Enfoques de sistemas socioecológicos, esenciales para comprender y responder a los impactos complejos de COVID-19 en las personas y el medio ambiente

La pandemia de la enfermedad del coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) está impactando dramáticamente los sistemas sociales planetarios y humanos que están inseparablemente vinculados. Las enfermedades zoonóticas como la COVID-19 exponen cómo el bienestar humano está inextricablemente interconectado con el medio ambiente y con otras crisis socioecológicas convergentes (impulsadas por los humanos), como las pérdidas dramáticas de biodiversidad, el cambio en el uso de la tierra y el cambio climático. Argumentamos que el COVID-19 es en sí mismo una crisis socioecológica, pero hasta ahora las respuestas no han incluido la resiliencia ecológica, en parte porque la metáfora de la “Antropausa” ha creado una sensación poco realista de comodidad que excusa la inacción. Las narrativas de la antropausa desmienten el hecho de que la extracción de recursos ha continuado durante la pandemia y que los negocios como de costumbre continúan causando una degradación generalizada del ecosistema que requiere atención política inmediata. En algunos casos, las medidas de política de COVID-19 contribuyeron aún más al problema, como la reducción de los impuestos ambientales o la aplicación de las normas. Mientras que algunos sistemas socioecológicos (SSE) están experimentando impactos reducidos, otros están experimentando lo que llamamos un "Antrochoque", con más visitantes y un uso intensificado. Las diversas causas e impactos de la pandemia se pueden comprender mejor con una lente socioecológica. Los conocimientos socioecológicos son necesarios para planificar y desarrollar la resiliencia necesaria para enfrentar la pandemia y futuras crisis socioecológicas. Si nosotros, como sociedad, nos tomamos en serio la reconstrucción mejor de la pandemia, debemos adoptar un conjunto de respuestas de investigación y políticas informadas por el pensamiento SSE

Engaging at the science-policy interface as an early-career researcher: experiences and perceptions in biodiversity and ecosystem services research

Effective knowledge exchange at science-policy interfaces (SPIs) can foster evidence-informed policy-making through the integration of a wide range of knowledge inputs. This is especially crucial for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES), human well-being and sustainable development. Early-career researchers (ECRs) can contribute significantly to knowledge exchange at SPIs. Recognizing that, several capacity building programs focused on sustainability have been introduced recently. However, little is known about the experiences and perceptions of ECRs in relation to SPIs. Our study focused on SPI engagement of ECRs who conduct research on biodiversity and ES, as perceived and experienced. Specifically, we addressed ‘motivations’, ‘barriers’ and ‘opportunities and ‘benefits’. A total of 145 ECRs have completed the survey. Our results showed that ECRs were generally interested to engage in SPIs and believed it to be beneficial in terms of contributing to societal change, understanding policy processes and career development. Respondents perceived lack of understanding about involvement channels, engagement opportunities, funding, training, perceived credibility of ECRs by other actors and encouragement of senior colleagues as barriers to engaging in SPIs. Those who have already participated in SPIs generally saw fewer barriers and more opportunities. A key reason for dissatisfaction with experience in SPIs was a lack of impact and uptake of science-policy outputs by policymakers–an issue that likely extends beyond ECRs and implies the need for transformations in knowledge exchange within SPIs. In conclusion, based on insights from our survey, we outline several opportunities for increased and better facilitation of ECR engagement in SPIs. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Standards of conduct and reporting in evidence syntheses that could inform environmental policy and management decisions

Accurate, unbiased and concise synthesis of available evidence following clear methodology and transparent report‑ ing is necessary to support effective environmental policy and management decisions. Without this, less reliable and/ or less objective reviews of evidence could inform decision making, leading to ineffective, resource wasteful inter‑ ventions with potential for unintended consequences. We evaluated the reliability of over 1000 evidence syntheses (reviews and overviews) published between 2018 and 2020 that provide evidence on the impacts of human activities or effectiveness of interventions relevant to environmental management. The syntheses are drawn from the Col‑ laboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER), an online, freely available evidence service for evidence users that assesses the reliability of evidence syntheses using a series of published criteria. We found that the majority of syntheses have problems with transparency, replicability and potential for bias. Overall, our results suggest that most recently published evidence syntheses are of low reliability to inform decision making. Reviews that followed guidance and reporting standards for evidence synthesis had improved assessment ratings, but there remains substantial variation in the standard of reviews amongst even these. Furthermore, the term ‘system‑ atic review’, which implies conformity with a methodological standard, was frequently misused. A major objective of the CEEDER project is to improve the reliability of the global body of environmental evidence reviews. To this end we outline freely available online resources to help improve review conduct and reporting. We call on authors, editors and peer reviewers to use these resources to ensure more reliable syntheses in the future

