The case for policy-relevant conservation science

摘要: Drawing on the “evidence-based” (Sutherland et al. 2013) versus “evidence-informed” debate (Adams & Sandbrook 2013), which has become prominent in conservation science, I argue that science can be influential if it holds a dual reference (Lentsch Weingart 2011) contributes to needs of policy makers whilst maintaining technical rigor. In line with such strategy, scientists are increasingly recognizing usefulness constructing narratives through enhance influence their evidence (Leslie 2013; Lawton Rudd 2014). Yet telling stories alone is rarely enough policy; instead, these must relevant. To ensure persuasive alongside other factors complex policy-making process, could follow 2 steps: reframe within salient political contexts and engage more productively boundary work, defined as ways “construct, negotiate, defend between policy” (Owens 2006:640). These will both improve chances evidence-informed policy.