Informing Protected Area Decision Making through Academic-Practitioner Collaborations

Grant Murray,Carleigh Randall,Rick Rollins

doi:10.3390/land9100375

Grant Murray, Carleigh Randall + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100375

Copy DOI

Abstract

This study examined knowledge mobilization and collaboration practices of practitioners in a Canadian provincial park agency, BC Parks. Data was collected through four focus groups, an on line survey (N = 125), and a follow up workshop. Results showed that the most important information sources used by the agency were “internal” (e.g., policy and management guidelines), while “external sources” such as academic researchers or journals were rated lower. However, those who collaborated with outside groups, including academics, and those working in a science capacity within the agency, rated external information sources more positively. Barriers and enabling conditions for effective knowledge mobilization were identified.

Highlights

For at least the last two decades, there has been a growth in the literature that describes the need for, but suggests a lack of, evidence-based decision-making among conservation practitioners [1,2,3,4,5,6].Somewhat more recently, a number of contributions have sought to explain the persistent gaps between science and decision-making by conservation practitioners, and to offer solutions for bridging those gaps [7,8,9,10]
These results indicate that the five most important information sources used to make management decisions were internal to British Columbia (BC) Parks and include, (1) advice from BC Parks staff; (2) advice from Ministry of Environment (MOE); (3) protected areas (PAs)
The findings indicate that BC Parks practitioners vary somewhat in their opinions, with those employed within the science realm of the agency attaching greater importance to external sources of information, such as consultant reports, advice from academics and academic journals

Summary

Introduction

A number of contributions have sought to explain the persistent gaps between science and decision-making by conservation practitioners, and to offer solutions for bridging those gaps [7,8,9,10]. Despite this growth in the literature, relatively few contributions examine these gaps [10,11], and this has been noted for decision making within protected areas (PAs) [3,11].

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion