Explore the vast range of titles available.

The economic valuation of ecosystem services in part reflects the desire to use conventional economic tools (markets and economic instruments) to conserve ecosystem services. However, for regulating and supporting ecosystem services that depend on ecosystem structure and function, estimation of economic value requires estimates of the current level of underlying ecological functions first. This primary step is in principle, the job of environmental scientists, not economists. Here, we provide a coarse-level quantitative assessment of the relationship between the research effort expended by environmental scientists (on the biophysical values) and economists (on the monetary values) on 15 different regulating and supporting services in 32 ecosystem types using peer-reviewed article hits retrieved from bibliographic databases as a measure of research effort. We find a positive, moderately strong ( r = 0.69) correlation between research efforts in the two domains, a result that, while encouraging, is likely to reflect serendipity rather than the deliberate design of integrated environmental science-economics research programs. Our results suggest that compared to environmental science research effort economic valuation is devoted to a smaller, less diverse set of ecosystem services but a broader, more diverse, set of ecosystem types. The two domains differed more with respect to the ecosystem services that are the major focus of research effort than they did with respect to the ecosystem types of principal research interest. For example, carbon sequestration, erosion regulation, and nutrient cycling receive more relative research effort in the environmental sciences; air quality regulation in economic valuations. For both domains, cultivated areas, wetlands, and urban/semi-urban ecosystem types received relatively large research effort, while arctic and mountain tundra, cave and subterranean, cryosphere, intertidal/littoral zone, and kelp forest ecosystem types received negligible research effort. We suggest ways and means by which the field of sustainability science may be improved by the design and implementation of a searchable database of environmental science and economic valuation literature as well as a global ecosystem service research network and repository that explicitly links research on the estimation and prediction of biophysical ecosystem functions with that of the social sciences and other knowledge systems. These suggestions would, at least in principle, facilitate a more efficient research agenda between economists and environmental scientists and aid management, regulatory and judicial decision-makers.

Managers of wildlife are faced with decisions and issues that are increasingly complex, spanning natural and human dimensions (i.e. values, preferences, attitudes). A strong evidence base that includes multiple forms and sources of knowledge is needed to support these complex decisions. However, a growing body of literature demonstrates that environmental managers are far more likely to draw on intuition, past experience or opinion to inform important decisions rather than empirical evidence. We set out to assess how decision‐makers and other potential knowledge users (a) perceive, evaluate and use western‐based scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge and (b) the extent to which social, political and economic considerations challenge the integration of different forms of evidence into decision‐making. In 2018, we interviewed members from natural resource management branches of Indigenous governments (n = 4) and parliamentary governments (n = 33), as well as representatives from nongovernmental stakeholder groups (n = 28) involved in wildlife management and conservation in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Contrary to studies that suggest evidence‐based conservation and management are rare, respondents described relying heavily on multiple forms of knowledge. Results revealed that western science is used near‐unanimously, procured from internal (i.e. institutional) sources slightly more than external ones (i.e. peer‐reviewed journals, management agencies in other jurisdictions). However, we found Indigenous and local knowledge use to be much less than western scientific knowledge (approximately half as much) despite being highly valued. Perceived challenges to applying Indigenous and local knowledge include a lack of trust, hesitancy to share knowledge (particularly from Indigenous communities), difficulties in assessing reliability and difficulties discerning knowledge from advocacy. Despite high (and relatively diverse) evidence use, more than 40% of respondents perceived a diminishing role for evidence in final decisions concerning wildlife management and conservation. They associated this with decreases in institutional resources and capacity and increases in socio‐economic and political interference. We encourage transformative change in wildlife management enabling decision‐makers to draw upon multiple forms of knowledge. This transformative change should include direct involvement of knowledge holders, co‐assessment of knowledge and transparency in how (multiple forms of) evidence contribute to decision‐making. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

