019</span>). Stakeholders include the everyday people who interact with the wild spaces studied by ecologists, and Clarke et al. (<span>2023</span>) demonstrate the great potential for scientific gain that can be achieved when people who live near and appreciate their local natural areas are recruited to co-design research and collect data for projects. In this case, citizen scientists carried out eDNA-based surveys of a local stream catchment in Norfolk, England, to inform fish and other vertebrate diversity.</p><p>Mganga et al. (<span>2023</span>) share an example of successfully integrating multiple stakeholders for the benefit of ecological restoration and improving farmer outcomes through native plant restoration and developing multiple methods of rainwater harvest in the African drylands of Kenya. Mitchell et al. (<span>2023</span>) brought regional and local stakeholders together to develop a methodology by which to identify land preservation activities to maximize tidal marsh conservation and support watershed-wide management goals in the face of impediments to marsh migration expected with rising sea levels. They used a multi-model approach to combine outcomes from five existing models and then tested their approach across three locations throughout the Chesapeake Bay in the eastern United States. The outcome is the creation of a single model approach to preserve marsh migration corridors, and this approach is widely applicable to any location that already has peer-reviewed marsh migration models in place.</p><p>The objectives of practitioner and academic scientists in their pursuits of collecting and understanding ecological data are frequently distinct from one another and these differences are precisely why sharing and co-producing knowledge can be so fruitful for both parties. We hope our efforts to highlight co-designed work in this Special Feature make the case for this truth and that the stories contained herein serve as inspiration for all of us to actively pursue these productive collaborations.</p><p>The author declares no conflicts of interest.</p><p>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":100388,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Solutions and Evidence","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2688-8319.12311","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Solutions and Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2688-8319.12311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Publishing research relevant to the management of biological resources and ecological systems is one of the aims of Ecological Solutions and Evidence (ESE). Collection of the necessary ecological data, and the chances that their analyses are successfully applied to conservation and management strategies, is frequently much improved when practitioners and academics work together on all aspects of a scientific project (Meadow et al., 2015; Walsh et al., 2019).

To encourage, guide and hopefully increase the prevalence of co-designed projects, ESE hosted an Applied Ecology Resources (AER) Live workshop on the topic of creating and navigating successful co-designed research opportunities in 2021 (AER, 2021). We followed this up with an editorial on the topic (Kurle et al., 2022), co-design workshops at the 2023 annual meetings of the Ecological Society of America and the British Ecological Society, and a forthcoming co-design guide to help facilitate these partnerships. Finally, in the hopes of inspiring more ecologists to create and conduct co-designed research projects, we invited scientists to submit their Practice Insights, Perspectives, and Research Articles featuring examples of successful co-production of knowledge and its applications to effective ecological solutions in this Special Feature.

What follows is a wide-ranging collection of insights and advice for fostering co-designed projects, details of collaborative research for maintaining and restoring biodiversity and studies illustrating the importance of incorporating Indigenous knowledge and multiple stakeholders for expanding scientific participation, increasing successful outcomes and deepening access across multiple areas of expertise. We hope that this collection will inspire and challenge all of us to increase our efforts to forge scientific partnerships to broaden the reach of our ecological investigations and enhance their applications for more effective management and conservation.

We recognize that there are still barriers to reaching across a perceived divide between practitioners and academics to create and carry out successful co-designed research (Bertuol-Garcia et al., 2018; Walsh et al., 2019), and we hope that the advice and success stories contained in this group of articles will inspire action to overcome those barriers.

Couturier et al. (2023) present two stories of their experiences with long-term co-design partnerships, including potential challenges and best practices for increasing successful outcomes for biodiversity through collaborative ecosystem monitoring, assessment, and creation of effective conservation and management strategies. Piczak et al. (2022) use the example of Aquatic Habitat Toronto's (AHT) partnerships among a number of agencies to illustrate how enhancing knowledge co-production bridges the gap between ‘knowledge generators’ and ‘knowledge users’, thereby increasing the success of restoration ecology outcomes.

Reaching back in time to generate meaningful modern data, Dietl et al. (2023) share lessons learned from their experiences building knowledge co-production using paleobiological data from the Historical Oyster Body Size (HOBS) project to cultivate actionable conservation science. Their perspective is an encouragement to resource managers and conservation paleobiologists to cultivate partnerships so that the ‘secrets of the past’ can be applied to present-day conservation solutions.

Others focused on how to foster such partnerships, with Powell et al. (2023) synthesizing data from Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analyses gathered from four case studies, detailing experiences of those co-managing woody invasive alien species in Argentina. Their work provides advice for those interested in co-managing invasive species and natural resources in South America and beyond. Smith et al. (2023) created the Conservation Evidence Program, which is predicated on the simple idea that ‘improving the effectiveness of conservation practice requires better use of evidence’. To that end, they engaged with over 1000 conservation agents to co-design a practical Evidence Toolkit containing five strategies for ‘delivering improved conservation practice’. Their work also contains multiple recommendations for maximizing positive conservation outcomes from co-designed projects.

The United Nations’ challenge to restore millions of hectares of land during 2021–2030 (the ‘decade on restoration’) will require considerable effort and guidance as to how best to implement research and practical protocols to maximize the recovery of biodiversity across restored ecosystems worldwide. Co-designing research will be pivotal in achieving these targets, and Pizza et al. (2023) demonstrated this by creating a collaboration between academic scientists, a native seed producer and land stewards to better understand factors related to maximizing plant habitat restorations. Their work demonstrates that the restoration of tallgrass prairies is not amplified when using seed sources considered ‘local’; rather, greater seeding rates and increased management of the restoration site after seeding are the elements needed to increase the likelihood that native species will successfully establish.

Biodiversity loss is uniquely problematic in agricultural systems and conservation outcomes in these landscapes can be improved when farmers and researchers come together for co-designed projects. Hölting et al. (2022) make this point in their report detailing methods by which researchers and farming organizations work together for the improvement of biodiversity management in agrarian ecosystems in Europe. To better understand why outcomes from ecological restorations vary widely, Warneke et al. (2023) studied plant re-establishment after wildfire damage to a native upland forest on the Island of Hawai‘i. Their work was a highly collaborative effort among several government agencies and academics that resulted in successful management outcomes, multiple research publications and recommendations regarding factors influencing restoration outcomes after wildfire.

The inclusion of local and Indigenous knowledge into the data-gathering process creates opportunities for co-designed research that further widen access to information that can deepen the understanding of a habitat and its wildlife (Stern & Humphries, 2022). Christie et al. (2023) detail their process of co-creating a questionnaire designed to collect local and Indigenous information to better evaluate the effects of climate change on aquatic species and habitats in the Arctic. Putting Indigenous knowledge into practice, Khanyari et al. (2023) underscore the value of projects co-designed with local people as they created tools to mitigate negative impacts on livestock brought on by human–wildlife interactions on the western extension of the Tibetan plateau through participatory action research (PAR) practices.

Reflecting on such co-designed research, Richard et al. (2023) highlight the challenges and strengths experienced through their co-designed partnership with the Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada and Inuit partners for long-term monitoring of common eider ducks (Somateria mollissima) in the Arctic.

Conservation, management and restoration success stories are frequently magnified when multiple stakeholders are included in the processes of creating and implementing effective environmental policies (Laurila-Pant et al., 2019). Stakeholders include the everyday people who interact with the wild spaces studied by ecologists, and Clarke et al. (2023) demonstrate the great potential for scientific gain that can be achieved when people who live near and appreciate their local natural areas are recruited to co-design research and collect data for projects. In this case, citizen scientists carried out eDNA-based surveys of a local stream catchment in Norfolk, England, to inform fish and other vertebrate diversity.

