IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v52y2015icp38-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Overcoming barriers to knowledge exchange for adaptive resource management; the perspectives of Australian marine scientists

Author

Listed:
  • Cvitanovic, C.
  • Hobday, A.J.
  • van Kerkhoff, L.
  • Marshall, N.A.

Abstract

The sustainable science-based management of natural resources requires knowledge exchange between scientists and environmental decision-makers; however, evidence suggests that information flow is inhibited by a range of barriers. To date, our understanding of the range and importance of factors limiting knowledge exchange between scientists and decision-makers is based primarily on the perceptions of decision-makers, while the perceptions of scientists have been largely overlooked. This study addresses this knowledge gap by quantitatively assessing the perceptions of scientists, represented by a sample of 78 Australian marine scientists, regarding (i) the role and importance of engaging with environmental decision-makers on a personal level, (ii) the role and importance of engaging with environmental decision-makers at the institutional level, (iii) current barriers to engaging with environmental decision-makers and (iv) options for overcoming barriers to engaging with environmental decision-makers. Survey results suggest that Australian marine scientists feel that they have an obligation to engage decision-makers in their science, and that engaging with and communicating to environmental decision-makers is important on a personal level. This study also identifies a range of barriers that impede engagement activities, including inadequate measures of science impact that do not account for engagement activities, a lack of organisational support for engagement activities, insufficient time to conduct engagement activities in addition to other responsibilities and a lack of funding to support engagement activities. To overcome these barriers, participants identified the need for institutional innovation by research institutions, research funders and decision-making agencies alike to promote a culture whereby knowledge exchange activities are legitimised as core business for research scientists, and recognised and rewarded appropriately. Although difficulties exist in implementing such institutional innovations, doing so will improve two-way knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers and improve the likely success of environmental management.

