Merging science and arts to communicate nature conservation

As a response to overall negative attitudes on nature conservation, Latvian scientists and artists launched a new initiative to communicate biodiversity. Unlike previous efforts, this initiative also included arts (poetry, music, dance and photo/video) as part of the information campaign. This project, named Nature Concert Hall, has been very successful between 2006 and 2012 in terms of receiving national and international recognition; this paper aimed to evaluate its efficiency in increasing the public’s knowledge and awareness of nature conservation issues and pro-environmental behaviour. We used an electronic web-form survey to investigate the views of the Nature Concert Hall’s audience. The collaboration between artists and scientists clearly led to larger audiences: 53% of enquiry respondents would not have attended if there was only the ‘scientific component’ and another 34% were uncertain about their choice. Overall, 80.8% of respondents noted an increase in knowledge on biodiversity issues after attending Nature Concert Hall and 43.4% of respondents reported an increase in their pro-environmental activities. Significant predictors of increased knowledge were gender, profession and the main living location (men, people with creative professions such as artists and scientists, as well as people residing in the countryside, were less likely to learn something new). Significant predictors of increased pro-environmental behaviour were age, the number of events participants attended and the increase of knowledge (older people and those who attended more Nature Concert Hall events were more likely to improve their pro-environmental behaviour, as well as those people who also reported increase of knowledge).     

How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals

Delays in peer reviewed publication may have consequences for both assessment of scientific prowess in academia as well as communication of important information to the knowledge receptor community. We present an analysis on the perspectives of authors publishing in conservation biology journals regarding their opinions on the importance of speed in peer-review as well as how to improve review times. Authors were invited to take part in an online questionnaire, of which the data was subjected to both qualitative (open coding, categorizing) and quantitative analyses (generalized linear models). We received 637 responses to 6,547 e-mail invitations sent. Peer-review speed was generally perceived as slow, with authors experiencing a typical turnaround time of 14 weeks while their perceived optimal review time was six weeks. Male and younger respondents seem to have higher expectations of review speed than females and older respondents. The majority of participants attributed lengthy review times to reviewer and editor fatigue, while editor persistence and journal prestige were believed to speed up the review process. Negative consequences of lengthy review times were perceived to be greater for early career researchers and to have impact on author morale (e.g. motivation or frustration). Competition among colleagues was also of concern to respondents. Incentivizing peer-review was among the top suggested alterations to the system along with training graduate students in peer-review, increased editorial persistence, and changes to the norms of peer-review such as opening the peer-review process to the public. It is clear that authors surveyed in this study viewed the peer-review system as under stress and we encourage scientists and publishers to push the envelope for new peer-review models.     

Science Educational Outreach Programs That Benefit Students and Scientists

Both scientists and the public would benefit from improved communication of basic scientific research and from integrating scientists into education outreach, but opportunities to support these efforts are limited. We have developed two low-cost programs—"Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old" and "Shadow a Scientist”—that combine training in science communication with outreach to area middle schools. We assessed the outcomes of these programs and found a 2-fold benefit: scientists improve their communication skills by explaining basic science research to a general audience, and students'' enthusiasm for science and their scientific knowledge are increased. Here we present details about both programs, along with our assessment of them, and discuss the feasibility of exporting these programs to other universities.     

What Sources Are Natural Resource Managers Using to Make Decisions?

Natural resource management is more effective when it includes collaboration among numerous stakeholders who bring multiple perspectives to the decision-making process. In particular, many individuals and organizations (e.g., The Wildlife Society) have advocated for decisions to be science-based as a means for improving management outcomes. But there has been little research evaluating the sources, science-based or otherwise, used by natural resource agencies to support decision-making at the state-level within the United States. We surveyed state natural resource agency personnel in all 50 states to assess the sources of information used to make management decisions and the factors that influenced selection of the sources. Approximately 60% of respondents reported using ≥3 different source types when making recommendations. Existing management plans, the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and expert opinion were the most frequently used sources. Perception of source relevance was the most frequent predictor of source use, and the number of management plans a manager had previously written positively predicted the use of management plans, expert opinion, and personal experiences. Ninety percent of respondents reported that increased use of the peer-reviewed literature would or might improve management recommendations. Aspects of academic and agency cultures influenced which articles or journals were used to make recommendations. Our findings indicate managers support the use of peer-reviewed literature as an important component of management decision-making; however, if the goal is to improve the flow of information between scientists and managers, researchers should publish in journals that are readily accessible to managers and present results in a way that clearly articulates relevance to management decisions. © 2021 The Wildlife Society.     

Beyond Reserves: A Research Agenda for Conserving Biodiversity in Human-modified Tropical Landscapes

To truly understand the current status of tropical diversity and to forecast future trends, we need to increase emphasis on the study of biodiversity in rural landscapes that are actively managed or modified by people. We present an integrated landscape approach to promote research in human-modified landscapes that includes the effects of landscape structure and dynamics on conservation of biodiversity, provision of ecosystem services, and sustainability of rural livelihoods. We propose research priorities encompassing three major areas: biodiversity, human–environment interactions, and restoration ecology. We highlight key areas where we lack knowledge and where additional understanding is most urgent for promoting conservation and sustaining rural livelihoods. Finally, we recommend participatory and multidisciplinary approaches in research and management. Lasting conservation efforts demand new alliances among conservation biologists, agroecologists, agronomists, farmers, indigenous peoples, rural social movements, foresters, social scientists, and land managers to collaborate in research, co-design conservation programs and policies, and manage human-modified landscapes in ways that enhance biodiversity conservation and promote sustainable livelihoods.     

Impacts of large‐scale forest restoration on socioeconomic status and local livelihoods: what we know and do not know

Forests are sources of wood, non‐timber forest products and ecosystems services and goods that benefit society as a whole, and are especially important to rural livelihoods. Forest landscape restoration (FLR) has been proposed as a way to counteract deforestation and reconcile the production of ecosystem services and goods with conservation and development goals. But limited evidence indicates how large‐scale forest restoration could contribute to improving local livelihoods. Here, we present a conceptual framework to analyze the effects of large‐scale restoration on local livelihoods, and use it to review the scientific literature and reduce this knowledge gap. Most of the literature referred to case studies (89%), largely concentrated in China (49%). The main theme explored was income, followed by livelihoods diversification, off‐farm employment opportunities, poverty reduction, equity and the provision of timber and energy as ecosystem services. Nearly 60 percent of the papers discussed the importance of governance systems to socioeconomic outcomes. The reforestation/restoration programs and policies investigated in the studies had mixed socioeconomic effects on local livelihoods depending on other variables, such as availability of off‐farm jobs, household characteristics, land productivity, land tenure, and markets for forest products and ecosystem services. We conclude that the effects of large‐scale restoration initiatives on local livelihoods may vary due to several factors and is still not clear for many situations; therefore, monitoring over time with clear indicators is needed.     

How can we improve information delivery to support conservation and restoration decisions?

Incorporating science into resource conservation and management is becoming increasingly important, but it is not yet clear how to provide information to decision makers most effectively. To evaluate sources of information used to support the management and conservation of California’s riparian bird habitat, we distributed a questionnaire to restoration practitioners and public and private land managers. We asked respondents to rate the importance and availability of different sources of information they use to inform their decisions. Synthetic reviews and peer-reviewed publications both received high importance and availability ratings. Web-based tools received low importance and availability ratings. One-on-one interactions between ecologists and decision makers received high importance ratings, similar to those of peer-reviewed publications and synthetic reviews, but their availability was rated lower than any other method of decision support. Our results suggest that the decision makers we surveyed are already using a wide variety of information, but that prioritizing one-on-one interactions between scientists and decision makers will enhance the delivery of all sources of information.     

How scientists perceive the evolutionary origin of human traits: Results of a survey study

