20.8.2012: Forschung CH

Welche wissenschaftlichen Informationen benötigt die Praxis?

De quelles informations la pratique a-t-elle besoin?


Veronika Braunisch et al.

Die Resultate wissenschaftlicher Studien zur Erhaltung der Biodiversität finden nur selten Eingang in die Praxis, weil die untersuchten Forschungsthemen häufig weit an den Bedürfnissen des praktischen Naturschutzes vorbeigehen. Um diese Lücke zu schliessen, haben Forschende in einer Studie Schweizer Umwelt- und Naturschutzfachleute befragt, welche wissenschaftlichen Informationen sie für Ihre Arbeit benötigen und welche Dringlichkeit sie den einzelnen Themenbereichen zuordnen. Diese Priorisierung – insbesondere in Bezug auf verschiedene Ökosystemtypen oder Forschungsfelder – kann angesichts der beschränkten zeitlichen und finanziellen Ressourcen im Naturschutz wichtige Hinweise für die Gestaltung praxisnaher Forschungsprogramme sowie für die Steuerung von Finanzierungsentscheiden liefern.

Les résultats des études scientifiques sur la conservation de la biodiversité ne sont que rarement mis en pratique, car les thèmes étudiés sont souvent loin des préoccupations pratiques de la protection de la nature. Afin de combler cette lacune, des chercheurs ont questionné des experts suisses de la protection de la nature et de l’environnement sur les informations scientifiques dont ils ont besoin pour leur travail et sur l’urgence qu’ils attribuent aux différents domaines thématiques. Au vu des ressources restreintes en temps et en argent, ce classement peut fournir d’importants indices pour la conception de programmes de recherche proches de la pratique ainsi que pour orienter les décisions de financement, en particulier par rapport aux différents types d’écosystèmes ou domaines de recherche.


A wide gap between research and practice hinders the effective implementation of evidence-based biodiversity conservation. One reason often nominated by practitioners is that the subjects studied by scientists, or the guidelines they provide, are irrelevant for concrete implementation. Several recent surveys of policy-makers and conservation organizations have thus attempted to identify and frame research questions relevant to biodiversity conservation in practice. Ranking of these questions, e.g. with respect to relevance or ecosystem type, has not been attempted, although this would provide invaluable information for better orienting future practice-oriented research.
We conducted a nation-wide survey of Swiss conservation practitioners with the aim of identifying and prioritizing their needs with regard to useful scientific information. Through a first inductive survey of 21 practitioners – selected to represent the widest possible range of interests, activities and ecosystem expertise – we generated a list of relevant research questions. These questions were reformulated to be generalisable to all main Swiss ecosystems, and compiled in a comprehensive questionnaire that included 44 questions on 10 themes.
The questionnaire was submitted through an online platform to 584 Swiss conservation practitioners who were asked to rate the relevance of the questions to their own field of expertise, to nominate subsidiary questions possibly omitted in the questionnaire, and to specify "hot topics" that they considered to be of prime importance in their field.
Most of the 145 respondents operated in several ecosystems, which facilitated identification of both general and ecosystem-related research priorities. The inquiry revealed that questions related to economic, societal and stakeholder conflicts were ranked higher in importance than conceptual questions. Questions concerning single-species conservation were ranked in importance above ecosystem-related questions. Subsidiary questions (n = 97) and "hot topics" (n = 322) were subsumed and integrated into a final catalogue of research questions.
By identifying and framing scientific questions of both general practical relevance and specific regional importance for Swiss conservation practitioners, this study serves as a basis for the development of conjoint research projects and a practice-oriented research agenda with the intention to bridge the gap between biodiversity conservation science and action.


Keywords:
Forschungsprogramme, Praxis, Handlungswissen, angewandte Forschung, Naturschutzbiologie

Art der Publikation:
Fachpublikation

Literatur:
Braunisch V. et al. (2012). Conservation science relevant to action: A research agenda identified and prioritized by practitioners. Biological Conservation 153: 201-210.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071200242X

Kontaktadresse:
Robert Home
Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau FiBL
Ackerstrasse 21, Postfach 219
CH-5070 Frick, Schweiz

robert.home@fibl.org
Tel: +41 (0)62 865 72 15


Zurück zur Liste