Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:21:20.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defining and evaluating the impact of cross-disciplinary conservation research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2010

ANNA C. EVELY ,
IOAN FAZEY ,
XAVIER LAMBIN ,
EMILY LAMBERT ,
SARAH ALLEN  and
MICHELLE PINARD
ANNA C. EVELY*
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability, 23 St Machar Drive, University of Aberdeen AB24 3UU, UK
IOAN FAZEY
Affiliation:
School of Geography and Geosciences, Irvine Building, University of St Andrews, North Street, St Andrews KY16 9AL, Fife, UK
XAVIER LAMBIN
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK
EMILY LAMBERT
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK
SARAH ALLEN
Affiliation:
EMEC Ecology, The Old Ragged School, Brook Street, Nottingham NG1 1EA, UK
MICHELLE PINARD
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability, 23 St Machar Drive, University of Aberdeen AB24 3UU, UK
*
*Correspondence: Dr Anna Evely e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Cross-disciplinary research is advocated as a way of improving understanding of the complexity of environmental problems; cross-disciplinary projects, centres and academic institutes have increased. However, there is confusion over the nature of cross-disciplinary research. Through review of papers defining themselves as cross-disciplinary that aim to address conservation problems, and by standardizing the definition of cross-disciplinary research, it is possible to evaluate the potential research impact on peers and practitioners. When papers were reclassified by authors, those reclassified as transdisciplinary were perceived to have a greater impact on practitioners, and those reclassified as non cross-disciplinary had the greatest impact on colleagues. Having clear definitions for types of cross-disciplinary research would help establish a firm foundation, not only for improving research quality, but also for evaluating research impact. While the number of cross-disciplinary studies is increasing, cross-disciplinary research falls short of integrating disciplinary methods in much depth and does not have much impact on participants outside of academia.