Various hypotheses have been proposed for why the traits distinguishing humans from other primates originally evolved, and any given trait may have been explained both as an adaptation to different environments and as a result of demands from social organization or sexual selection. To find out how popular the different explanations are among scientists, we carried out an online survey among authors of recent scientific papers in journals covering relevant fields of science (paleoanthropology, paleontology, ecology, evolution, human biology). Some of the hypotheses were clearly more popular among the 1,266 respondents than others, but none was universally accepted or rejected. Even the most popular of the hypotheses were assessed “very likely” by <50% of the respondents, but many traits had 1–3 hypotheses that were found at least moderately likely by >70% of the respondents. An ordination of the hypotheses identified two strong gradients. Along one gradient, the hypotheses were sorted by their popularity, measured by the average credibility score given by the respondents. The second gradient separated all hypotheses postulating adaptation to swimming or diving into their own group. The average credibility scores given for different subgroups of the hypotheses were not related to respondent's age or number of publications authored. However, (paleo)anthropologists were more critical of all hypotheses, and much more critical of the water‐related ones, than were respondents representing other fields of expertise. Although most respondents did not find the water‐related hypotheses likely, only a small minority found them unscientific. The most popular hypotheses were based on inherent drivers; that is, they assumed the evolution of a trait to have been triggered by the prior emergence of another human‐specific behavioral or morphological trait, but opinions differed as to which of the traits came first.     

Broadening the voice of science: Promoting scientific communication in the undergraduate classroom

Effective and accurate communication of scientific findings is essential. Unfortunately, scientists are not always well trained in how to best communicate their results with other scientists nor do all appreciate the importance of speaking with the public. Here, we provide an example of how the development of oral communication skills can be integrated with research experiences at the undergraduate level. We describe our experiences developing, running, and evaluating a course for undergraduates that complemented their existing undergraduate research experiences with instruction on the nature of science and intensive training on the development of science communication skills. Students delivered science talks, research monologues, and poster presentations about the ecological and evolutionary research in which they were involved. We evaluated the effectiveness of our approach using the CURE survey and a focus group. As expected, undergraduates reported strong benefits to communication skills and confidence. We provide guidance for college researchers, instructors, and administrators interested in motivating and equipping the next generation of scientists to be excellent science communicators.     

Science and policy: valuing framing, language and listening

This paper considers the context for science contributing to policy development and explores some critical issues that should inform science advocacy and influence with policy makers. The paper argues that the key challenges are at least as much in educating conservation scientists and science communicators about society and policy making as they are in educating society and policy makers about science. The importance of developing processes to ensure that scientists and science communicators invest in the development of relationships based on respect and understanding of their audience in both communities and amongst policy makers provides a critical first step. The objectives of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation acknowledge the importance of developing the capacities and public engagement necessary to implement the Strategy, including knowledge transfer and community capacity building. However, the development of targets to equip institutions and plant conservation professionals to explicitly address the barriers to influencing policy development through knowledge transfer and integration require further consideration.     

Socio-economics and wildlife conservation of a peri-urban national park in central Kenya

The support, perceptions, values and aspiration of the local people, especially those who neighbour protected areas is increasingly recognised as critical for long-term biodiversity conservation in many countries. As such, conservation agencies are keen to understand the linkages and interactions between wildlife conservation and socio-economics of local communities. We assessed the socio-economic, demographic factors and livelihood status of the households of communities bordering Oldoinyo Sapuk National Park in central Kenya, and evaluated their willingness to support wildlife conservation. We randomly interviewed households that neighbour the Park on a wide range of socio-economic, livelihood and demographic factors. The majority of respondents were small-scale farmers practicing crop farming and livestock keeping. Most respondents considered the Park to have great potential for the future economic development of the area, especially through ecotourism as a potential avenue to support local livelihoods.     

A conceptual framework for understanding the perspectives on the causes of the science–practice gap in ecology and conservation

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. 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.     

A survey of the scientific data and training methods utilized by collegiate strength and conditioning coaches

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which scientific research influences college strength and conditioning coaching practices and to determine the training methods utilized. A total of 321 surveys were mailed to Division I strength and conditioning coaches, and the response rate was 42.7% (137 of 321 surveys). Results indicate that all subjects held a baccalaureate degree, the majority in a human performance-related field, and that 75% were Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) certified. The respondents' most widely utilized professional resources were the Strength and Conditioning Journal (94%) and other collegiate coaches and programs (93%). Forty-seven percent of respondents indicated that other collegiate coaches and their programs were the most important sources of knowledge outside of formal education. The majority indicated that they used a periodization protocol (93%) utilizing multiple sets (97%), plyometrics (90%), explosive movements (88%), and Olympic lifts (85%). Respondents tend to rely on sources of information that may not be defined as scientific, as evidenced by the low priority given to peer-reviewed literature. Respondents also tend to employ the methods they utilized as athletes. Reliance on these sources may not take advantage of advances made through scientific research in exercise physiology, biomechanics, and more specifically the area of strength and conditioning.     

Our view of islands: Joining the values of science and society

Both the public and the scientific perception of an island's value are important in deciding its future, with regard to the levels of access, protection and funding for research. There is a popular belief that the preservation of islands equates to the slightly idiosyncratic conservation of unique remote habitats, where the value of any island is its isolation. However, by understanding how scientists use islands, a different picture emerges; islands may be seen also as integrated, or representative fragments of the world that contribute to biodiversity and scientific theory far beyond their narrow geographical boundaries. Here, we broadly review the full scope of values science places on islands. We resolve four central perspectives by which scientists view islands, based on how islands are incorporated into their research: (i) species‐level studies; (ii) island‐level studies; (iii) islands as model systems; and (iv) islands as part of a global network. Recognising this diverse value system helps enlarge our understanding of islands and reforges their importance to the public and policy makers.     

Mind the gaps when using science to address conservation concerns

Conservation science and conservation action are assumed to have identical goals. However, in reality, there is a strong divide between research and practical conservation that has been mostly discussed with respect to the ‘knowing-doing gap’, i.e. the results from science are not being translated into practical management. In this commentary, we argue that there is not one but there are at least three different types of gaps impeding a positive impact of science on conservation: (1) the knowing-doing gap; (2) the thematic gap that exists between the topics addressed by conservation science and the problems faced in conservation; and (3) the disciplinary gap, i.e. the lack of communication and cooperation between different fields of science, e.g. between fundamental biodiversity research and conservation research. These different gaps have different origins and require different means to be overcome. In a survey, scientists from the field of conservation research (all contributing to this special issue on European grasslands) assessed the importance of these three gaps. They highlight that the disciplinary gap is just as relevant as the knowing-doing gap, while the importance of the thematic gap between practical conservation needs and theoretical conservation science is, in the view of the authors, of less importance. Also, the respondents identified the complexity of academic content in scientific publications as an additional cause for knowing-doing gaps. Based on our survey and various other studies analysing these gaps, we suggest two ways to overcome the gaps: if you consider yourself to be a conservation scientist make sure to address questions of relevance for conservation issues, if you are a scientist interested in fundamental issues, be open to mutual interaction and translation of scientific results with conservation scientists. The knowing-doing gap could be addressed by more readily translating the theoretical findings into practical advice. “Conservation Journals” could, for instance, require a second “Conservation Management Abstract”, which has to be published open-access, and back-to-back with the conventional abstract.     

Robert Chambers and Thomas Henry Huxley, Science Correspondents: The Popularization and Dissemination of Nineteenth Century Natural Science

Robert Chambers and Thomas Henry Huxley helped popularize science by writing for general interest publications when science was becoming increasingly professionalized. A non-professional, Chambers used his family-owned Chambers' Edinburgh Journal to report on scientific discoveries, giving his audience access to ideas that were only available to scientists who regularly attended professional meetings or read published transactions of such forums. He had no formal training in the sciences and little interest in advancing the professional status of scientists; his course of action was determined by his disability and interest in scientific phenomena. His skillful reporting enabled readers to learn how the ideas that flowed from scientific innovation affected their lives, and his series of article in the Journal presenting his rudimentary ideas on evolution, served as a prelude to his important popular work, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Huxley, an example of the new professional class of scientists, defended science and evolution from attacks by religious spokesmen and other opponents of evolution, informing the British public about science through his lectures and articles in such publications as Nineteenth Century. He understood that by popularizing scientific information, he could effectively challenge the old Tory establishment -- with its orthodox religious and political views -- and promote the ideas of the new class of professional scientists. In attempting to transform British society, he frequently came in conflict with theologians and others on issues in which science and religion seemed to contradict each other but refused to discuss matters of science with non-professionals like Chambers, whose popular writing struck a more resonant chord with working class readers. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Conservation genetics: Linking science with practice

Conservation genetics is a well‐established scientific field. However, limited information transfer between science and practice continues to hamper successful implementation of scientific knowledge in conservation practice and management. To mitigate this challenge, we have established a conservation genetics community, which entails an international exchange‐and‐skills platform related to genetic methods and approaches in conservation management. First, it allows for scientific exchange between researchers during annual conferences. Second, personal contact between conservation professionals and scientists is fostered by organising workshops and by popularising knowledge on conservation genetics methods and approaches in professional journals in national languages. Third, basic information on conservation genetics has been made accessible by publishing an easy‐to‐read handbook on conservation genetics for practitioners. Fourth, joint projects enabled practitioners and scientists to work closely together from the start of a project in order to establish a tight link between applied questions and scientific background. Fifth, standardised workflows simplifying the implementation of genetic tools in conservation management have been developed. By establishing common language and trust between scientists and practitioners, all these measures help conservation genetics to play a more prominent role in future conservation planning and management.     

Simple Messages Help Set the Record Straight about Scientific Agreement on Human-Caused Climate Change: The Results of Two Experiments

Human-caused climate change is happening; nearly all climate scientists are convinced of this basic fact according to surveys of experts and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, among the American public, there is widespread misunderstanding of this scientific consensus. In this paper, we report results from two experiments, conducted with national samples of American adults, that tested messages designed to convey the high level of agreement in the climate science community about human-caused climate change. The first experiment tested hypotheses about providing numeric versus non-numeric assertions concerning the level of scientific agreement. We found that numeric statements resulted in higher estimates of the scientific agreement. The second experiment tested the effect of eliciting respondents’ estimates of scientific agreement prior to presenting them with a statement about the level of scientific agreement. Participants who estimated the level of agreement prior to being shown the corrective statement gave higher estimates of the scientific consensus than respondents who were not asked to estimate in advance, indicating that incorporating an “estimation and reveal” technique into public communication about scientific consensus may be effective. The interaction of messages with political ideology was also tested, and demonstrated that messages were approximately equally effective among liberals and conservatives. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.     

Mobilizing metaphors: the popular use of keystone,flagship and umbrella species concepts

Misrepresentation of terminology is a major impediment for attempts at enhancing public conservation literacy. Despite being critically important for improving conservation practice, there have been few systematic analyses of the popular use of conservation terminology. This paper draws from science communication studies and metaphor analysis, to examine how keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts are used and represented in non-academic contexts. 557 news articles containing these terms were systematically analyzed. Mammals featured in 60% of articles on keystones, 55% on flagships and 63% on umbrella species. Number of articles explaining the terms keystone (35%) and flagship (31%) was low, and keystones were the most misrepresented term. Keystones were metaphorically linked with balance, flagships with representation and umbrella species with protection. These metaphors influenced public interpretation of scientific terminology, oriented actions towards select species, and led to a valuation of such actions. Together, the findings highlight three important aspects of popular use of conservation terminology: (1) communication is largely biased towards mammals, (2) everyday language plays a vital role in the interpretation of concepts, and (3) metaphors influence peoples’ actions and understanding. Conservation biologists need to engage with issues of language if public conservation literacy is to be improved. Further evaluations of concepts with high public and policy relevance, systematic identification of communication shortfalls, and linguistic assessments prior to promoting new terms are potential ways of achieving this.     

Unsustainable collection and unfair trade? Uncovering and assessing assumptions regarding Central Himalayan medicinal plant conservation

The trade in medicinal plants for herbal remedies is large and probably increasing. The trade has attracted the attention of scientists and development planners interested in the impact on plant populations and the potential to improve rural livelihoods through community based management and conservation. This has resulted in a large number of publications and development activities, ranging from small NGO projects to new government policies. Through a review of 119 references from Nepal, 4 common assumptions regarding the medicinal plant collection and trade have been identified: I. The commercial medicinal plant resource base is becoming ever more degraded as a consequence of collection; II. The medicinal plants are an open-access resource; III. Cultivation can contribute to conservation of commercially collected medicinal plant species; and IV. Medicinal plant harvesters are cheated by middlemen. The frequency of the assumptions is documented, their empirical support is evaluated, and the consequences of their presence for conservation and rural livelihoods are discussed. It is concluded that the empirical backing for the assumptions is weak, and that some reviewed references use logically flawed argumentation. It is argued that the assumptions are leading to misguided conservation efforts, and an inclusive approach to conservation of commercial central Himalayan medicinal plant species is briefly outlined. Electronic Supplementary Material Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at and is accessible for authorized users.