Dataset Information

COVID-19 pandemic impacts on conservation research, management, and public engagement in US national parks.

ABSTRACT: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the timing and substance of conservation research, management, and public engagement in protected areas around the world. This disruption is evident in US national parks, which play a key role in protecting natural and cultural resources and providing outdoor experiences for the public. Collectively, US national parks protect 34 million ha, host more than 300 million visits annually, and serve as one of the world's largest informal education organizations. The pandemic has altered park conditions and operations in a variety of ways. Shifts in operational conditions related to safety issues, reduced staffing, and decreased park revenues have forced managers to make difficult trade-offs among competing priorities. Long-term research and monitoring of the health of ecosystems and wildlife populations have been interrupted. Time-sensitive management practices, such as control of invasive plants and restoration of degraded habitat, have been delayed. And public engagement has largely shifted from in-person experiences to virtual engagement through social media and other online interactions. These changes pose challenges for accomplishing important science, management, and public engagement goals, but they also create opportunities for developing more flexible monitoring programs and inclusive methods of public engagement. The COVID-19 pandemic reinforces the need for strategic science, management planning, flexible operations, and online public engagement to help managers address rapid and unpredictable challenges.

SUBMITTER: Miller-Rushing AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8459301 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

COVID-19 pandemic impacts on conservation research, management, and public engagement in US national parks.

Miller-Rushing Abraham J AJ Athearn Nicole N Blackford Tami T Brigham Christy C Cohen Laura L Cole-Will Rebecca R Edgar Todd T Ellwood Elizabeth R ER Fisichelli Nicholas N Pritz Colleen Flanagan CF Gallinat Amanda S AS Gibson Adam A Hubbard Andy A McLane Sierra S Nydick Koren K Primack Richard B RB Sachs Susan S Super Paul E PE

Biological Conservation. 20210326

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the timing and substance of conservation research, management, and public engagement in protected areas around the world. This disruption is evident in US national parks, which play a key role in protecting natural and cultural resources and providing outdoor experiences for the public. Collectively, US national parks protect 34 million ha, host more than 300 million visits annually, and serve as one of the world's largest informal education organizations. The ...[more]

PMID: 34580547

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about patient engagement in the context of large teams or networks. Quantitative data from a larger sample of CHILD-BRIGHT Network members suggest that patient engagement was beneficial and meaningful. To extend our understanding of the barriers, facilitators, and impacts identified by patient-partners and researchers, we conducted this qualitative study.MethodsParticipants completed semi-structured interviews and were recruited from the CHILD-BRIGHT Research Network. A patient-oriented research (POR) approach informed by the SPOR Framework guided the study. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2-SF) was used to report on involvement of patient-partners. The data were analyzed using a qualitative, content analysis approach.ResultsTwenty-five CHILD-BRIGHT Network members (48% patient-partners, 52% researchers) were interviewed on their engagement experiences in the Network's research projects and in network-wide activities. At the research project level, patient-partners and researchers reported similar barriers and facilitators to engagement. Barriers included communication challenges, factors specific to patient-partners, difficulty maintaining engagement over time, and difficulty achieving genuine collaboration. Facilitators included communication (e.g., open communication), factors specific to patient-partners (e.g., motivation), and factors such as respect and trust. At the Network level, patient-partners and researchers indicated that time constraints and asking too much of patient-partners were barriers to engagement. Both patient-partners and researchers indicated that communication (e.g., regular contacts) facilitated their engagement in the Network. Patient-partners also reported that researchers' characteristics (e.g., openness to feedback) and having a role within the Network facilitated their engagement. Researchers related that providing a variety of activities and establishing meaningful collaborations served as facilitators. In terms of impacts, study participants indicated that POR allowed for: (1) projects to be better aligned with patient-partners' priorities, (2) collaboration among researchers, patient-partners and families, (3) knowledge translation informed by patient-partner input, and (4) learning opportunities.ConclusionOur findings provide evidence of the positive impacts of patient engagement and highlight factors that are important to consider in supporting engagement in large research teams or networks. Based on these findings and in collaboration with patient-partners, we have identified strategies for enhancing authentic engagement of patient-partners in these contexts.

Project description:Social-ecological systems are characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and change. Adaptive co-management may help to improve adaptability and resilience and to develop 'no-regret strategies' for a sustainable management. It is a dynamic, inductive, and self-organized process based on social learning and collaboration. In this regard, conservation conflicts, conflicts between humans about wildlife, are a contemporary environmental management issue. Their management may be facilitated through adaptive co-management. However, adaptive co-management typically emerges because of a crisis or changing context and is difficult to be applied intentionally. We hypothesize that it may be possible to lay the ground for an adaptive co-management process by activating stakeholders to interact experimentally without a prescriptive application of adaptive co-management criteria. We examined conservation conflicts in the context of three German national parks, where we triggered interaction between 68 stakeholders in nine moderated focus groups. These were recorded and analyzed. Stakeholders discussed similar conflict issues and conflict management suggestions. Subsequently, we conducted a literature synthesis, resulting in 13 adaptive co-management characteristics, and analyzed concurrencies between these and stakeholders' management suggestions. Management suggestions reflected collaborative, interactional, structural, and practice-oriented adaptive co-management characteristics, while political context, rules, adaptability, learning, and monitoring were underrepresented. These underrepresented adaptive co-management characteristics may be harder to be recognized by stakeholders. An implementation of stakeholder-based management suggestions may prepare the systems for change. However, policy windows and resilience have to be observed, underrepresented characteristics have to be examined, and political context, long-term support, monitoring, and facilitation have to be considered. The approach fosters conservation conflict solution. The results could help protected area managers to further develop a local process. The experiment empowered stakeholders and resulted in case-specific suggestions, backed up by adaptive co-management literature. Research should focus on bridging knowledge between case studies as well as between politics, management, stakeholders, and scientists and on further examining stakeholders' capabilities to develop adaptive co-management approaches.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The language of "participant-driven research," "crowdsourcing" and "citizen science" is increasingly being used to encourage the public to become involved in research ventures as both subjects and scientists. Originally, these labels were invoked by volunteer research efforts propelled by amateurs outside of traditional research institutions and aimed at appealing to those looking for more "democratic," "patient-centric," or "lay" alternatives to the professional science establishment. As mainstream translational biomedical research requires increasingly larger participant pools, however, corporate, academic and governmental research programs are embracing this populist rhetoric to encourage wider public participation. DISCUSSION:We examine the ethical and social implications of this recruitment strategy. We begin by surveying examples of "citizen science" outside of biomedicine, as paradigmatic of the aspirations this democratizing rhetoric was originally meant to embody. Next, we discuss the ways these aspirations become articulated in the biomedical context, with a view to drawing out the multiple and potentially conflicting meanings of "public engagement" when citizens are also the subjects of the science. We then illustrate two uses of public engagement rhetoric to gain public support for national biomedical research efforts: its post-hoc use in the "care.data" project of the National Health Service in England, and its proactive uses in the "Precision Medicine Initiative" of the United States White House. These examples will serve as the basis for a normative analysis, discussing the potential ethical and social ramifications of this rhetoric. We pay particular attention to the implications of government strategies that cultivate the idea that members of the public have a civic duty to participate in government-sponsored research initiatives. We argue that such initiatives should draw from policy frameworks that support normative analysis of the role of citizenry. And, we conclude it is imperative to make visible and clear the full spectrum of meanings of "citizen science," the contexts in which it is used, and its demands with respect to participation, engagement, and governance.

Project description:Integrating knowledge from across the natural and social sciences is necessary to effectively address societal tradeoffs between human use of biological diversity and its preservation. Collaborative processes can change the ways decision makers think about scientific evidence, enhance levels of mutual trust and credibility, and advance the conservation policy discourse. Canada has responsibility for a large fraction of some major ecosystems, such as boreal forests, Arctic tundra, wetlands, and temperate and Arctic oceans. Stressors to biological diversity within these ecosystems arise from activities of the country's resource-based economy, as well as external drivers of environmental change. Effective management is complicated by incongruence between ecological and political boundaries and conflicting perspectives on social and economic goals. Many knowledge gaps about stressors and their management might be reduced through targeted, timely research. We identify 40 questions that, if addressed or answered, would advance research that has a high probability of supporting development of effective policies and management strategies for species, ecosystems, and ecological processes in Canada. A total of 396 candidate questions drawn from natural and social science disciplines were contributed by individuals with diverse organizational affiliations. These were collaboratively winnowed to 40 by our team of collaborators. The questions emphasize understanding ecosystems, the effects and mitigation of climate change, coordinating governance and management efforts across multiple jurisdictions, and examining relations between conservation policy and the social and economic well-being of Aboriginal peoples. The questions we identified provide potential links between evidence from the conservation sciences and formulation of policies for conservation and resource management. Our collaborative process of communication and engagement between scientists and decision makers for generating and prioritizing research questions at a national level could be a model for similar efforts beyond Canada.

Dataset Information

COVID-19 pandemic impacts on conservation research, management, and public engagement in US national parks.

Publications

COVID-19 pandemic impacts on conservation research, management, and public engagement in US national parks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets