CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 172Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife EducationConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bridging the Gap: How Can Information Access and Exchange Between Conservation Biologists and Field Practitioners be Improved for Better Conservation Outcomes?

Sunderland, Terry, Sunderland‐Groves, Jacqueline, Shanley, Patricia, Campbell, Bruce·2009·Biotropica
DOI 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00557.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It is widely accepted that there is a considerable gap between the science of conservation biology and the design and execution of biodiversity conservation projects in the field and science is failing to inform the practice of conservation. There are many reasons why this implementation gap exists. A high proportion of papers published in scientific journals by conservation biologists are seldom read outside of the academic world and there are few incentives for academics to convert their science into practice. In turn, field practitioners rarely document their field experiences and experiments in a manner that can meaningfully inform conservation scientists. Issues related to access to scientific literature, scientific relevance in multidisciplinary environments, donor expectations and a lack of critical analysis at all levels of conservation theory and practice are factors that exacerbate the divide. The contexts in which conservation biologists and field practitioners operate are also often highly dissimilar, and each has differing professional responsibilities and expectations that compromise the ability to learn from each other's expertise. Building on recent debate in the literature, and using case studies to illustrate the issues that characterize the divide, this paper draws on the authors' experiences of project management as well as academic research. We identify five key issues related to information exchange: access to scientific literature, levels of scientific literacy, lack of interdisciplinarity, questions of relevance and lack of sharing of conservation‐related experiences and suggest new ways of working that could assist in bridging the gap between conservation scientists and field practitioners.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00557.x

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The amount of research published on ecological subjects has increased enormously in recent years.

    “The amount of research published on these subjects has increased enormously in recent years 3”

    From Software support for environmental evidence synthesis (2018) · cites this paper as [3]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 10.1038/450135b · DOI
  2. 10.1038/35013247 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.01763.x · DOI
  4. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00469.x · DOI
  5. 10.1002/9780470999356 · DOI
  6. UNESCO.2008. Improving access to scientific information for developing countries: UK learned societies and journal access programmes. Report by Improving Access To Scientific Information Working Group (Natural Sciences Committee). Available athttp://www.unesco.org.uk(accessed July 1 2008).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Sunderland, T., Sunderland‐Groves, J., Shanley, P., & Campbell, B.
Affiliations
Center for International Forestry Research (ID)
ORCID
Campbell, Bruce
Venue
Biotropica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-09
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
549-554
ISSN
  • 0006-3606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-7429
DOI
10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00557.x
OpenAlex
W2008611075
Cited by
172
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
20.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 8 d)
Locations
  • Biotropica (publishedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Keywords
research-practice gap, conservation biology, biodiversity conservation, information sharing, scientific literature access, scientific literacy, interdisciplinarity, donor expectations, knowledge sharing

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