CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife EducationResearch, Science, and AcademiaInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Knowing-Doing Continuum or Knowing-Doing Gap? Information Flow Between Researchers and Managers of Biological Invasions in South Africa

Open access
Foxcroft, Llewellyn C., van Wilgen, Brian W., Abrahams, Brent, Esler, Karen J., Wannenburgh, Andrew·2020·Biological Invasions in South Africa
DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_28
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Increasing resources are being allocated both to the management and research of biological invasions in South Africa. However, as with many natural resource management and conservation programmes globally, the question remains as to what extent the science provides the necessary answers for management, and whether it influences decision-making. This frequently presents as a gap between knowledge generation and application of research outcomes (‘knowing-doing gap’). The ideal scenario, a two-way transfer of knowledge along a continuum between science and management (‘knowing-doing continuum’), would allow for dialogue between all role-players that will not only transfer research results in support of management, but communicate management needs to scientists. This chapter explores how well this continuum has operated in South Africa with regard to biological invasions. Professionals employed in different positions along a continuum of basic or applied research to technology transfer and implementation are currently assessed with different performance measures. This drives different behaviours, which in turn can impede smooth integration. To counteract this, different types of communication structures have been developed, although many have not persisted. The most successful and enduring appear to be voluntary forums or conference series where researchers and managers are regularly exposed to each other’s challenges. Scientists who are embedded within management agencies (for example, Scientific Services units within national parks and provincial conservation agencies) appear to be well-placed to bridge the gaps that exist, but mechanisms to evolve into a true knowing-doing continuum still need to be sought for the South African context. To be more relevant, researchers need to draw on the experience of managers, better understand the context within which managers operate, and by which they are constrained, while policy-makers may have to become more willing to adapt approaches when research suggests that such changes would be warranted if certain goals are to be achieved.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_28

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Overcoming knowing-doing gaps, involving citizen science, and raising awareness are making important contributions towards developing effective, operational, and clear mechanisms for much greater public and political engagement with biological invasions.

    “Overcoming knowing–doing gaps (Hulme, 2014a ; Foxcroft et al., 2020), involving citizen science (Groom et al., 2019), and raising awareness are making important contributions towards developing effective, operational, and clear mechanisms for much greater public and, hence, political engagement with the many complex and interacting dimensions of biological invasions.”

