The natural sciences play a crucial role in shaping environmental policies and practices. However, there are situations where social, economic, or institutional factors constrain the use of science in addressing environmental challenges, which can make it difficult to translate scientific knowledge into effective policy or action. Consequently, researchers have begun to identify barriers to the translation of science into policy and action. These barriers include political openness, conflicting priorities, the invisibility of certain environmental issues, and a lack of strong understanding of evolutionary biology among conservation practitioners.
First, Donadelli (2020) suggests that science may have limited influence on policy if it “contradicts the dominant interests in majoritarian and relatively closed political systems” (p. 319), even if there is scientific evidence that is:
- relevant to the problems being considered,
- accepted by the scientific community, and
- clearly communicated to policymakers.
Donadelli (2020) focuses on two institutional components that affect the translation of scientific knowledge into policy: political openness and consensus requirements. Consensus requirements refer to the level of consensus required from members of an institution before decisions are made. According to Donadelli, institutions with lower levels of political openness and medium-to-low consensus requirements tend to experience more obstacles when integrating scientific evidence into the policymaking process.
Rose et al. (2018) and Burt et al. (2022) both identified conflicting priorities as a second barrier to translating scientific knowledge into effective conservation policies and practices. When environmental conservation is not a political priority or when the priorities of the private sector are prioritized over environmental conservation, the influence of science on policy and practice is limited. Burt et al. (2022) also cited other factors that constrain the effective use of scientific knowledge in conservation policy, such as poor-quality education, a lack of local collaboration, limited resources (e.g., funding and time), and a lack of communication platforms.
Naustdalslid (2011) addressed a third challenge related to the translation of scientific knowledge into action, specifically in the context of climate change. The author argued that climate change “represents a new generation of environmental problems” (p. 243) that are transforming the relationships between science, society, and policy. These problems differ from traditional environmental issues, such as deforestation and water pollution, as they tend to be invisible to immediate perception. For example, people may take water pollution seriously but not the gradual sea-level rise caused by climate change because the latter does not have an immediate impact on their daily lives. Furthermore, those who contribute to climate-related issues may not be the ones most affected by their consequences. As a result, scientific knowledge related to climate issues may not easily translate into policy or action.
Cook and Sgrò (2018) identified a poor understanding of evolutionary biology among conservation practitioners as a fourth obstacle to effectively integrating conservation science and management practices. This barrier exists partly because conservation science and practice have traditionally emphasized ecological principles and processes, such as population dynamics and ecosystem function, over evolutionary principles and processes, such as gene flow and outbreeding depression. Given the increasing pressure that human activities are placing on natural resources, including biodiversity, this geological period is referred to as the Anthropocene. The impact of human activities on species with small populations is particularly severe. As a result, conservation practitioners must understand both ecological and evolutionary principles to support the adaptation of vulnerable species and populations to changing environmental conditions.
In conclusion, translating scientific knowledge into effective policy and action can be a challenging process, especially when social, economic, and institutional factors limit the use of science in addressing environmental problems. The barriers identified in academic research must be addressed to better integrate scientific knowledge into policy and practice. Despite the challenges, it is essential to continue striving for greater collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and other stakeholders to ensure that environmental decisions are based on the best available scientific evidence. By working together, we can overcome these barriers and achieve more effective and sustainable solutions for our planet’s most pressing environmental issues.
References:
Burt, A. J., Nuno, A., & Bunbury, N. (2022). Defining and bridging the barriers to more effective conservation of island ecosystems: A practitioner’s perspective. Conservation Science & Practice, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.587
Cook, C. N., & Sgrò, C. M. (2019). Poor understanding of evolutionary theory is a barrier to effective conservation management. Conservation Letters, 12(2), N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12619
Donadelli, F. (2020). When evidence does not matter: The barriers to learning from science in two cases of environmental policy change in Brazil. Science & Public Policy (SPP), 47(3), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa006
Naustdalslid, J. (2011). Climate change – the challenge of translating scientific knowledge into action, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(3), 243-252, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.572303
Rose, D.C., Sutherland, W.J., Amano, T., and et al. (2018). The major barriers to evidence‐informed conservation policy and possible solutions. Conservation Letters, 11(5), N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12564
Like (2)