Bridging Restoration Science and Practice: Results and Analysis of a Survey from the 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International Meeting

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Standard

Bridging Restoration Science and Practice: Results and Analysis of a Survey from the 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International Meeting. / Cabin, Robert J.; Clewell, Andre; Ingram, Mrill et al.
In: Restoration Ecology, Vol. 18, No. 6, 11.2010, p. 783-788.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{68345235f2224acda5cceec9fa1d5dd7,
title = "Bridging Restoration Science and Practice: Results and Analysis of a Survey from the 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International Meeting",
abstract = "Developing and strengthening a more mutualistic relationship between the science of restoration ecology and the practice of ecological restoration has been a central but elusive goal of SERI since its inaugural meeting in 1989. We surveyed the delegates to the 2009 SERI World Conference to learn more about their perceptions of and ideas for improving restoration science, practice, and scientist/practitioner relationships. The respondents' assessments of restoration practice were less optimistic than their assessments of restoration science. Only 26% believed that scientist/practitioner relationships were {"}generally mutually beneficial and supportive of each other,{"} and the {"}science-practice gap{"} was the second and third most frequently cited category of factors limiting the science and practice of restoration, respectively ({"}insufficient funding{"} was first in both cases). Although few faulted practitioners for ignoring available science, many criticized scientists for ignoring the pressing needs of practitioners and/or failing to effectively communicate their work to nonscientists. Most of the suggestions for bridging the gap between restoration science and practice focused on (1) developing the necessary political support for more funding of restoration science, practice, and outreach; and (2) creating alternative research paradigms to both facilitate on-the-ground projects and promote more mutualistic exchanges between scientists and practitioners. We suggest that one way to implement these recommendations is to create a {"}Restoration Extension Service{"} modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service. We also recommend more events that bring together a fuller spectrum of restoration scientists, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders.",
keywords = "Alternative research paradigms, Practical relevance, Restoration extension service, Science-practice gap, SERI survey, Biology, Ecosystems Research",
author = "Cabin, {Robert J.} and Andre Clewell and Mrill Ingram and Tein McDonald and Vicky Temperton",
year = "2010",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00743.x",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "783--788",
journal = "Restoration Ecology",
issn = "1061-2971",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bridging Restoration Science and Practice

T2 - Results and Analysis of a Survey from the 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International Meeting

AU - Cabin, Robert J.

AU - Clewell, Andre

AU - Ingram, Mrill

AU - McDonald, Tein

AU - Temperton, Vicky

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - Developing and strengthening a more mutualistic relationship between the science of restoration ecology and the practice of ecological restoration has been a central but elusive goal of SERI since its inaugural meeting in 1989. We surveyed the delegates to the 2009 SERI World Conference to learn more about their perceptions of and ideas for improving restoration science, practice, and scientist/practitioner relationships. The respondents' assessments of restoration practice were less optimistic than their assessments of restoration science. Only 26% believed that scientist/practitioner relationships were "generally mutually beneficial and supportive of each other," and the "science-practice gap" was the second and third most frequently cited category of factors limiting the science and practice of restoration, respectively ("insufficient funding" was first in both cases). Although few faulted practitioners for ignoring available science, many criticized scientists for ignoring the pressing needs of practitioners and/or failing to effectively communicate their work to nonscientists. Most of the suggestions for bridging the gap between restoration science and practice focused on (1) developing the necessary political support for more funding of restoration science, practice, and outreach; and (2) creating alternative research paradigms to both facilitate on-the-ground projects and promote more mutualistic exchanges between scientists and practitioners. We suggest that one way to implement these recommendations is to create a "Restoration Extension Service" modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service. We also recommend more events that bring together a fuller spectrum of restoration scientists, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders.

AB - Developing and strengthening a more mutualistic relationship between the science of restoration ecology and the practice of ecological restoration has been a central but elusive goal of SERI since its inaugural meeting in 1989. We surveyed the delegates to the 2009 SERI World Conference to learn more about their perceptions of and ideas for improving restoration science, practice, and scientist/practitioner relationships. The respondents' assessments of restoration practice were less optimistic than their assessments of restoration science. Only 26% believed that scientist/practitioner relationships were "generally mutually beneficial and supportive of each other," and the "science-practice gap" was the second and third most frequently cited category of factors limiting the science and practice of restoration, respectively ("insufficient funding" was first in both cases). Although few faulted practitioners for ignoring available science, many criticized scientists for ignoring the pressing needs of practitioners and/or failing to effectively communicate their work to nonscientists. Most of the suggestions for bridging the gap between restoration science and practice focused on (1) developing the necessary political support for more funding of restoration science, practice, and outreach; and (2) creating alternative research paradigms to both facilitate on-the-ground projects and promote more mutualistic exchanges between scientists and practitioners. We suggest that one way to implement these recommendations is to create a "Restoration Extension Service" modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service. We also recommend more events that bring together a fuller spectrum of restoration scientists, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders.

KW - Alternative research paradigms

KW - Practical relevance

KW - Restoration extension service

KW - Science-practice gap

KW - SERI survey

KW - Biology

KW - Ecosystems Research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78049462545&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00743.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00743.x

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:78049462545

VL - 18

SP - 783

EP - 788

JO - Restoration Ecology

JF - Restoration Ecology

SN - 1061-2971

IS - 6

ER -