The urgency of the tropical biodiversity crisis continues to be a major justification for wildlife research and its funding. To examine the benefits of this research for on-the-ground conservation, we focused on Borneo, where conservation has a long history and we have direct experience. We compiled, categorized and evaluated 284 publications from a broad variety of sources, 153 from peer-reviewed journals. We found that few studies address threats to species and fewer still provide input for or guidance to effective management. We consider various reasons for these shortcomings. Research is seldom judged on its relevance to pragmatic problem solving. Furthermore, many research programs lack the necessary long-term vision and organizational structure for useful applied research. We consulted conservation leaders about our conclusions and all responses suggest that our concerns are not unique to Borneo but reflect wider problems. We conclude that conservation research across most of the tropics is failing to address conservation needs. We make a number of recommendations based on our findings. Conservation biologists should place a higher priority on addressing practical conservation needs and goals.
Tag: applied research
Collective and individual interdisciplinarity in a sustainability research group: A social network analysis
In sustainability science, interdisciplinarity, i.e., the integration of perspectives from different disciplines, is built collectively from interactions among researchers of various disciplines (“collective interdisciplinarity”) but also results from the fact that researchers have backgrounds in multiple disciplines (“individual interdisciplinarity”). We applied social network analysis tools to analyze how individual interdisciplinarity influences collective interdisciplinarity, using the case of a forest sustainability science group. We hypothesized that researchers with higher individual interdisciplinarity had more interdisciplinary interactions and were interdisciplinary brokers within the group. We first analyzed individual interdisciplinarity using a bipartite network of researchers and disciplines. We then analyzed networks of management, research, and publication interactions among researchers in the research group. This showed how disciplines influenced interactions and how researchers contributed to interdisciplinary interactions and brokerage. Results of the first analysis identified large disciplinary communities in the center of the bipartite network, whereas smaller ones were more distant. The second analysis highlighted disciplinary homophily in interaction networks, as two researchers interacted more if they were from the same disciplinary community. Results also showed that the interactions among researchers were structured not only by disciplinary homophily, but also by other forms of homophily related to location or region of work. The key brokers of interactions across disciplinary communities were distributed across several communities, showing that brokerage was not controlled by the large, dominant communities. Analysis of correlations between individual interdisciplinarity and contributions to collective interdisciplinarity did not support our hypothesis but rather hinted at the alternative hypothesis that researchers with high individual interdisciplinarity interacted less with other disciplinary communities.