Collaboration and engagement with decision-makers are needed to reduce evidence complacency in wildlife management.

There exists an extensive, diverse, and robust evidence base to support complex decisions that address the planetary biodiversity crisis. However, it is generally not sought or used by environmental decision-makers, who instead draw on intuition, experience, or opinion to inform important decisions. Thus, there is a need to examine evidence exchange processes in wildlife management to understand the multiple inputs to decisions. Here, we adopt a novel approach, fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM), to examine perceptions of individuals from Indigenous and Western governments on the reliability of evidence which may influence freshwater fisheries management decisions in British Columbia, Canada. We facilitated four FCM workshops participants representing Indigenous or Western regulatory/governance groups of fisheries managers. Our results show that flows of evidence to decision-makers occur within a relatively closed governance network, constrained to the few well-connected decision-making organizations (i.e., wildlife management agencies) and their close partners. This implies that increased collaboration (i.e., knowledge co-production) and engagement (i.e., knowledge brokerage) with wildlife managers and decision-makers are needed to produce actionable evidence and increase evidence exchange.

Relational place-based solutions for environmental policy misalignments.

Current reductionist approaches to environmental governance cannot resolve social-ecological crises. Siloed institutions fail to address linked social and ecological processes, thereby neglecting issues of equity, justice, and cumulative effects. Global insights can be gained from Indigenous-led initiatives that support the resilience of relationships within and among places.

Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making.

In civil society we expect that policy and management decisions will be made using the best available evidence. Yet, it is widely known that there are many barriers that limit the extent to which that occurs. One way to overcome these barriers is via robust, comprehensive, transparent and repeatable evidence syntheses (such as systematic reviews) that attempt to minimize various forms of bias to present a summary of existing knowledge for decision-making purposes. Relative to other disciplines (e.g., health care, education), such evidence-based decision-making remains relatively nascent for environment management despite major threats to humanity, such as the climate, pollution and biodiversity crises demonstrating that human well-being is inextricably linked to the biophysical environment. Fortunately, there are a growing number of environmental evidence syntheses being produced that can be used by decision makers. It is therefore an opportune time to reflect on the science and practice of evidence-based decision-making in environment management to understand the extent to which evidence syntheses are embraced and applied in practice. Here we outline a number of key questions related to the use of environmental evidence that need to be explored in an effort to enhance evidence-based decision-making. There is an urgent need for research involving methods from social science, behavioural sciences, and public policy to understand the basis for patterns and trends in environmental evidence use (or misuse or ignorance). There is also a need for those who commission and produce evidence syntheses, as well as the end users of these syntheses to reflect on their experiences and share them with the broader evidence-based practice community to identify needs and opportunities for advancing the entire process of evidence-based practice. It is our hope that the ideas shared here will serve as a roadmap for additional scholarship that will collectively enhance evidence-based decision-making and ultimately benefit the environment and humanity.

Goals, challenges, and next steps in transdisciplinary fisheries research: perspectives and experiences from early-career researchers.

Fisheries are highly complex social-ecological systems that often face 'wicked' problems from unsustainable resource management to climate change. Addressing these challenges requires transdisciplinary approaches that integrate perspectives across scientific disciplines and knowledge systems. Despite widespread calls for transdisciplinary fisheries research (TFR), there are still limitations in personal and institutional capacity to conduct and support this work to the highest potential. The viewpoints of early career researchers (ECRs) in this field can illuminate challenges and promote systemic change within fisheries research. This paper presents the perspectives of ECRs from across the globe, gathered through a virtual workshop held during the 2021 World Fisheries Congress, on goals, challenges, and future potential for TFR. Big picture goals for TFR were guided by principles of co-production and included (i) integrating transdisciplinary thinking at all stages of the research process, (ii) ensuring that research is inclusive and equitable, (iii) co-creating knowledge that is credible, relevant, actionable, and impactful, and (iv) consistently communicating with partners. Institutional inertia, lack of recognition of the extra time and labour required for TFR, and lack of skill development opportunities were identified as three key barriers in conducting TFR. Several critical actions were identified to help ECRs, established researchers, and institutions reach these goals. We encourage ECRs to form peer-mentorship networks to guide each other along the way. We suggest that established researchers ensure consistent mentorship while also giving space to ECR voices. Actions for institutions include retooling education programs, developing and implementing new metrics of impact, and critically examining individualism and privilege in academia. We suggest that the opportunities and actions identified here, if widely embraced now, can enable research that addresses complex challenges facing fishery systems contributing to a healthier future for fish and humans alike.

Natural Resource Managers Use and Value Western-Based Science, but Barriers to Access Persist.

Natural resources management (NRM) is complex and relies on decisions supported by evidence, including Western-based science (WBS) and Indigenous and local knowledge. However, it has been shown that there is a disconnect between WBS and its application, whereby managers often draw on non-empirical sources of information (i.e., intuition or advice from colleagues). This article focuses on the role of WBS in decisions made in management of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the province of British Columbia, Canada. We conducted open-ended interviews with NRM branches of Indigenous and parliamentary governments, as well as with nongovernmental stakeholder groups, to examine (a) sources of WBS consulted in decision-making and (b) barriers to accessing WBS by managers. We found that respondents involved with NRM relied on a diverse set of sources for WBS, seldom relying exclusively on one source. However, respondents relied more on internal sources (government databases) compared to external ones (peer-reviewed journal articles). We also found that respondents described WBS as valuable and generally accessible, yet barriers were identified with respect to the interface and organization of government grey data and literature, paywalls associated with peer-reviewed journals and articles, and institutional capacity, time, and support. We recommend strategies and tools to facilitate accessibility of WBS in support of bridging the knowledge-action divide, including increased publishing of open access data/articles, systematic reviews, use of knowledge brokers, specialized WBS training, and knowledge co-production. It is our hope that identification of barriers and the implementation of improved access to WBS will result in more effective NRM by giving managers access to the tools and knowledge they need for evidence-based decision-making.

Research effort devoted to regulating and supporting ecosystem services by environmental scientists and economists.

The economic valuation of ecosystem services in part reflects the desire to use conventional economic tools (markets and economic instruments) to conserve ecosystem services. However, for regulating and supporting ecosystem services that depend on ecosystem structure and function, estimation of economic value requires estimates of the current level of underlying ecological functions first. This primary step is in principle, the job of environmental scientists, not economists. Here, we provide a coarse-level quantitative assessment of the relationship between the research effort expended by environmental scientists (on the biophysical values) and economists (on the monetary values) on 15 different regulating and supporting services in 32 ecosystem types using peer-reviewed article hits retrieved from bibliographic databases as a measure of research effort. We find a positive, moderately strong (r = 0.69) correlation between research efforts in the two domains, a result that, while encouraging, is likely to reflect serendipity rather than the deliberate design of integrated environmental science-economics research programs. Our results suggest that compared to environmental science research effort economic valuation is devoted to a smaller, less diverse set of ecosystem services but a broader, more diverse, set of ecosystem types. The two domains differed more with respect to the ecosystem services that are the major focus of research effort than they did with respect to the ecosystem types of principal research interest. For example, carbon sequestration, erosion regulation, and nutrient cycling receive more relative research effort in the environmental sciences; air quality regulation in economic valuations. For both domains, cultivated areas, wetlands, and urban/semi-urban ecosystem types received relatively large research effort, while arctic and mountain tundra, cave and subterranean, cryosphere, intertidal/littoral zone, and kelp forest ecosystem types received negligible research effort. We suggest ways and means by which the field of sustainability science may be improved by the design and implementation of a searchable database of environmental science and economic valuation literature as well as a global ecosystem service research network and repository that explicitly links research on the estimation and prediction of biophysical ecosystem functions with that of the social sciences and other knowledge systems. These suggestions would, at least in principle, facilitate a more efficient research agenda between economists and environmental scientists and aid management, regulatory and judicial decision-makers.

Bridging research and practice in conservation.