People depend on functioning ecosystems, which provide benefits that support human existence and wellbeing. The relationship between people and nature has been experienced and conceptualized in multiple ways. Recently, ecosystem services (ES) concepts have permeated science, government policies, multi-national environmental agreements, and science–policy interfaces. In 2017, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) introduced a new and closely related concept – Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP). The introduction of NCP has sparked some lively discussion and confusion about the distinguishing characteristics between ES and NCP. In order to clarify their conceptual relation, we identify eleven specific claims about novel elements from the latest NCP literature and analyze how far ES research has already contributed to these corresponding conceptual claims in the existing ES literature. We find a mixed-picture, where on six specific conceptual claims (culture, social sciences and humanities, indigenous and local knowledge, negative contributions of nature, generalizing perspective, non-instrumental values and valuation) NCP does not differ greatly from past ES research, but we also find five conceptual claims (diverse worldviews, context-specific perspective, relational values, fuzzy and fluid reporting categories and groups, inclusive language and framing) where NCP provides novel conceptualizations of people and nature relations.

There is widespread and growing recognition that interdisciplinary research, informed by the social and ecological sciences, is needed to solve “super wicked” problems like the biodiversity and climate crises. At the same time, there is increasing recognition of the challenges complicating the production of such research. This paper contributes to the urgent need to identify strategies to resolve the factors complicating the production of interdisciplinary social-ecological research. To do so, we gathered 13 interdisciplinary social-ecological researchers/scientists from the pan-Canadian NSERC ResNet Strategic Network for a participatory scenario visioning workshop. The workshop sought to co-envision an academic environment that fully embraces and supports interdisciplinary social-ecological researchers, especially early-career scientists (here, students and postdoctoral researchers). Participants identified seven interconnected potential areas for reform: (1) funding allocation and practices, (2) shifting academic culture to support interdisciplinary social-ecological research, (3) (peer) support, (4) academic structure and training, (5) communicating methods and findings about social-ecological systems, (6) career assistance/services, and (7) networking. A follow-up systems-thinking workshop enabled participants to co-develop a causal loop diagram illustrating the dynamic interdependencies among these reforms and identifying key leverage points for change. Although this perspective comes from early career researchers in Canada, based on our experiences in other countries, we argue that the barriers and recommendations identified are likely applicable across international contexts. Our study identifies both structural and practical solutions to support interdisciplinary social-ecological researchers, especially early-career scientists (ECRs). While deep reforms in funding and academic culture may be gradual, immediate improvements—like peer support, networking, and clearer career guidance—can be implemented by many actors, including ECRs, to create a more inclusive research environment. We also reflect on how researcher positionality, academic cultures, and institutional design shape the pathways for transformative change. We provide recommendations to help researchers and institutions foster this support.

In civil society we expect that policy and management decisions will be made using the best available evidence. Yet, it is widely known that there are many barriers that limit the extent to which that occurs. One way to overcome these barriers is via robust, comprehensive, transparent and repeatable evidence syntheses (such as systematic reviews) that attempt to minimize various forms of bias to present a summary of existing knowledge for decision-making purposes. Relative to other disciplines (e.g., health care, education), such evidence-based decision-making remains relatively nascent for environment management despite major threats to humanity, such as the climate, pollution and biodiversity crises demonstrating that human well-being is inextricably linked to the biophysical environment. Fortunately, there are a growing number of environmental evidence syntheses being produced that can be used by decision makers. It is therefore an opportune time to refect on the science and practice of evidence-based decision-making in environment management to understand the extent to which evidence syntheses are embraced and applied in practice. Here we outline a number of key questions related to the use of environmental evidence that need to be explored in an efort to enhance evidence-based decision-making. There is an urgent need for research involving methods from social science, behavioural sciences, and public policy to understand the basis for patterns and trends in environmental evidence use (or misuse or ignorance). There is also a need for those who commission and produce evidence syntheses, as well as the end users of these syntheses to refect on their experiences and share them with the broader evidence-based practice community to identify needs and opportunities for advancing the entire process of evidence-based practice. It is our hope that the ideas shared here will serve as a roadmap for additional scholarship that will collectively enhance evidence-based decision-making and ultimately beneft the environment and humanity. Implementation science, Evidence, Practice, Policy, Synthesis

1. Despite aspirations for conservation impact, mismatches between research and implementation have limited progress towards this goal. There is, therefore, an urgent need to identify how we can more effectively navigate the spaces between research and practice. 2. In 2014, we ran a workshop with conservation researchers and practitioners to identify mismatches between research and implementation that needed to be overcome to deliver evidence‐informed conservation action. Five mismatches were highlighted: spatial, temporal, priority, communication, and institutional. 3. Since 2014, thinking around the ‘research–implementation gap’ has progressed. The term ‘gap’ has been replaced by language around the dynamic ‘spaces’ between research and action, representing a shift in thinking around what it takes to better align research and practice. 4. In 2019, we ran a follow‐up workshop reflecting on this shift, whether the five mismatches identified in the 2014 workshop were still present in conservation, and whether progress had been made to overcome these mismatches during the past 5 years. We found that while there has been progress, we still have some way to go across all dimensions. 5. Here, we report on the outcomes of the 2019 workshop, reflect on what has changed over the past 5 years, and offer 10 recommendations for strengthening the alignment of conservation research and practice. In 2014, we ran a workshop exploring mismatches between conservation research and practice. The workshop identified five mismatches between knowing and doing: spatial, temporal, priority, communication, and institutional. In 2019, we led a follow‐up workshop to reflect on how much progress we had made in overcoming them. Here we reflect on how much has changed in the five intervening years and offer ten recommendations for strengthening the alignment of research and practice.

The interface between science and policy is a complex space, in theory and practice, that sees the interaction of various actors and perspectives coming together to enable policy-relevant evidence to support decision-making. Early Career Researchers (ECRs) are increasingly interested in working at the science-policy interface to support evidence-informed policy, with the number of opportunities to do so increasing at national and international levels. However, there are still many challenges limiting ECRs participation, not least how such a complex space can be accessed and navigated. While recommendations for engaging at the science-policy interface already exist, a practical ‘map’ of the science-policy interface landscape which would allow for ECR participation in evidence co-production and synthesis in science-policy is missing. With the purpose of facilitating the engagement of ECRs producing biodiversity and ecosystem services policy-relevant evidence at the interface between science and policy, the authors have co-created a ‘mind-map’—a tool to review the landscape of and leverage access to the science-policy interface. This tool was developed through reviewing published literature, collating personal experiences of the ECR authors, and validating against wider peer perspectives in an ECR workshop during the 7th Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). This co-created tool sees ECR engagement in (co-)producing evidence at the science-policy interface as an interaction of three main factors: the environment of the ECR, which mediates their acts of engagement at the science-policy interface leading to outcomes that will ultimately have a reciprocal impact on the ECR’s environment.

Effective knowledge exchange at science-policy interfaces (SPIs) can foster evidence-informed policy-making through the integration of a wide range of knowledge inputs. This is especially crucial for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES), human well-being and sustainable development. Early-career researchers (ECRs) can contribute significantly to knowledge exchange at SPIs. Recognizing that, several capacity building programs focused on sustainability have been introduced recently. However, little is known about the experiences and perceptions of ECRs in relation to SPIs. Our study focused on SPI engagement of ECRs who conduct research on biodiversity and ES, as perceived and experienced. Specifically, we addressed 'motivations', 'barriers' and 'opportunities and 'benefits'. A total of 145 ECRs have completed the survey. Our results showed that ECRs were generally interested to engage in SPIs and believed it to be beneficial in terms of contributing to societal change, understanding policy processes and career development. Respondents perceived lack of understanding about involvement channels, engagement opportunities, funding, training, perceived credibility of ECRs by other actors and encouragement of senior colleagues as barriers to engaging in SPIs. Those who have already participated in SPIs generally saw fewer barriers and more opportunities. A key reason for dissatisfaction with experience in SPIs was a lack of impact and uptake of science-policy outputs by policymakers - an issue that likely extends beyond ECRs and implies the need for transformations in knowledge exchange within SPIs. In conclusion, based on insights from our survey, we outline several opportunities for increased and better facilitation of ECR engagement in SPIs.

