Poor alignment of priorities between scientists and policymakers highlights the need for evidence-informed conservation in Brazil
Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, ISSN: 2530-0644, Vol: 16, Issue: 3, Page: 125-132
2018
- 27Citations
- 140Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
There is a worldwide claim by environmentalists and scientists that environmental policy usually lacks support based on scientific evidence. In this work we studied the gap between science and conservation actions in Brazil. We mapped scientific literature on conservation and conducted online surveys with science experts on biodiversity and policymakers working on a federal sphere. Our results show that environmental issues considered as priority for policymakers did not relate to those suggested by scientists and the peer-reviewed literature. According to policymakers, the main barriers to access scientific literature were time available to read papers, difficulty in understanding technical language and reading in English. Our results confirm that, in general, scientific knowledge is not being sufficiently applied to support policies in Brazil. Both scientists and policymakers are responsible for improving communication between their institutions: researchers need to know in advance what are professional policymakers’ needs and direct their research towards answering policy-related questions; and policymakers need that scientific evidences be available in accessible language and up to date. We recommend the development of science communication departments at all governmental levels and the establishment of evidence-based research groups and tools. Our findings help to explain the mismatch between science and policy in Brazil and represent a warning to everyone engaged in biodiversity conservation worldwide.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2530064418300324; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.06.002; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85048940419&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2530064418300324; https://dul.usage.elsevier.com/doi/; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S2530064418300324?httpAccept=text/xml; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S2530064418300324?httpAccept=text/plain; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.06.002
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know