Masters Dissertation Example

6.2 Factors influencing implementation 
There are obviously a multitude of factors that can interact to either prevent or promote the 
implementation of findings in conservation action (Fazey et al, 2004; Fleishman et al, 1999), 
and these will differ on a case by case basis according to the complexities and context of the 
situation on the ground. This much is intuitive and evident from both the practitioner 
interviews (chapter 5) and the fact that very few factors had adequate explanatory power for 
the variation around the level of implementation of findings (table 6). Whilst it is impossible 
to identify empirically the factors that prevent uptake, that lack of involvement of stakeholders 
was identified by authors highlights the ‘gap’ between research and practice (Meffe, 1998). 
That political climate is placed so high stresses the complexity of such analysis, as there will 
be many situations in which the factors identified will have no impact whatsoever on 
implementation of findings. Indeed, practitioners can be involved from the start and the 
findings still not be implemented due to factors such as lack of hostility amongst local 
communities and bureaucracy (Fleishman et al, 1999). It was possible, however, to identify a 

---

70 
few key factors that can be generalised as influencing implementation levels of the data set as 
a whole. Regardless of the potential biases discussed in section 6.1, the sample size was 
sufficient to dampen down these down to enable a valid assessment of the factors facilitating 
implementation of scientific research into conservation practice. 
6.2.1 Main factors facilitating implementation of findings in conservation action 
Findings were more likely to be implemented when at least one of the authors had NGO or 
government affiliations. This is not surprising, as NGOs and government bodies have greater 
capacity to initiate or influence a project on the ground (da Foncesca, 2003); emphasised by 
the finding that projects funded by such organisations had higher levels of implementation, 
and indeed funding by local NGOs was one of the main predictors of uptake of findings. To 
add to this, amongst those who did not disseminate in a form other than through the peer 
reviewed paper, a significantly higher proportion of research findings were implemented when 
authors had NGO or government affiliations rather than academic (fig. 19). These results 
support the assertion of Clark et al (2002) that scientists in academia need to co-operate with 
institutions such as NGOs and government agencies to achieve conservation management 
outcomes, and are similar to the findings from the opposite side that US species recovery plans 
(Boersma et al, 2001; Gerber & Shultz, 2001), and HCPs (Harding et al, 2001) were more 
effective and less likely to miss key scientific evidence respectively when scientists were part 
of the authorship team. This was not the case in developing countries, however, with the 
capacity of the author seemingly having less of an impact (section 4.6). 
Findings that were further disseminated were more likely to be taken up than when the only 
form of dissemination was through the scientific literature, as was research addressing 
conservation management problems, ongoing research, and research that had been 
contextualised through solid recommendations. The value of long term research in terms of its 
impact in facilitating dialogue between scientists and managers, and on a broader policy scale, 
has been noted in Tanzania (Durant et al, 2007) and Borneo (Meijaard & Sheil, 2007), and 
was shown here to be highly correlated with the implementation of findings, particularly in 
leading to practical conservation action.

---

71 
That many factors interact on a case by case basis to influence implementation (Fleishman et 
al, 1999) is also evident from the fact that variables such as; threats to species, status of the 
study country, involvement of resident authors, and the incorporation of socio-economic 
factors were all significant alone but not predictors of implementation. Similarly, there was no 
one factor that influenced uptake of findings dominantly over the rest. 
Author perceptions that adequate dissemination, involvement of threatened species, practical 
recommendations, and involvement of stakeholders were important in the implementation of 
their findings (fig. 4; and similar to the findings of Flashpohler et al, 2000) were therefore 
corroborated by the survey analysis, as was the assertion that it was the local stakeholder 
groups who were most important in facilitating uptake (fig. 5), emphasising the need for local 
collaborations.