    From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Foxcroft et al., 2020

    The Conclusions (section 28.8; page unavailable) say that opportunities for researchers and managers to exchange ideas promote information transfer, supporting the cited point about addressing knowing–doing gaps. They also say the continuum needs to extend to senior bureaucrats and politicians. The paper does not establish that overcoming those gaps is already producing mechanisms for greater public or political engagement. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Abrahams B, Sitas N, Esler KJ (2019) Exploring the dynamics of research collaborations by mapping social networks in invasion science. J Environ Manag 229:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.051 · DOI
  2. Carruthers J (2017) National Park Science. A century of research in South Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108123471 · DOI
  3. Cook CN, Mascia MB, Schwartz MW et al (2013) Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge–action boundary. Conserv Biol 27:669–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12050 · DOI
  4. Davies SJ, Jordaan M, Karsten M et al (2020) Experience and lessons from alien and invasive animal control projects in South Africa. In: van Wilgen BW, Measey J, Richardson DM, Wilson JR, Zengeya TA (eds) Biological invasions in South Africa. Springer, Berlin, pp 625–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_22 · DOI
  5. Dean WRJ, Milton SJ (1999) The Karoo, ecological patterns and processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541988 · DOI
  6. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) (2001) The Working for Water programme: annual research report 2000–2001. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria
  7. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) (2003) The Working for Water programme: biennial research report 2001/02–2002/03. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria
  8. Dicks LV, Walsh JC, Sutherland WJ (2014) Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a ‘4S’ hierarchy. Trends Ecol Evol 29:607–613 · DOI
  9. Esler KJ, Prozesky H, Sharma GP et al (2010) How wide is the “knowing-doing” gap in invasion biology? Biol Invasions 12:4065–4075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9812-x · DOI
  10. Gelderblom C, Wood J (2018) The Fynbos Forum: its impacts and history. Fynbos Forum, Cape Town
  11. Gillespie P, Klein H, Hill MP (2004) Establishment of a weed biocontrol implementation programme in South Africa. In: Cullen JM, Briese DT, Kriticos DJ et al (eds) Proceedings of the XIth international symposium on biological control of weeds. CSIRO Entomology, Canberra, pp 400–406
  12. Huntley BJ (1987) 10 years of cooperative ecological research in South Africa. S Afr J Sci 83:72–79
  13. Kaplan H, Wilson JRU, Klein H et al (2017) A proposed national strategic framework for the management of Cactaceae in South Africa. Bothalia 47:a2149. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2149 · DOI
  14. Koenig R (2009) Unleashing an army to repair alien-ravaged ecosystems. Science 325:562–563. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.325_562 · DOI
  15. Kuebbing SE, Simberloff D (2015) Missing the bandwagon: nonnative species impacts still concern managers. NeoBiota 25:73–86. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.25.8921 · DOI
  16. Lawrence A, Thomas J, Houghton J et al (2015) Collecting the evidence: improving access to grey literature and data for public policy and practice. Aust Acad Res Libr 46:229–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2015.1081712 · DOI
  17. Loftus WJ (2013) Strategic adaptive management and the efficiency of invasive alien plant management in South African National Parks. Thesis, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
  18. Macdonald IAW (2004) Recent research on alien plant invasions and their management in South Africa: a review of the inaugural research symposium of the Working for Water programme. S Afr J Sci 100:21–26
  19. Matzek V, Covino J, Funk JL et al (2014) Closing the knowing–doing gap in invasive plant management: accessibility and interdisciplinarity of scientific research. Conserv Lett 7:208–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12042 · DOI
  20. McConnachie MM, Cowling RM (2013) On the accuracy of conservation managers’ beliefs and if they learn from evidence-based knowledge: a preliminary investigation. J Environ Manag 128:7–14 · DOI
  21. Metzger JP, Esler KJ, Krug C et al (2017) Best practice for the use of scenarios for restoration planning. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 29:14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.10.004 · DOI
  22. Milton SJ, Esler KJ, Dean WRJ (2006) Karoo veld ecology and management. Briza Press, Pretoria
  23. Moran VC, Hoffmann JH, Zimmermann HG (2013) 100 years of biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa: history, practice and achievements. S Afr J Sci 109:Art. #a0022, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2013/a0022 · DOI
  24. Ntshotsho P, Prozesky HE, Esler KJ et al (2015) What drives the use of scientific evidence in decision making? The case of the South African Working for Water program. Biol Conserv 184:136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.021 · DOI
  25. Roux DJ, Rogers KH, Biggs HC et al (2006) Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol Soc 11:4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01643-110104 · DOI
  26. Roux DJ, Kingsford RT, Cook CN et al (2019) The case for embedding researchers in conservation agencies. Conserv Biol 12(1):133–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13324 · DOI
  27. Scholes RJ, Anderson F, Kenyon C et al (2008) Science councils in South Africa. S Afr J Sci 104:435–438. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0038-23532008000600014 · DOI
  28. Shaw JD, Wilson JRU, Richardson DM (2010) Initiating dialogue between scientists and managers of biological invasions. Biol Invasions 12:4077–4083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9821-9 · DOI
  29. Shine R (2018) Cane toad wars. University of California Press, Oakland. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520967984 · DOI
  30. van Wilgen BW (2020) A brief, selective history of researchers and research initiatives related to biological invasions in South Africa. In: van Wilgen BW, Measey J, Richardson DM, Wilson JR, Zengeya TA (eds) Biological invasions in South Africa. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_2 · DOI
  31. van Wilgen BW, De Lange WJ (2011) The costs and benefits of invasive alien plant biological control in South Africa. Afr Entomol 19:504–514. https://doi.org/10.4001/003.019.0228 · DOI
  32. van Wilgen BW, Wannenburgh A (2016) Co-facilitating invasive species control, water conservation and poverty relief: achievements and challenges in South Africa’s Working for Water programme. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 19:7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.08.012 · DOI
  33. van Wilgen BW, Little PR, Chapman RA et al (1997) The sustainable development of water resources: history, financial costs and benefits of alien plant control programmes. S Afr J Sci 93:404–411
  34. van Wilgen BW, Davies SJ, Richardson DM (2014) Invasion science for society: a decade of contributions from the Centre for Invasion Biology. S Afr J Sci 110:Art. #a0074, 12 pages. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2014/a0074 · DOI
  35. van Wilgen BW, Boshoff N, Smit IPJ et al (2016a) A bibliometric analysis to illustrate the role of an embedded research capability in South African National Parks. Scientometrics 107:185–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1879-4 · DOI
  36. van Wilgen BW, Fill JM, Baard J et al (2016b) Historical costs and projected future scenarios for the management of invasive alien plants in protected areas in the Cape Floristic Region. Biol Conserv 200:168–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.008 · DOI
  37. van Wilgen BW, Carruthers J, Cowling RM et al (2016c) Ecological research and conservation management in the Cape Floristic Region between 1945 and 2015: history, current understanding and future challenges. Trans Royal Soc S Afr 71:207–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/0035919X.2016.1225607 · DOI
  38. van Wilgen BW, Wilson JR, Wannenburgh A et al (2020) The extent and effectiveness of alien plant control projects in South Africa. In: van Wilgen BW, Measey J, Richardson DM et al (eds) Biological invasions in South Africa. Springer, Berlin, pp 593–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_21 · DOI
  39. Visser V, Wilson JRU, Canavan K et al (2017) Grasses as invasive plants in South Africa revisited: Patterns, pathways and management. Bothalia 47(2):a12169. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2169 · DOI
  40. Wicht CL (1945) Report of the Committee on the Preservation of the Vegetation of the South Western Cape. Cape Town, Royal Society of South Africa
  41. Wilson JRU, Gaertner M, Richardson DM et al (2017) Contributions to the national status report on biological invasions in South Africa. Bothalia 47(2):a2207. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2207 · DOI
  42. Wilson JRU, Faulkner KT, Rahlao SJ et al (2018) Indicators for monitoring biological invasions at a national level. J Appl Ecol 55:2612–2620. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13251 · DOI
  43. Zachariades C, Paterson ID, Strathie LW et al (2017) Assessing the status of biological control as a management tool for suppression of invasive alien plants in South Africa. Bothalia 47(2):a2142. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2142 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Foxcroft, L. C., van Wilgen, B. W., Abrahams, B., Esler, K. J., & Wannenburgh, A.
Affiliations
  • South African National Parks (ZA)
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
  • Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (ZA)
Corresponding author
Foxcroft, Llewellyn C.
ORCID
Venue
Biological Invasions in South Africa
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2020
Pages
831-853
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_28
OpenAlex
W3012079675
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9
FWCI
24.38
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Springer eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Stellenbosch University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Keywords
biological invasions, science-management interface, knowledge-practice gap, knowledge transfer, information flow, research utilization, decision-making, science-policy interface, communication structure, applied research, South Africa

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review