To promote inclusivity, relevance and actionability of environmental research, scholars are engaging with rightsholders and stakeholders (Indigenous groups, governments and individuals) to co‐produce research. These transdisciplinary approaches represent diverse forms of ‘engaged’ research (e.g. community‐engaged research, braiding Indigenous science and knowledge and Western science‐based knowledge, workshops with decision‐makers). Acknowledging the diversity in aims and approaches to transdisciplinary research, this study surveyed a broad group of Canadian environmental researchers (n = 61) to understand: their motivations and objectives for engagement, how they manage engagement processes, how they assess the success of engagement, and the insights they would highlight for others interested in engaging in various forms of knowledge co‐production. We used qualitative methods to identify key themes and supported our findings with quantitative measures (i.e. frequency and proportion of participants who gave particular responses). We found that the motivations, geographic context, and practical experiences of researchers were diverse. A strong theme was the value of reciprocity. Recurring advice included the importance of understanding the research context and actor landscape prior to contacting collaborators, conducting iterative discussions with research collaborators to scope and plan the project, and being sure to locate the individuals or entities that may hold key knowledge or the ability to grant permissions. We note the importance of paying close attention to power asymmetries during the research process. Dialogue with stakeholders, rightsholders and communities is time‐consuming. Devoting adequate time for building and maintaining relationships to achieve a requisite level of trust is essential, but can be challenging for all parties. We conclude that there is no substitute for one‐on‐one mentoring for learning and understanding how to lead ethical and effective knowledge co‐production processes. Researchers setting out to collaborate with stakeholders, rightsholders, and communities must learn the norms, rules, and social dynamics of a given context and culture—and they should seek out experienced counsel for preparation and coaching before engaging in collaborations. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Résumé Afin de promouvoir l'inclusivité, la pertinence et la capacité d'action de la recherche environnementale, les chercheurs collaborent avec les détenteurs de droits et les parties prenantes (groupes autochtones, gouvernements et individus) pour co‐produire la recherche. Ces approches transdisciplinaires représentent diverses formes de recherche « engagée » (par ex., recherche communautaire, mise en relation des savoirs et sciences autochtones avec les connaissances scientifiques occidentales, ateliers avec des décideurs). Reconnaissant la diversité des objectifs et des approches en recherche transdisciplinaire, cette étude a interrogé un large groupe de chercheurs canadiens en environnement (n = 61) afin de comprendre: leurs motivations et objectifs d'engagement, la manière dont ils gèrent les processus d'engagement, la façon dont ils évaluent le succès de ces démarches, ainsi que les enseignements qu'ils souhaiteraient partager avec d'autres intéressés par différentes formes de co‐production des connaissances. Nous avons utilisé des méthodes qualitatives pour identifier des thèmes clés et avons appuyé nos résultats par des mesures quantitatives (c'est à dire la fréquence et la proportion des participants ayant fourni certaines réponses). Nous constatons que les motivations, les contextes géographiques et les expériences pratiques des chercheurs sont variés. Un thème central est la valeur de la réciprocité. Les conseils récurrents incluent l'importance de comprendre le contexte de recherche et le paysage/l'historique des acteurs avant de contacter des collaborateurs, de mener des discussions itératives avec les partenaires de recherche pour définir et planifier le projet, et d'identifier les personnes ou entités susceptibles de détenir des connaissances clés ou le pouvoir d'accorder des autorisations. Nous soulignons l'importance de porter une attention particulière aux asymétries de pouvoir durant le processus de recherche. Le dialogue avec les parties prenantes, les détenteurs de droits et les communautés demande du temps. Consacrer un temps suffisant à la construction et au maintien de relations afin d'atteindre un niveau de confiance nécessaire est essentiel, mais peut représenter un défi pour toutes les parties. Nous concluons qu'il n'existe pas de substitut au mentorat individuel pour apprendre et comprendre comment mener des processus de co‐production des connaissances à la fois éthiques et efficaces. Les chercheurs qui entreprennent de collaborer avec des parties prenantes, des détenteurs de droits et des communautés doivent apprendre les normes, les règles et les dynamiques sociales propres à un contexte et à une culture donnés — et devraient solliciter des conseils de personnes experimentés pour se préparer et être accompagnés avant de s'engager dans des collaborations. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.