Conservation genomics from a practitioner lens: Evaluating the research-implementation gap in a managed freshwater fishery

Fish and wildlife managers are faced with the daunting task of making informed and sensible decisions in the face of conflicting objectives and rapid environmental change. Conservation genomics – the use of new genomic techniques and genome-wide information to solve biological conservation problems – is an emerging scientific field that holds much promise in delivering practical knowledge to inform decisions, policies, and practices for conservation and management. However, the impact of genomics on conservation and management has been rather limited to date, described as the “conservation genomics gap”. We set out to identify perceived benefits and existing barriers supporting or limiting the use of conservation genomics in conservation practice by analyzing how potential knowledge users (conservation practitioners) perceive and evaluate genomics using the case of managed Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fisheries in the Canadian province of British Columbia. We interviewed 33 government employees and 32 representatives from nongovernmental stakeholder groups involved in fisheries management. We found that very few knowledge users were familiar with genomics or understood the difference between genetics and genomics. Despite low genomics familiarity, respondents generally view conservation genomics favorably, as a reliable and promising tool that could provide them with novel knowledge that would help them improve management or make better decisions. However, the exact benefits or outcomes genomics could provide in applied contexts are potentially limited by politics, communication, expertise, interpretation, cost, competing conservation practices, and time. Our research suggests that genomics has considerable potential in applied conservation and management if clearer communication betwe

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

Abstract 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

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

Abstract 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

Engaging at the science-policy interface as an early-career researcher:experiences and perceptions in biodiversity and ecosystem services research

Effective knowledge exchange at science-policy interfaces (SPIs) can foster evidence-informed policy-making through the integration of a wide range of knowledge inputs. This is especially crucial for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES), human well-being and sustainable development. Early-career researchers (ECRs) can contribute significantly to knowledge exchange at SPIs. Recognizing that, several capacity building programs focused on sustainability have been introduced recently. However, little is known about the experiences and perceptions of ECRs in relation to SPIs. Our study focused on SPI engagement of ECRs who conduct research on biodiversity and ES, as perceived and experienced. Specifically, we addressed ‘motivations’, ‘barriers’ and ‘opportunities and ‘benefits’. A total of 145 ECRs have completed the survey. Our results showed that ECRs were generally interested to engage in SPIs and believed it to be beneficial in terms of contributing to societal change, understanding policy processes and career development. Respondents perceived lack of understanding about involvement channels, engagement opportunities, funding, training, perceived credibility of ECRs by other actors and encouragement of senior colleagues as barriers to engaging in SPIs. Those who have already participated in SPIs generally saw fewer barriers and more opportunities. A key reason for dissatisfaction with experience in SPIs was a lack of impact and uptake of science-policy outputs by policymakers–an issue that likely extends beyond ECRs and implies the need for transformations in knowledge exchange within SPIs. In conclusion, based on insights from our survey, we outline several opportunities for increased and better facilitation of ECR engagement in SPIs

Meaningfully engaging the next generation of ecosystem services specialists

International audienceAbstractThe Ecosystem Services community needs to think carefully about how to develop and engage the next generation of leaders. Entering the field presents both challenges and rewards for early-career specialists (ECS). In this commentary, we provide recommendations for meaningful engagement of ECS in an effort to grow and broaden the value of ecosystem services as a framework for sustainability

Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’

People depend on functioning ecosystems, which provide benefits that support human existence and wellbeing. The relationship between people and nature has been experienced and conceptualized in multiple ways. Recently, ecosystem services (ES) concepts have permeated science, government policies, multi-national environmental agreements, and science–policy interfaces. In 2017, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) introduced a new and closely related concept–Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP). The introduction of NCP has sparked some lively discussion and confusion about the distinguishing characteristics between ES and NCP. In order to clarify their conceptual relation, we identify eleven specific claims about novel elements from the latest NCP literature and analyze how far ES research has already contributed to these corresponding conceptual claims in the existing ES literature. We find a mixed-picture, where on six specific conceptual claims (culture, social sciences and humanities, indigenous and local knowledge, negative contributions of nature, generalizing perspective, non-instrumental values and valuation) NCP does not differ greatly from past ES research, but we also find five conceptual claims (diverse worldviews, context-specific perspective, relational values, fuzzy and fluid reporting categories and groups, inclusive language and framing) where NCP provides novel conceptualizations of people and nature relations