Priorities for translating goodwill between movement ecologists and conservation practitioners into effective collaboration
<p>Addressing ongoing biodiversity loss requires collaboration between conservation scientists and practitioners. However, such collaboration has proved challenging. Despite the potential importance of tracking animal movements for conservation, reviews of the tracking literature have identifi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022
|
| _version_ | 1797109267948371968 |
|---|---|
| author | Nuijten, R Katzner, T Allen, A Bijleveld, A Boorsma, T Borger, L Cagnacci, F Hart, T Henley, M Herren, R Kok, E Maree, B Nebe, B Shohami, D Vogel, S Walker, P Heitkonig, I Milner-Gulland, EJ |
| author_facet | Nuijten, R Katzner, T Allen, A Bijleveld, A Boorsma, T Borger, L Cagnacci, F Hart, T Henley, M Herren, R Kok, E Maree, B Nebe, B Shohami, D Vogel, S Walker, P Heitkonig, I Milner-Gulland, EJ |
| author_sort | Nuijten, R |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p>Addressing ongoing biodiversity loss requires collaboration between conservation scientists and practitioners. However, such collaboration has proved challenging. Despite the potential importance of tracking animal movements for conservation, reviews of the tracking literature have identified a gap between the academic discipline of movement ecology and its application to biodiversity conservation. Through structured conversations with movement ecologists and conservation practitioners, we aimed to understand whether the identified gap is also perceived in practice, and if so, what factors hamper collaboration and how these factors can be remediated. We found that both groups are motivated and willing to collaborate. However, because their motivations differ, there is potential for misunderstandings and miscommunications. In addition, external factors such as funder requirements, academic metrics, and journal scopes may limit the applicability of scientific results in a conservation setting. Potential solutions we identified included improved communication and better presentation of results, acknowledging each other's motivations and desired outputs, and adjustment of funder priorities. Addressing gaps between science and implementation can enhance collaboration and support conservation action to address the global biodiversity crisis more effectively.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:38:01Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:758bb2c8-6d98-43d6-8de7-f8bf14bf56dd |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:38:01Z |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:758bb2c8-6d98-43d6-8de7-f8bf14bf56dd2023-04-03T10:49:05ZPriorities for translating goodwill between movement ecologists and conservation practitioners into effective collaborationJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:758bb2c8-6d98-43d6-8de7-f8bf14bf56ddEnglishSymplectic ElementsWiley2022Nuijten, RKatzner, TAllen, ABijleveld, ABoorsma, TBorger, LCagnacci, FHart, THenley, MHerren, RKok, EMaree, BNebe, BShohami, DVogel, SWalker, PHeitkonig, IMilner-Gulland, EJ<p>Addressing ongoing biodiversity loss requires collaboration between conservation scientists and practitioners. However, such collaboration has proved challenging. Despite the potential importance of tracking animal movements for conservation, reviews of the tracking literature have identified a gap between the academic discipline of movement ecology and its application to biodiversity conservation. Through structured conversations with movement ecologists and conservation practitioners, we aimed to understand whether the identified gap is also perceived in practice, and if so, what factors hamper collaboration and how these factors can be remediated. We found that both groups are motivated and willing to collaborate. However, because their motivations differ, there is potential for misunderstandings and miscommunications. In addition, external factors such as funder requirements, academic metrics, and journal scopes may limit the applicability of scientific results in a conservation setting. Potential solutions we identified included improved communication and better presentation of results, acknowledging each other's motivations and desired outputs, and adjustment of funder priorities. Addressing gaps between science and implementation can enhance collaboration and support conservation action to address the global biodiversity crisis more effectively.</p> |
| spellingShingle | Nuijten, R Katzner, T Allen, A Bijleveld, A Boorsma, T Borger, L Cagnacci, F Hart, T Henley, M Herren, R Kok, E Maree, B Nebe, B Shohami, D Vogel, S Walker, P Heitkonig, I Milner-Gulland, EJ Priorities for translating goodwill between movement ecologists and conservation practitioners into effective collaboration |
| title | Priorities for translating goodwill between movement ecologists and conservation practitioners into effective collaboration |
| title_full | Priorities for translating goodwill between movement ecologists and conservation practitioners into effective collaboration |
| title_fullStr | Priorities for translating goodwill between movement ecologists and conservation practitioners into effective collaboration |
| title_full_unstemmed | Priorities for translating goodwill between movement ecologists and conservation practitioners into effective collaboration |
| title_short | Priorities for translating goodwill between movement ecologists and conservation practitioners into effective collaboration |
| title_sort | priorities for translating goodwill between movement ecologists and conservation practitioners into effective collaboration |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nuijtenr prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT katznert prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT allena prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT bijlevelda prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT boorsmat prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT borgerl prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT cagnaccif prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT hartt prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT henleym prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT herrenr prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT koke prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT mareeb prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT nebeb prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT shohamid prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT vogels prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT walkerp prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT heitkonigi prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration AT milnergullandej prioritiesfortranslatinggoodwillbetweenmovementecologistsandconservationpractitionersintoeffectivecollaboration |