Keywords

cross-disciplinaryevaluationimpactintegrative researchinterdisciplinaritymultidisciplinaritytransdisciplinarity
Type
THEMATIC ISSUE: Interdisciplinary Progress in Environmental Science & Management
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 37 , Issue 4: Thematic section. Interdisciplinary Progress in Environmental Science and Management , December 2010 , pp. 442 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akaike, H. (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19: 716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angermeier, P.L. (2000) The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conservation Biology 14: 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aswani, S. & Lauer, M. (2002) Benthic mapping using local aerial photo interpretation and resident taxa inventories for designing marine protected areas. Environmental Conservation 33: 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bammer, G. (2005) Integration and implementation sciences: building a new specialization. Ecology and Society 10: 6 [www document]. URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art6/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beierle, T.C. (2002) The quality of practitioner-based decisions. Risk Analysis 22: 739–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackstock, K.L., Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L. (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics 60: 726–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, S.D. (2003) Measuring the effects of practitioner participation on the quality of local plans based on the principles of collaborative ecosystem management. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22: 407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, J. & Williams, R. (2004) Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme. Futures 36: 457–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, L. & Berkes, F. (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75: 65–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, T.W. (2001) Developing policy-oriented curricula for conservation biology: professional and leadership education in the public interest. Conservation Biology 15: 31–39.Google Scholar
Colding, J. & Folke, C. (2001) Social taboos: ‘invisible’ systems of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecological Applications 11: 584–600.Google Scholar
Daily, G.C. & Ehrlich, P.R. (1999) Managing earth's ecosystems: an interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 2: 277–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovers, S. (2005) Clarifying the imperative of integration research for sustainable environmental management. Journal of Research Practice 1: M1 [www document]. URL http://jrp.icaap.org/content/v1.2/dovers.htmlGoogle Scholar
Evely, A.C., Fazey, I., Pinard, M. & Lambin, X. (2008) The influence of philosophical perspectives in integrative research: a conservation case study in the Cairngorms National Park. Ecology and Society 13: 52 [www document]. URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art52/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazey, I., Evely, A.C., Latham, I., Kesby, M., Wagatora, D., Hagasua, J.E., Christie, M. & Reed, M.S. (2010) Reducing vulnerability: a three-tiered learning approach for collaborative research in the Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change (in press).Google Scholar
Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A. & Fazey, D.M.A. (2005 a) Learning more effectively from experience. Ecology and Society 10: 4 [www document]. URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art4/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazey, I., Fischer, J. & Lindenmayer, D.B. (2005 b) What do conservation biologists publish? Biological Conservation 124: 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazey, I., Salisbury, J.G., Lindenmayer, D.B., Maindonald, D. & Douglas, R. (2004) Summarising and disseminating conservation research: can we use methods applied in medicine? Environmental Conservation 31: 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 30: 441–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (1993) Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22: 151–156.Google Scholar
Graybill, J.K., Dooling, S., Shandas, V., Withey, J., Greve, A & Simon, G.L. (2006) A rough guide to interdisciplinarity graduate student perspectives. BioScience 56: 757–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunderson, L.H. & Holling, C.S., eds (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2006) Concentration of the most-cited papers in the scientific literature: analysis of journal ecosystems. PLoS ONE 1 (1): e5. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobson, S. K. & Robinson, J. G. (1990). Training the new conservationist: cross-disciplinary education in the 1990s. Environmental Conservation 17, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., West, S. & Hornisher, J. (2002) Slow-moving journals hinder conservation efforts. Nature 420: 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G.C., Grubler, A., Huntley, B., Jager, J., Jodha, N.S., Kasperson, R.E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore, B., O'Riordan, T. & Svedin, U. (2001) Environment and development: sustainability science. Science 292: 641–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinzig, A. (2001) Bridging disciplinary divides to address environmental and intellectual challenges. Ecosystems 4: 709–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J.R. & Koch, G.G. (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, R.J. & Després, C. (2004) Futures of transdisciplinarity. Futures 36: 398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MA (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
MacMynowski, D.P. (2007) Pausing at the brink of interdisciplinarity: power and knowledge at the meeting of social and biophysical science. Ecology and Society 12: 20 [www document]. URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art20/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T.R., Baird, T.D., Littlefield, C.M., Kofinas, G., Chapin, F. & Redman, C.L. (2008) Epistemological pluralism: reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society 13: 46 [www document]. URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art46/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, W.H. (2001) A theory of interdisciplinary studies. Issues in integrative Studies 19: 1–25.Google Scholar
O'Fallon, L.R. & Dearry, A. (2002) Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance environmental health science. Environmental Justice 110: 155–159.Google Scholar
Pullin, A.S., Knight, T.M., Stone, D.A. & Charman, K. (2004) Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation 119: 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [www document]. URL http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Reed, M.S. (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management. Biological Conservation 141: 2417–2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, S.M. & Reich, J.A. (2006) Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: a method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology 38: 51–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Renn, O., Webler, T. & Wiedemann, P., eds (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation in science. Technology and Human Values 25: 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soulé, M.E. (1985) What is conservation biology? BioScience 35: 727–734.Google Scholar
Stokols, D., Fuqua, J., Gress, J., Harvey, R., Phillips, K., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Unger, J., Palmer, P., Clark, M., Colby, S., Morgan, G. & Trochin, W. (2003) Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 5: 21–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stringer, L.C., Prell, C., Reed, M. S., Hubacek, K., Fraser, E.D.G. & Dougill, A.J. (2006). Unpacking ‘participation’ in the adaptive management of socio-ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology and Society 11: 39 [www document]. URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, W.J., Armstrong-Brown, S., Armsworth, P.R., Tom, B., Brickland, J., Campbell, C.D., Chamberlain, D.E., Cooke, A.I., Dulvy, N.K., Dusic, N.R., Fitton, M., Freckleton, R.P., Godfray, H.C.J., Grout, N., Harvey, H.J., Hedley, C., Hopkins, J.J., Kift, N.B., Kirby, J., Kunin, W.E., Macdonald, D.W., Marker, B., Naura, M., Neale, A.R., Oliver, T., Osborn, D., Pullin, A.S., Shardlow, M.E.A., Showler, D.A., Smith, P.L., Smithers, R.J., Solandt, J.L., Spencer, J., Spray, C.J., Thomas, C.D. & Thompson, J. (2006) The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 617–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tainter, J.A. (1988) The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tress, B., Tress, G. & Fry, G. (2005 a) Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 20: 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tress, B., Tress, G. & Fry, G. (2005 b) Researchers' experiences, positive and negative, in integrative landscape projects. Environmental Management 36: 792–807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, B.L., Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Mathews, J.T. & Meyer, W.B., eds (1990) The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Venables, W.N. & Ripley, B.D. (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with SPSS. Fourth edition. New York, NY, USA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webler, T. (1999) The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process. Journal of Risk Research 2: 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westley, F. (2002) The devil in the dynamics: adaptive management on the front lines. In: Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, ed. Gunderson, L.H. & Holling, C.S., pp. 333–360. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Evely supplementary material

Appendix.doc

Download Evely supplementary material(File)
File 42 KB