Suggested Citation

  • Cvitanovic, C. & Hobday, A.J. & van Kerkhoff, L. & Marshall, N.A., 2015. "Overcoming barriers to knowledge exchange for adaptive resource management; the perspectives of Australian marine scientists," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 38-44.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:52:y:2015:i:c:p:38-44
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14002887
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dale, Aaron & Armitage, Derek, 2011. "Marine mammal co-management in Canada's Arctic: Knowledge co-production for learning and adaptive capacity," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 440-449, July.
    2. Bennett, Nathan James & Dearden, Philip, 2014. "Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 107-116.
    3. Freestone, David & Johnson, David & Ardron, Jeff & Morrison, Kate Killerlain & Unger, Sebastian, 2014. "Can existing institutions protect biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction? Experiences from two on-going processes," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 167-175.
    4. Spilsbury, Michael J. & Nasi, Robert, 2006. "The interface of policy research and the policy development process: challenges posed to the forestry community," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 193-205, March.
    5. Yves Gendron, 2008. "Constituting the Academic Performer: The Spectre of Superficiality and Stagnation in Academia," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 97-127.
    6. House, Christopher & Phillips, Michael R., 2012. "Integrating the science education nexus into coastal governance: A Mediterranean and Black Sea case study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 495-501.
    7. Linke, Sebastian & Jentoft, Svein, 2013. "A communicative turnaround: Shifting the burden of proof in European fisheries governance," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 337-345.
    8. Rainer Göb & Christopher McCollin & Maria Ramalhoto, 2007. "Ordinal Methodology in the Analysis of Likert Scales," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 601-626, October.
    9. Janse, Gerben, 2008. "Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe -- A survey on both sides of the science/policy interface," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 183-194, January.
    10. Day, Jon C & Dobbs, Kirstin, 2013. "Effective governance of a large and complex cross-jurisdictional marine protected area: Australia's Great Barrier Reef," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 14-24.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Megan C Evans & Christopher Cvitanovic, 2018. "An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Nadine Marshall & Neil Adger & Simon Attwood & Katrina Brown & Charles Crissman & Christopher Cvitanovic & Cassandra De Young & Margaret Gooch & Craig James & Sabine Jessen & Dave Johnson & Paul Marsh, 2017. "Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-9, March.
    3. Anita Wreford & Suzanne Peace & Mark Reed & Justyna Bandola-Gill & Ragne Low & Andrew Cross, 2019. "Evidence-informed climate policy: mobilising strategic research and pooling expertise for rapid evidence generation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 171-190, September.
    4. Alonso Roldán, Virginia & Galván, David E. & Lopes, Priscila F.M. & López, Jaime & Sanderson Bellamy, Angelina & Gallego, Federico & Cinti, Ana & Rius, Pía & Schröter, Barbara & Aguado, Mateo & M, 2019. "Are we seeing the whole picture in land-sea systems? Opportunities and challenges for operationalizing the ES concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Christopher Cvitanovic & Marie F Löf & Albert V Norström & Mark S Reed, 2018. "Building university-based boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on environmental policy and practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Gerlak, Andrea K. & Guido, Zack & Owen, Gigi & McGoffin, Mariana Sofia Rodriguez & Louder, Elena & Davies, Julia & Smith, Kelly Jay & Zimmer, Andy & Murveit, Anna M. & Meadow, Alison & Shrestha, Padme, 2023. "Stakeholder engagement in the co-production of knowledge for environmental decision-making," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "International developments in the administration of publicly-funded forest research: A review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Salomaa, Anna & Paloniemi, Riikka & Hujala, Teppo & Rantala, Salla & Arponen, Anni & Niemelä, Jari, 2016. "The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 90-98.
    3. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "Government science in forestry: Characteristics and policy utilization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-45, January.
    4. Klenk, Nicole Lisa & Wyatt, Stephen, 2015. "The design and management of multi-stakeholder research networks to maximize knowledge mobilization and innovation opportunities in the forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 77-86.
    5. Dhanush Dinesh & Dries Hegger & Joost Vervoort & Bruce M. Campbell & Peter P. J. Driessen, 2021. "Learning from failure at the science–policy interface for climate action in agriculture," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1-24, January.
    6. Minh-Hoang Nguyen & Minh-Phuong Thi Duong & Manh-Cuong Nguyen & Noah Mutai & Ruining Jin & Phuong-Tri Nguyen & Tam-Tri Le & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2023. "Promoting Stakeholders’ Support for Marine Protection Policies: Insights from a 42-Country Dataset," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Timothy K Marcella & Scott M Gende & Daniel D Roby & Arthur Allignol, 2017. "Disturbance of a rare seabird by ship-based tourism in a marine protected area," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Eunae Jin & Woojong Lee & Danya Kim, 2018. "Does Resident Participation in an Urban Regeneration Project Improve Neighborhood Satisfaction: A Case Study of “Amichojang” in Busan, South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-13, October.
    9. Dona Barirani, 2022. "A UN Treaty for Marine Biodiversity: Establishing Environmental Policy Integration in Global Governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(3), pages 390-400, June.
    10. Radisti A. Praptiwi & Carya Maharja & Matt Fortnam & Tomas Chaigneau & Louisa Evans & Leuserina Garniati & Jito Sugardjito, 2021. "Tourism-Based Alternative Livelihoods for Small Island Communities Transitioning towards a Blue Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-11, June.
    11. Ojha, Hemant & Regmi, Udeep & Shrestha, Krishna K. & Paudel, Naya Sharma & Amatya, Swoyambhu Man & Zwi, Anthony B. & Nuberg, Ian & Cedamon, Edwin & Banjade, Mani R., 2020. "Improving science-policy interface: Lessons from the policy lab methodology in Nepal's community forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    12. Sukuryadi & Nuddin Harahab & Mimit Primyastanto & Bambang Semedi, 2021. "Collaborative-based mangrove ecosystem management model for the development of marine ecotourism in Lembar Bay, Lombok, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 6838-6868, May.
    13. Messner, Martin, 2015. "Research orientation without regrets," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 76-83.
    14. Real, Alejandra & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "Publicly funded research: A participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 37-43.
    15. Hatim Albasri & Jesmond Sammut, 2021. "A Comparison of Vulnerability Risks and Conservation Perceptions between Mariculture, Fishery and Ecotourism Livelihood Groups in a Multi-Use MPA in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-17, November.
    16. Komori, Naoko, 2015. "Beneath the globalization paradox: Towards the sustainability of cultural diversity in accounting research," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 141-156.
    17. Tobias Johansson, 2022. "Do Evaluative Pressures and Group Identification Cultivate Competitive Orientations and Cynical Attitudes Among Academics?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 761-780, April.
    18. Ryan S. Naylor & Carter A. Hunt & Karl S. Zimmerer & B. Derrick Taff, 2021. "Emic Views of Community Resilience and Coastal Tourism Development," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, August.
    19. Marko Böhm & Jan Barkmann & Sabina Eggert & Claus H. Carstensen & Susanne Bögeholz, 2020. "Quantitative Modelling and Perspective Taking: Two Competencies of Decision Making for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-32, August.
    20. Luis H. Zamarioli & Pieter Pauw & Christine Grüning, 2020. "Country Ownership as the Means for Paradigm Shift: The Case of the Green Climate Fund," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-18, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:52:y:2015:i:c:p:38-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.