Calls for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence based are growing, and we agree evidence use in conservation practice needs improvement. However, evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. In medicine, unlike in conservation, a well-established and well-funded layer of intermediary individuals and organizations engage with medical practitioners, synthesize primary research relevant to decision making, and make evidence easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them to practitioners faced with time-sensitive and value-laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, who we refer to as evidence bridges, should identify research topics based on the priorities of practitioners; synthesize evidence; prepare and distribute easy-to-find and easy-to-use evidence summaries; and develop and maintain networks of connections with researchers and practitioners. Based on a review of the literature regarding evidence intermediaries in conservation and environmental management, as well as an anonymous questionnaire searching for such organizations, we found few intermediaries that met all these criteria. Few evidence bridges that do exist are unable to reach most conservation practitioners, which include resource managers in government and industry, conservation organizations, and farmers and other private landowners. We argue that the lack of evidence bridges from research to practitioners contributes to evidence complacency and limits the use of evidence in conservation action. Nevertheless, several existing organizations help reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. Although evidence bridges need expertise in research and evidence synthesis, they also require expertise in identifying and communicating with the community of practitioners most in need of clear and concise syntheses of evidence. Article Impact Statement: Evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. We call for intermediary evidence bridges.

Vinculación entre la Investigación y la Práctica en la Conservación Resumen Cada vez existen más peticiones para que las prácticas de conservación de la biodiversidad estén más basadas en evidencias, además de que apoyamos la idea de que el uso de evidencias en la práctica de la conservación necesita mejorar. Sin embargo, la conservación basada en la evidencia no se logrará sin un acceso mejorado a las evidencias. En la medicina, no como en la conservación, un estrato bien establecido y financiado de individuos y organizaciones intermediarias interactúan con los médicos, sintetizan las investigaciones primarias relevantes para la toma de decisiones y hacen que las evidencias sean de fácil acceso. Estos intermediarios preparan resúmenes de evidencias específicas y los distribuyen a los médicos que enfrentan decisiones urgentes y muy valiosas. Para que sean efectivos, estos intermediarios, a quienes nos referimos como puentes de evidencias, deben poder identificar los temas de estudio con base en las prioridades de los practicantes, sintetizar evidencias, preparar y distribuir resúmenes fáciles de encontrar y fáciles de usar, y desarrollar y mantener redes de conexiones con los investigadores y los practicantes. Con base en una revisión de la literatura correspondiente a los intermediarios de evidencias en la conservación y el manejo ambiental, así como en un cuestionario anónimo que busca a dichas organizaciones, encontramos a pocos intermediarios que cumplieran con estos criterios. Los pocos puentes de evidencias que existen no son capaces de llegar a la mayoría de los practicantes de la conservación, los cuales incluyen a los gestores de recursos en el gobierno y en la industria, a las organizaciones de conservación y a los agricultores y otros terratenientes privados. Argumentamos que la falta de puentes de evidencia entre los investigadores y los practicantes contribuye a la indulgencia de evidencias y limita el uso de evidencias en las acciones de conservación. Sin embargo, varias organizaciones existentes ayudan a reducir la brecha entre la evidencia y la práctica y podrían funcionar como base para la construcción de componentes adicionales para los puentes de evidencia en la conservación. Aunque los puentes de evidencias necesitan experiencia con la investigación y con la síntesis de evidencias, también requieren experiencia con la identificación de y comunicación con la comunidad de practicantes que más necesitan una síntesis clara y concisa de la evidencia.

Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID-19 environmental science and a fit-for-purpose evidence base.

1. The 'anthropause', a period of unusually reduced human activity and mobility due to COVID-19 restrictions, has serendipitously opened up unique opportunities for research on how human activities impact the environment. 2. In the field of health, COVID-19 research has led to concerns about the quality of research papers and the underlying research and publication processes due to accelerated peer review and publication schedules, increases in pre-prints and retractions. 3. In the field of environmental science, framing the pandemic and associated global lockdowns as an unplanned global human confinement experiment with urgency should raise the same concerns about the rigorousness and integrity of the scientific process. Furthermore, the recognition of an 'infodemic', an unprecedented explosion of research, risks research waste and duplication of effort, although how information is used is as important as the quality of evidence. This highlights the need for an evidence base that is easy to find and use - that is discoverable, curated, synthesizable, synthesized. 4. We put forward a list of 10 key principles to support the establishment of a reproducible, replicable, robust, rigorous, timely and synthesizable COVID-19 environmental evidence base that avoids research waste and is resilient to the pressures to publish urgently. These principles focus on engaging relevant actors (e.g. local communities, rightsholders) in research design and production, statistical power, collaborations, evidence synthesis, research registries and protocols, open science and transparency, data hygiene (cleanliness) and integrity, peer review transparency, standardized keywords and controlled vocabularies.