Masters Dissertation Example

Fig 1. A theoretical framework for the role of research in conservation planning, adapted from Fuller et al 
(2003), Salafsky et al (2002), and CCF (2007) depicting the ideal progression from research to conservation 
action.  
Surveys 
Species 
limits 
Ecological
research
Applied
research 
Communication of findings 
Application in conservation 
practice 
Legislation 
& Policy 
Ex-situ 
breeding 
Enforcement/
changing incentives 
Habitat/species 
management 
Monitoring of effectiveness 
UPTAKE 

---

5 
The aim of research is to provide the information base for conservation action, but will only 
do so if the findings are appropriately communicated and relevant to management (CCF, 
2007). 
 
The distinction between those who conduct the research and those who put it into practice is 
not always obvious (da Fonseca, 2003). However, at two ends of the spectrum are the pure 
conservation practitioners who have to deal with complex ecological and human processes, 
and seek to change the system often without trying to understand it; and pure researchers who 
aim to gain a broad understanding of the system and are successful if knowledge increases 
(Salafsky et al, 2002). Where the motivation of the researcher lies on this metaphorical scale 
can influence the extent to which the research is taken up into practice (Fleishman et al, 1999). 
It has been suggested that a greater level of collaboration is required between scientists and 
land managers is required to achieve favourable ecosystem (Di stefano, 2004) and species 
(McCleery et al, in press) management outcomes.
 
2.1.1 Issues with use of research in conservation 
Conservation has been labelled a ‘crisis discipline’ (Soule, 1985), and as such science can 
often be overshadowed, with immediate action required on an incompatible time frame with 
scientific research (Linklater, 2003; Healey & Ascher, 1995). There are many who believe that 
more ‘on the ground action’ is needed, rather than research (Ginsberg, 1999). Obviously, 
practitioners have to deal with the real world consequences of their actions and are more in 
tune with the implications (Salafsky et al, 2002); and factors such as institutional tensions and 
cultural needs can often preclude the effective use of science (Lach et al, 2003). Indeed, the 
growth in popularity of Integrated Conservation and Development Programs (ICDPs) 
underlines the importance of socially acceptable conservation actions (Wells et al, 1999), and 
there are concerns that poorly aligned research projects divert funds that could be better 
applied elsewhere (Sheil, 2001; Prendergast et al, 1999) 
This raises another issue in the use of science in natural resource management. A purely 
scientific methodology for creating the roadless rule in the US led to innumerable tensions and 
its eventual withdrawal, as the other interacting factors were not considered (Turner, 2006), 
and there is a balance to be struck between the scientifically sound action and one that is 

---

6 
politically acceptable (Brown & MacLeod, 1996). Indeed, fisheries management has suffered 
from this to a certain extent, with sustainable yield quotas often reflecting political agendas 
rather than the scientific information on which they are purported to be based, leading in part 
to the collapse of fisheries such as cod in the North Atlantic, and Southern blue fin tuna 
(Rosenburg, 2003). 
Despite these issues, it is generally accepted that we are often lacking in knowledge on which 
to base suitable conservation action (Fazey et al, 2004), a situation that can only be rectified 
through further research and the use of available information.