Mganga et al. (2023) share an example of successfully integrating multiple stakeholders for the benefit of ecological restoration and improving farmer outcomes through native plant restoration and developing multiple methods of rainwater harvest in the African drylands of Kenya. Mitchell et al. (2023) brought regional and local stakeholders together to develop a methodology by which to identify land preservation activities to maximize tidal marsh conservation and support watershed-wide management goals in the face of impediments to marsh migration expected with rising sea levels. They used a multi-model approach to combine outcomes from five existing models and then tested their approach across three locations throughout the Chesapeake Bay in the eastern United States. The outcome is the creation of a single model approach to preserve marsh migration corridors, and this approach is widely applicable to any location that already has peer-reviewed marsh migration models in place.

The objectives of practitioner and academic scientists in their pursuits of collecting and understanding ecological data are frequently distinct from one another and these differences are precisely why sharing and co-producing knowledge can be so fruitful for both parties. We hope our efforts to highlight co-designed work in this Special Feature make the case for this truth and that the stories contained herein serve as inspiration for all of us to actively pursue these productive collaborations.

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

None.

建立联系,最大限度地将生态知识转化为有效实践
出版与生物资源和生态系统的管理相关的研究成果是生态解决方案与证据 (ESE) 的目标之一。为鼓励、指导并希望提高共同设计项目的普及率,ESE 于 2021 年主办了一次应用生态资源(AER)现场研讨会,主题是创造和引导成功的共同设计研究机会(AER,2021 年)。随后,我们就这一主题发表了一篇社论(Kurle 等人,2022 年),在美国生态学会和英国生态学会 2023 年年会上举办了共同设计研讨会,并即将发布共同设计指南,以帮助促进这些合作关系。最后,为了激励更多的生态学家创建和开展共同设计研究项目,我们邀请科学家提交他们的实践感悟、观点和研究文章,在本特刊中介绍共同创造知识的成功案例及其在有效生态解决方案中的应用。接下来的内容涉及广泛,包括促进共同设计项目的见解和建议、维护和恢复生物多样性的合作研究详情,以及说明结合土著知识和多方利益相关者对于扩大科学参与、增加成功成果和深化多领域专业知识的重要性的研究。我们希望这本文集能够激励和挑战我们所有人,加大力度建立科学伙伴关系,以扩大生态调查的范围,并加强其应用,从而实现更有效的管理和保护。我们认识到,要跨越实践者和学者之间的认知鸿沟,创建和开展成功的共同设计研究,仍然存在障碍(Bertuol-Garcia 等人,2018 年;Walsh 等人,2019 年)、Couturier 等人(2023 年)介绍了他们在长期共同设计合作伙伴关系中的两个经验故事,包括通过合作开展生态系统监测、评估以及制定有效的保护和管理策略来增加生物多样性成功成果的潜在挑战和最佳实践。Piczak 等人(2022 年)以多伦多水生栖息地(AHT)与多个机构的合作为例,说明了加强知识共同生产如何缩小 "知识创造者 "与 "知识使用者 "之间的差距,从而提高恢复生态成果的成功率。鲍威尔等人(2023 年)综合了从四个案例研究中收集的优势、劣势、机会和威胁(SWOT)分析数据,详细介绍了共同管理阿根廷外来木质入侵物种的经验。他们的研究为南美及其他地区有兴趣共同管理入侵物种和自然资源的人提供了建议。史密斯等人(2023 年)创建了 "保护证据计划",该计划基于一个简单的理念,即 "提高保护实践的有效性需要更好地利用证据"。为此,他们与 1000 多名保护人员共同设计了一个实用的证据工具包,其中包含五项 "改进保护实践 "的战略。联合国提出的在 2021-2030 年("恢复十年")期间恢复数百万公顷土地的挑战将需要大量的努力和指导,以确定如何最好地实施研究和实用规程,最大限度地恢复全球已恢复生态系统的生物多样性。共同设计研究将是实现这些目标的关键,Pizza 等人(2023 年)通过建立学术科学家、本地种子生产商和土地管理者之间的合作,更好地了解与最大限度恢复植物栖息地相关的因素,证明了这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信