82
implemented. There was also some element of subjectivity in the
survey design identifying
what constitutes conservation ‘impact’, and it was difficult to design a survey to be relevant to
the wide range of publications. Further research could attempt to solidify the link between
author perceptions and implementation by confirming the use of findings at source. Given that
this study has identified geographical discrepancies in implementation
and the factors
influencing uptake, this could involve the analysis of focused case studies by geographical
area, similar to work being done in the policy field (Court & Young, 2003), perhaps involving
an analysis of the utility of specialised and local journals as a tool for dissemination. Similarly,
research into the link between use of research and conservation success could provide further
insights into the utility of research in terms of the factors promoting
actual conservation
improvement.
It would also be useful to examine the references of documents such as IUCN Red Lists and
action plans as this could provide a useful measure of real world conservation impact. An
analysis of
the use of literature by CITES, as an important convention for species-based
conservation, would also have been useful to contextualise the issue on a wider policy scale.
This study also did not properly take into account how the research
reporting conservation
outcomes is utilised, and further research could focus on this important aspect.
It could be argued, however, that rather than further research in this area there should be more
of a discussion on what the aims of peer-review publication are in conservation biology, and if
it is to provide the science base for ‘on the ground’ species conservation there needs to
perhaps be a change in the emphasis of the system towards research
with more practical
application.
Dostları ilə paylaş: