11. Pouzols et al. (2014):
1. What is the potential performance of PA
network (species ranges and ecoregions) in the
context of Aichi Target 11?
2. How will land-use change by 2040 impact this
performance and the spatial pattern of
priorities?
3. What is the difference between globally
coordinated and nationally devolved PAs?
Objectives
25. Summary
• Emphasis on the broad patterns and overall
performance
• Analysis resolution constrained by the available
data
• Stakeholders not (and probably can’t be)
identified
• What is the policy process to be informed?
37. • Emphasis on the verification and validation of the
results
• Analysis resolution matched with the planning
context
• Stakeholders clearly identified
• Questions are clear; however, only little to be
generalized
Summary
39. ”Science for science”
(curiosity-driven
science)
”Science for action”
(issue-driven science)
Objective Scientific insight, novelty,
and significance
Knowledge relevant for
forming and assessing policies
Products Published scientific papers Reports and white papers,
often unpublished
Important knowledge
production components
Credibility Relevance, legitimacy
Decision-making
context
Does not necessarily have
one
An existing context, can also
aim at establishing a new
process
Accountability To scientific community
and professional peers
To political decision-makers,
general public
Jasanoff 1990; Van den Hove 2007
”Science for science” vs ”science for action”
41. Credibility
The scientific adequacy of the technical evidence and
arguments.
Salience (Relevance)
The relevance of the assessment to the needs of decision
makers.
Legitimacy
The perception that the production of information and technology has
been respectful of stakeholders’ divergent values and beliefs, unbiased in
its conduct, and fair in its treatment of opposing views and interests.
Cash et al. 2003
Attributes of science-policy interface
42. • Data
• Knowledge
• Decisions
Soranno et al. 2014; Lynman et al. 2007
The roundtable model of sci-pol interaction
43. The future
for spatial conservation prioritization
1. Explicit framing of which policy process the
prioritization is supposed to inform
2. Acknowledging that not all research into spatial
conservation prioritization needs to be policy-
relevant
44.
45. References
Cash, D.W. et al. (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 100, 8086–91
Dicks, L. V et al. (2014) Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a “4S” hierarchy.Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29, 607–613
Ferrier S. & Wintle B.A. (2009) Quantitative approaches to spatial conservation prioritization: matching the solution to the need. Spatial conservation
prioritization: quantitative methods & computational tools (ed. by A. Moilanen, K.A. Wilson, and H.P. Possingham), pp. 304. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Jasanoff S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Scientific Advisors as Policymakers. Harvard University Press, Harvard.
Lehtomäki, J. (2014) , Spatial conservation prioritization for Finnish forest conservation management. , University of Helsinki
Lehtomäki J., Tuominen S., Toivonen T., & Leinonen A. (2015) What Data to Use for Forest Conservation Planning? A Comparison of Coarse Open and
Detailed Proprietary Forest Inventory Data in Finland. PLoS ONE, 10, e0135926.
Lynam, T. et al. (2007) A Review of Tools for Incorporating Community Knowledge , Preferences , and Values into Decision Making in Natural
Resources Management. Ecology And Society 12, 5
Sarkki, S. et al. (2013) Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces. Science and
Public Policy
Soranno, P.A. et al. (2015) It’s good to share: Why environmental scientists' ethics are out of date. BioScience 65, 69–73
Pouzols F.M., Toivonen T., Di Minin E., Kukkala A.S., Kullberg P., Kuusterä J., Lehtomäki J., Tenkanen H., Verburg P.H., & Moilanen A. (2014) Global
protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature, 516, 383–386.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14032
Young, J.C. et al. (2014) Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: Having conversations rather than
talking at one-another. Biodiversity and Conservation 23, 387–404
van den Hove S. (2007) A Rationale for Science-Policy Interfaces. Futures, 39, 1–19.
46. References – conservation biology
Cook, C.N. et al. (2013) Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conservation Biology 27, 669–678
Opdam, P. (2010) Learning science from practice. Landscape Ecology 25, 821–823
Reyers, B. et al. (2010) Conservation Planning as a Transdisciplinary Process. Conservation biology 24, 957–65
48. Informing policies and implementation
Alternative/complementary models
Dicks et al. 2014
Notes de l'éditeur
Today I want to talk how I think framing your research questions has a big role in how we do conservation science and how it isn’t perhaps happening to the extent necessary
I’m going to do this using to examples are two very different scales
This is a bit of a ”perspective talk”
Today I want to talk a little about the types of questions we typically try to answer in conservation science
Background in quantitative ecology
I work with developing quantitative conservation prioritization concepts and methods
I’ve mostly worked with different ecosystems in the Boreal forests in Finland, but lately also with global protected area analysis
I finisihed by PhD “Spatial conservation prioritization for Finnish forest conservation management” about a year ago..
Something I work with a lot is combining very heterogeneous datasets on species and habitat distributions as well as ecosystem services and anthropogenic threats.
Obviously there’s quite a lot of overlap to the type of work being done in iDiv and much of work you do here seems super interesting
I was going through the iDiv website and was lookin at this image of broad mission statement.
One particular part of this caught my eye, because lately I’ve been getting more and more intersted in the science-policy interface
- Policy
Paikallisen tason suunnittelun tarkoitus siis tuottaa käyttökelpoisia työkaluja viranomaisten käyttöön.
Koska METSO perustuu vapaaehtoisuuteen, voidaan suojeluprioriteetteja käyttää eri kohteiden vertailussa (luonnontieteelliset valintakriteerit edelleen perustana) tai maanomistajien aktivoinnissa (jos löytyy mielenkiintoisen oloisia kohteita)
Suunnittelutyön tuloksista voidaan tiedottaa esimerkiksi alueellisen yhteistoimintaverkoston kautta.
tuskeino
Tarkoituksenmukainen rajaus
Hoitotyöt
Hoito-ohje metsänomistajalle
Several potentially useful data sources primarily collected for forestry can be used for conservation prioritization as well
Again, primary biodiversity data would be desirable, but often these data are not available for large areas.
Detailed forest planning data mostly on stand level is available for most of Finland (and Sweden?). These are further complemented by national forest inventory data based on remote sensing.
Then the questions becomes how to derive biodiversity-relevant information from these data? Several options exist:
Simple habitat-suitability indexes
More complex and realistic statistical models for various species or communities
Mechanistic/process models for whole communities
Operational use of the whole toolset should not be dependent on the particular tool used (although details will vary).
Spatial conservation prioritization analysis described only provide decision-support: The most important decision criteria should, of course, still be what is actually there (field inventories).
By closely linking the result interpretation and field inventories, should work as validation and development benchmark for the methods used.
This (validation) nothing new for any predictive analytical methods, but for operational conservation planning it is a crucial component of the whole workflow.
Special care needs to be directed to opening up the decisions, methods and results for practitioners who may not have a scientific background.
With these two questions, it’s clear that for much the spatial conservation prioritization and planning that we do, it’s really important to define already well-advance how the questions is framed
“Many initiatives exist to improve communication, but these largely conform to a ‘linear’ or technocratic model of communication in which scientific ‘‘facts’’ are transmitted directly to policy advisers to ‘‘solve problems’’. While this model can help start a dialogue, it is, on its own, insufficient, as decision taking is complex, iterative and often selective in the information used.”
- Young et al. 2014
Three attributes of science-policy interface
THEN we can back to sorting out important questions related to what constitutes conservation value, how do we account for complex ecological processes on multiple spatiotemporal scales and what are the most cost-effective ways of implementing conservation action (etc).