The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions

Conservation policy decisions can suffer from a lack of evidence, hindering effective decision-making. In nature conservation, studies investigating why policy is often not evidence-informed have tended to focus on Western democracies, with relatively small samples. To understand global variation and challenges better, we established a global survey aimed at identifying top barriers and solutions to the use of conservation science in policy. This obtained the views of 758 people in policy, practice, and research positions from 68 countries across six languages. Here we show that, contrary to popular belief, there is agreement between groups about how to incorporate conservation science into policy, and there is thus room for optimism. Barriers related to the low priority of conservation were considered to be important, while mainstreaming conservation was proposed as a key solution. Therefore, priorities should focus on convincing the public of the importance of conservation as an issue, which will then influence policy-makers to adopt pro-environmental long-term policies.NERC (1653183) Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment Kenneth Miller Trust (unknown) NERC (1653183) NERC (NE/L002507/1) European Commission (308454

Artisanal fish fences pose broad and unexpected threats to the tropical coastal seascape

Gear restrictions are an important management tool in small-scale tropical fisheries, improving sustainability and building resilience to climate change. Yet to identify the management challenges and complete footprint of individual gears, a broader systems approach is required that integrates ecological, economic and social sciences. Here we apply this approach to artisanal fish fences, intensively used across three oceans, to identify a previously underrecognized gear requiring urgent management attention. A longitudinal case study shows increased effort matched with large declines in catch success and corresponding reef fish abundance. We find fish fences to disrupt vital ecological connectivity, exploit > 500 species with high juvenile removal, and directly damage seagrass ecosystems with cascading impacts on connected coral reefs and mangroves. As semi-permanent structures in otherwise open-access fisheries, they create social conflict by assuming unofficial and unregulated property rights, while their unique high-investment-low-effort nature removes traditional economic and social barriers to overfishing

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Data availability: All the data are freely available online. The supplementary information provides links to Zenodo with specific DOIs where the data are stored for free use.Supplementary information is available online at https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-023-06406-9/MediaObjects/41586_2023_6406_MOESM1_ESM.docx . The Supplementary Information includes three parts. Part A explains how the paper is associated with the IPBES Values Assessment. Part B provides details about each of the 29 review protocols. Part C offers information about the case study of Chilika Lagoon, India, that is used in the main paper.Copyright © The Author(s) 2023. Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.We received no specific funding for this work; all authors involved in IPBES do so on a voluntary basis. The IPBES Values Assessment was made possible thanks to many generous contributions, including non-earmarked contributions to the IPBES trust fund from governments. All donors are listed on the IPBES website www.ipbes.net/donors. U.P. acknowledges BC3’s Maria de Maeztu excellence accreditation 2023–2026 (reference no. CEX2021-001201-M) provided by grant no. MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033

Improving usability with think aloud and focus group methods. A case study: an intelligent police patrolling system (i-PAT)

This study proposes the use of Think Aloud and Focus Group methods for evaluating the usability of the Intelligent Police Patrolling System (I-Pat). The study was conducted with twenty-one students of computer engineering. The study included two evaluation methods. First, the application of Think Aloud using audio recordings, image capturing and questionnaires. Second, the application of a Focus Group for brainstorming. The total number of the usability problems identified was fifteen. Comprehensiveness (46%) and layout (43%) problems were the most frequently found. The study showed that the problems encountered were due to the lack of understanding of the system’s functions, so it is recommended increasing the users’ levels of knowledge about the system. The application of these methods caused the students to find a greater number of errors than when applying a single method, allowing them to generate a report with usability improvements according to the reported errors. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Exploring influences on pharmacists’ and students’ ethical reasoning in a changing practice landscape in Australia

© 2018, Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Background Practising pharmacists continuously develop their ethical reasoning skills, which evolve with practice experience and exposure to challenging scenarios. Considering the recent expansion of the roles of pharmacists and the paradigm shift in pharmacy practice, it is timely to explore community pharmacists’ attitudes regarding the importance of ethics and their ethical reasoning. Objective To explore underlying factors influencing community pharmacists’ and pharmacy students’ ethical reasoning and attitudes towards pharmacy ethics, ethical reasoning processes and perceived current dilemmas. Setting Practising registered community pharmacists, pharmacists with provisional registration (interns) and final year pharmacy students in Australia. Method Two focus group discussions and two interviews were conducted with 16 Western Australian community pharmacists, interns and students. Participants were purposively selected for gender, background, practice setting, and practice experience. Main outcome measure Emerging themes embracing important influences on community pharmacists’, interns’ and students’ ethical reasoning and perceived current ethical dilemmas and challenges. Results Two major themes embraced participants’ ethical reasoning processes and conduct: (1) fundamental underpinning, from personal values and practice exposure, and (2) paradigm influenced, such as the changing healthcare landscape, expansion of roles, management of dilemmas, and competence. Increased frequency and complexity of ethical dilemmas related to role expansion. Rural pharmacists experienced unique ethical dilemmas in relation to practice isolation, privacy and confidentiality. Conclusion Changes in the community pharmacy practice environment has increasingly exposed pharmacists to more complex ethical dilemmas. Pharmacists practising in rural communities experience unique challenges. Structured and sound ethical reasoning skills are essential as pharmacists are faced with contemporary challenges