↓ Skip to main content

Knowing But Not Doing: Selecting Priority Conservation Areas and the Research–Implementation Gap

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, May 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
5 policy sources
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
686 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1491 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Knowing But Not Doing: Selecting Priority Conservation Areas and the Research–Implementation Gap
Published in
Conservation Biology, May 2008
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00914.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

ANDREW T. KNIGHT, RICHARD M. COWLING, MATHIEU ROUGET, ANDREW BALMFORD, AMANDA T. LOMBARD, BRUCE M. CAMPBELL

Abstract

Conservation assessment is a rapidly evolving discipline whose stated goal is the design of networks of protected areas that represent and ensure the persistence of nature (i.e., species, habitats, and environmental processes) by separating priority areas from the activities that degrade or destroy them. Nevertheless, despite a burgeoning scientific literature that ever refines these techniques for allocating conservation resources, it is widely believed that conservation assessments are rarely translated into actions that actually conserve nature. We reviewed the conservation assessment literature in peer-reviewed journals and conducted survey questionnaires of the authors of these studies. Two-thirds of conservation assessments published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature do not deliver conservation action, primarily because most researchers never plan for implementation. This research-implementation gap between conservation science and real-world action is a genuine phenomenon and is a specific example of the "knowing-doing gap" that is widely recognized in management science. Given the woefully inadequate resources allocated for conservation, our findings raise questions over the utility of conservation assessment science, as currently practiced, to provide useful, pragmatic solutions to conservation planning problems. A reevaluation of the conceptual and operational basis of conservation planning research is urgently required. We recommend the following actions for beginning a process for bridging the research-implementation gap in conservation planning: (1) acknowledge the research-implementation gap is real, (2) source research questions from practitioners, (3) situate research within a broader conservation planning model, (4) expand the social dimension of conservation assessments, (5) support conservation plans with transdisciplinary social learning institutions, (6) reward academics for societal engagement and implementation, and (7) train students in skills for "doing" conservation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,491 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 22 1%
Brazil 16 1%
South Africa 12 <1%
United Kingdom 11 <1%
Australia 9 <1%
Argentina 5 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Switzerland 4 <1%
Other 26 2%
Unknown 1378 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 297 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 288 19%
Student > Master 238 16%
Student > Bachelor 149 10%
Other 75 5%
Other 249 17%
Unknown 195 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 529 35%
Environmental Science 493 33%
Social Sciences 63 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 29 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 1%
Other 103 7%
Unknown 254 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,138,079
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#642
of 4,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,318
of 91,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 91,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.