Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science |
| |
Authors: | Dominique G Roche Rose E O'Dea Kecia A Kerr Trina Rytwinski Richard Schuster Vivian M Nguyen Nathan Young Joseph R Bennett Steven J Cooke |
| |
Institution: | 1. Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;2. Evolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia;3. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) - Northern Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;4. Nature Conservancy of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;5. School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |
| |
Abstract: | The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science. |
| |
Keywords: | critical appraisal evidence-based decision-making knowledge mobilization open access open code open data open education resources transparency acceso abierto código abierto datos abiertos movilización del conocimiento recursos educativos abiertos toma de decisiones basada en evidencias transparencia valuación crítica 严格评价 循证决策 知识动员 开放存取 开放代码 开放数据 开放教育资源 透明度 |
|
|