Masters Dissertation Example

2.2.4 Translation of planning into action 
Lundquist et al (2002) and Fuller et al (2003) took the analysis a step further to establish 
whether species recovery plans and IUCN action plans respectively had actually been 
implemented, and how the information was used. Lundquist et al (2002) found that 70% of the 
plans had been partially or completely implemented, with greater levels of implementation 
amongst the charismatic vertebrates. In a more restricted investigation of the IUCN action 
plans for the Galliformes, Fuller et al (2003) also found good evidence for implementation. 
Whilst this study should be taken in context of a single group of species, it is an interesting 
indicator of the utility of IUCN action plans. 
Despite the optimistic levels of implementation reported above, there was an obvious time lag 
between the development of the plan and implementation (Lundquist et al, 2002), suggesting 
that it cannot be assumed that incorporation into policy documents will lead to actual 
conservation action. Indeed, there are many who believe that conservation action would be 
better served by scientists and practitioners responding adaptively in the field than writing ‘out 
of date’ recovery plans (Conroy et al, 2006). As most of the studies to date have focused on 
the analysis of such plans, they must be interpreted with caution if the goal is to ascertain the 
levels of research that go into actual conservation action. 

---

12 
2.3 Geographical extent of scientific literature 
The above discussion has largely focused on developed countries, as indeed has most of the 
literature on the topic to date. This begs the question as to how the science reported in the 
journals supports conservation action in developed countries, where a high proportion of the 
world’s biodiversity is located (Myers et al, 2000), particularly as the main conservation 
journals are published in developed countries. In Tanzania for example, many conservation 
initiatives, such as the creation of Protected Areas are undertaken opportunistically to resolve 
local problems with little prior analysis (Fjeldsa, 2007). It had also been suggested that work 
by foreign researchers produces many results of relevance, but there are limited institutional 
mechanisms for ensuring input of science in shaping conservation practice (Bergerhoff Mulder 
et al, 2007). The lack of availability of published information is also an issue in less developed 
areas (Foster, 1993), as is language (Meijaard & Shiel, 2007) and lack of capacity (Durant et 
al, 2007). Indeed, it has been suggested that monitoring and research projects may hinder 
conservation in developing countries by diverting funding (Sheil, 2001); although quantitative 
analysis showed that a monitoring system in the Philippines led to the implementation of a 
variety of management actions (Danielson et al, 2005). 
Fazey et al (2005) analysed research papers in three major conservation journals and found 
that most were conducted in affluent countries. Moreover, they found that less than half of the 
studies in lower income countries had primary authors from that country. Although secondary 
authors were found to be much better represented, this is a worrying statistic. Whilst this 
information is interesting in itself, it would be of greater interest to establish whether or not 
such biases have an impact when it comes to the level of implementation of research into 
conservation action. It has been suggested that local scientists in low income countries are 
vital because they understand the cultural context, can develop partnerships with communities, 
and are better placed to translate the information into policy and practice (Getz et al, 1999; 
Kremen et al, 1998; Foster, 1993). Local scientists also play a role in keeping the knowledge 
and expertise in the country (Fazey et al, 2005) 
Similarly, a study on the contribution of scientific information to the conservation of 
freshwater biodiversity in Tropical Asia (Dudgeon, 2003) found that Asian scientists 
published only 6% of the available conservation biology literature on the topic. It was further 

---

13 
concluded that the work that does get published is not effectively implemented, as it is not 
accessible in the area it is most needed, again raising concerns over the ‘global’ scope of 
scientific journals. 
Although it should always be the aim to use best available ‘peer reviewed’ science, it is 
important to acknowledge that this might not be possible in many circumstances where the 
research is either not being carried out or published, particularly in developing countries, and 
this is an issue in itself. Nevertheless, although there is some evidence to the contrary, there 
does seem to be a ‘gap’ between conservation science and practice that can to a certain extent 
be split into two areas: the type of scientific research that is being conducted relative to 
conservation needs, and the dissemination of information to the relevant parties