Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-4xs5l Total loading time: 0.266 Render date: 2021-06-14T13:45:41.916Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Article contents

Co-assessment for fundamental change: a reply to Salomaa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2018

David Christian Rose
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK E-mail david.rose@uea.ac.uk
Gorm Shackelford
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
William J. Sutherland
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna & Flora International 2018 

In our Oryx editorial (Sutherland et al., Reference Sutherland, Shackelford and Rose2017) we argued that co-assessment of evidence with a range of stakeholders, including local communities, would typically represent the most cost-effective way of doing conservation science. Co-assessment involves considering what works, and what does not, based on a systematic collation of global and regional datasets alongside other forms of knowledge, such as the experience of local communities. Under circumstances in which there is good evidence of what is likely to work in a particular place, it does not seem efficient to co-produce new knowledge in the form of field-based scientific experiments involving local stakeholders. Where there is more limited evidence of conservation effectiveness, the issue is of sufficient societal importance, and the resources are available, then we stated it may make sense to co-produce new knowledge alongside local stakeholders.

We are glad that Salomaa (Reference Salomaa2018) agrees with us that it is irrational to ignore existing knowledge, which happens too often in conservation (Sutherland & Wordley, Reference Sutherland and Wordley2017; Rose et al., Reference Rose, Sutherland, Amano, González-Varo, Robertson and Simmons2018). We both agree that working with practitioner and stakeholder communities has benefits, including building trust (Lacey et al., Reference Lacey, Howden, Cvitanovic and Colvin2018), helping to understand what people value (Rose, Reference Rose2018), and adding important lay knowledge (Montana, Reference Montana2017). There is evidence that such participatory conservation can lead to better informed and more acceptable conservation outcomes (e.g. Lazos-Chavero et al., Reference Lazos-Chavero, Zinda, Bennett-Curry, Balvanera, Bloomfield, Lindell and Negra2016; Amit & Jacobson, Reference Amit and Jacobson2018). Other studies, however, find little evidence that participatory engagement actually improves conservation outcomes (e.g. Young et al., Reference Young, Jordan, Searle, Butler, Chapman, Simmons and Watt2013).

Our key difference is whether co-production is the norm, carried out for each intervention with each community, or a rarer activity applied as resources allow. We welcome Salomaa's call for assessment of ‘practical conservation improvement in long-term transdisciplinary studies that consider both the local and broader socio-ecological contexts’. In the context of co-production, this presumably means involving every community. An exceedingly rough back-of-the-envelope estimate of 10 years (‘long term’), with three disciplines working with non-academic stakeholders (‘transdisciplinary’), one researcher each at USD 50,000 annually for 10 interventions, across hundreds of thousands of global communities, illustrates the challenge, even if the estimate is orders of magnitude out. Hence, we consider the model of reviewing the evidence and applying it locally to be more realistic.

We have already collated many tests of conservation actions published in the main conservation journals, including social and natural science studies (Sutherland et al., Reference Sutherland, Dicks, Ockendon, Petrovan and Smith2018; Sutherland & Wordley, Reference Sutherland and Wordley2018), and we are about to review studies containing elements of behavioural change research. There are many gaps that need filling, and this will involve the greater inclusion of social science into processes of evidence collation.

WJS acknowledges the support of Arcadia.

References

Amit, R. & Jacobson, S.K. (2018) Participatory development of incentives to coexist with jaguars and pumas. Conservation Biology, 32, 938948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacey, J., Howden, M., Cvitanovic, C. & Colvin, R.M. (2018) Understanding and managing trust at the climate science–policy interface. Nature Climate Change, 8, 2228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazos-Chavero, E., Zinda, J., Bennett-Curry, A., Balvanera, P., Bloomfield, G., Lindell, C. & Negra, C. (2016) Stakeholders and tropical reforestation: challenges, trade-offs, and strategies in dynamic environments. Biotropica, 48, 900914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montana, J. (2017) Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: achieving closure through typologies in IPBES. Environmental Science & Policy, 68, 2027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, D.C. (2018) Avoiding a post-truth world: embracing post-normal conservation science. Conservation and Society, https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_17_131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, D.C., Sutherland, W.J., Amano, T., González-Varo, J.P., Robertson, R.J., Simmons, B.I. et al. (2018) The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions. Conservation Letters, e12564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomaa, A. (2018) Co-production for fundamental change: a response to Sutherland et al. Oryx, 52, 617.Google Scholar
Sutherland, W.J. & Wordley, C.F.R. (2017) Evidence complacency hampers conservation. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, 12151216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, W.J. & Wordley, C.F.R. (2018) A fresh approach to evidence synthesis. Nature, 558, 364366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, W.J., Shackelford, G. & Rose, D.C. (2017) Collaborating with communities: co-production or co-assessment? Oryx, 51, 569570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, W.J., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Petrovan, S. & Smith, R.K. (2018) What Works in Conservation 2018. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J.C., Jordan, A., Searle, K.R., Butler, A., Chapman, D.S., Simmons, P. & Watt, A.D. (2013) Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biological Conservation, 158, 359370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Co-assessment for fundamental change: a reply to Salomaa
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Co-assessment for fundamental change: a reply to Salomaa
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Co-assessment for fundamental change: a reply to Salomaa
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *