Masters Dissertation Example

 
Table 3. Forms of action plans/policy into which findings were incorporated (n=180) 
Policy document/listing findings incorporated into 
% response 
Govt action plan or policy document (yet to be implemented) 
NGO action plan or policy document (yet to be implemented) 
Advice of specialist groups (e.g. IUCN) 
National listing alterations 
IUCN Red listing alterations 
International policy document 
Change in legal status 
CITES listing alterations 
63 % 
37 % 
29 % 
19 % 
17 % 
13 % 
12 % 
4 % 
 
4.2.2 Role of the specific research in implementation 
Respondents were asked to indicate the role that their research had played in any 
implementation. 42% thought it had played a major role, 42% some role and 15% a minor role 
All respondents (n=8) who were either unsure as to whether their research had played a role, 
or thought their research had played no role in the implementation, had already been re-
categorised as a ‘No’ response. 
The majority of authors (91%), even those who did not believe that their findings had been 
used as a basis for conservation action, believed that their findings were acting as a basis for 
future action; which although not of current benefit could improve understanding, motivation, 
and methodological techniques for future conservation actions. 
4.2.3 Implementation of findings and conservation ‘success’ 
51% of respondents whose findings had been implemented into conservation action reported 
an improvement in conservation status (32% as a result of the specific conservation action, 
Box 2 - Examples of uptake of findings into action plans/policy 
1. The BAP plans for two species of freshwater gastropod were amended on the basis of 
evidence provided in a study by Watson & Ormerod (2004) 
2. A study by Baker & Johanos (2004) provided information on the importance of the 
previously overlooked main Hawaiian Islands for the Hawaiian monk seal, which has 
since been incorporated into the recovery plan for the species 

---

34 
19% said the role of a specific action was difficult to evaluate). 30% said it was difficult to 
measure/assess improvement, 12% reported no improvement, and 4% that the status had 
worsened. 2% were unaware of conservation status. This emphasises the fact that 
implementation does not confer success. Levels of reported conservation status improvement 
were only significantly higher when the findings had influenced creation/design of a PA 
(z=2.11,df=168,p=0.03), perhaps due to the identification of habitat loss as the major threat 
(section 4.3.4.2) 
There was no significant difference in the reported consequences of the conservation action 
between those who stated that their findings had led to practical implementation and those 
who stated that their findings were taken up into policy only.