Zobrazit v EDS

The actionability of threat mapping research assessed through stakeholder involvement and intended outcomes of studies.

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Název: The actionability of threat mapping research assessed through stakeholder involvement and intended outcomes of studies.
Autoři: Ridley, Francesca A., McGowan, Philip J. K., Suggitt, Andrew J., Hickinbotham, Emily J., Rowland, Ben W., Mair, Louise
Zdroj: Conservation Science & Practice; Sep2025, Vol. 7 Issue 9, p1-14, 14p
Témata: DECISION making, HABITAT conservation, INTENTION, STAKEHOLDER analysis, RISK assessment, UNIVERSITY research, EVIDENCE-based psychology
Abstrakt: There are often mismatches between the needs of decision makers and the outputs of scientific research, limiting the potential for conservation actions to be evidence‐based. Clearly defining the intended pathway from research to action, and engaging stakeholders in the design and delivery of research, have both been suggested as essential to ensuring that research is relevant to decision‐makers' needs. However, it is not clear how often such practices are implemented. We developed a novel approach to investigate statements of intended conservation outcome—including recommended actions—and stakeholder involvement reported in scientific articles that geographically map threats to species. We applied this to studies from a published systematic map of the literature. For 68% of studies, general conservation planning processes, tools, and techniques were the primary theme of intended outcomes, rather than specific conservation actions. Reports of stakeholder involvement were uncommon (present in 12.9% of studies) but those retrieved covered the full chronology of a scientific study, from design to planning, delivery, and validation. Our analysis presents an approach and a baseline for monitoring the clear definition of pathways to action and stakeholder involvement in the threat mapping literature, which can highlight ongoing mismatches between scientific output and decision‐makers' needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Conservation Science & Practice is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Databáze: Complementary Index
Popis
Abstrakt:There are often mismatches between the needs of decision makers and the outputs of scientific research, limiting the potential for conservation actions to be evidence‐based. Clearly defining the intended pathway from research to action, and engaging stakeholders in the design and delivery of research, have both been suggested as essential to ensuring that research is relevant to decision‐makers' needs. However, it is not clear how often such practices are implemented. We developed a novel approach to investigate statements of intended conservation outcome—including recommended actions—and stakeholder involvement reported in scientific articles that geographically map threats to species. We applied this to studies from a published systematic map of the literature. For 68% of studies, general conservation planning processes, tools, and techniques were the primary theme of intended outcomes, rather than specific conservation actions. Reports of stakeholder involvement were uncommon (present in 12.9% of studies) but those retrieved covered the full chronology of a scientific study, from design to planning, delivery, and validation. Our analysis presents an approach and a baseline for monitoring the clear definition of pathways to action and stakeholder involvement in the threat mapping literature, which can highlight ongoing mismatches between scientific output and decision‐makers' needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:25784854
DOI:10.1111/csp2.70116