Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy

Erica Fleishman; David Blockstein; John A Hall; Michael B Mascia; Murray Alan Rudd; J Michael Scott; William J Sutherland; T Baldwin; A M Bartuska; A G Brown; C A Christen; Joel Clement; M G Collins; C D Duke; M Eaton; B Eichbaum; S J Fiske; M L Klein; J Marqusee; B R Noon; J Nordgren; P Orbuch; J Powell; K A Saterson; C Savitt; B Stein; M S Webster; A Vedder

doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.9

Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy

Erica Fleishman, David Blockstein, John A Hall, Michael B Mascia, Murray Alan Rudd, J Michael Scott, William J Sutherland, T Baldwin, A M Bartuska, A G Brown, C A Christen, Joel Clement, M G Collins, C D Duke, M Eaton, B Eichbaum, S J Fiske, M L Klein, J Marqusee, B R NoonJ Nordgren, P Orbuch, J Powell, K A Saterson, C Savitt, B Stein, M S Webster, A Vedder

Environment and Geography

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

To maximize the utility of research to decisionmaking, especially given limited financial resources, scientists must set priorities for their efforts. We present a list of the top 40 high-priority, multidisciplinary research questions directed toward informing some of the most important current and future decisions about management of species, communities, and ecological processes in the United States. The questions were generated by an open, inclusive process that included personal interviews with decisionmakers, broad solicitation of research needs from scientists and policymakers, and an intensive workshop that included scientifically oriented individuals responsible for managing and developing policy related to natural resources. The process differed from previous efforts to set priorities for conservation research in its focus on the engagement of decisionmakers in addition to researchers. The research priorities emphasized the importance of addressing societal context and exploration of trade-offs among alternative policies and actions, as well as more traditional questions related to ecological processes and functions.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	290-300
Number of pages	11
Journal	BioScience
Volume	61
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.9
Publication status	Published - Apr 2011

Access to Document

10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.9

Cite this

Fleishman, E., Blockstein, D., Hall, J. A., Mascia, M. B., Rudd, M. A., Scott, J. M., Sutherland, W. J., Baldwin, T., Bartuska, A. M., Brown, A. G., Christen, C. A., Clement, J., Collins, M. G., Duke, C. D., Eaton, M., Eichbaum, B., Fiske, S. J., Klein, M. L., Marqusee, J., ... Vedder, A. (2011). Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy. BioScience, 61(4), 290-300. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.9

@article{cf29be3b4dbc4067869558539977e7d9,

title = "Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy",

abstract = "To maximize the utility of research to decisionmaking, especially given limited financial resources, scientists must set priorities for their efforts. We present a list of the top 40 high-priority, multidisciplinary research questions directed toward informing some of the most important current and future decisions about management of species, communities, and ecological processes in the United States. The questions were generated by an open, inclusive process that included personal interviews with decisionmakers, broad solicitation of research needs from scientists and policymakers, and an intensive workshop that included scientifically oriented individuals responsible for managing and developing policy related to natural resources. The process differed from previous efforts to set priorities for conservation research in its focus on the engagement of decisionmakers in addition to researchers. The research priorities emphasized the importance of addressing societal context and exploration of trade-offs among alternative policies and actions, as well as more traditional questions related to ecological processes and functions.",

author = "Erica Fleishman and David Blockstein and Hall, {John A} and Mascia, {Michael B} and Rudd, {Murray Alan} and Scott, {J Michael} and Sutherland, {William J} and T Baldwin and Bartuska, {A M} and Brown, {A G} and Christen, {C A} and Joel Clement and Collins, {M G} and Duke, {C D} and M Eaton and B Eichbaum and Fiske, {S J} and Klein, {M L} and J Marqusee and Noon, {B R} and J Nordgren and P Orbuch and J Powell and Saterson, {K A} and C Savitt and B Stein and Webster, {M S} and A Vedder",

year = "2011",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.9",

language = "English",

volume = "61",

pages = "290--300",

journal = "BioScience",

issn = "1525-3244",

publisher = "American Institute of Biological Sciences",

number = "4",

}

Fleishman, E, Blockstein, D, Hall, JA, Mascia, MB, Rudd, MA, Scott, JM, Sutherland, WJ, Baldwin, T, Bartuska, AM, Brown, AG, Christen, CA, Clement, J, Collins, MG, Duke, CD, Eaton, M, Eichbaum, B, Fiske, SJ, Klein, ML, Marqusee, J, Noon, BR, Nordgren, J, Orbuch, P, Powell, J, Saterson, KA, Savitt, C, Stein, B, Webster, MS & Vedder, A 2011, 'Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy', BioScience, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 290-300. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.9

TY - JOUR

T1 - Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy

AU - Fleishman, Erica

AU - Blockstein, David

AU - Hall, John A

AU - Mascia, Michael B

AU - Rudd, Murray Alan

AU - Scott, J Michael

AU - Sutherland, William J

AU - Baldwin, T

AU - Bartuska, A M

AU - Brown, A G

AU - Christen, C A

AU - Clement, Joel

AU - Collins, M G

AU - Duke, C D

AU - Eaton, M

AU - Eichbaum, B

AU - Fiske, S J

AU - Klein, M L

AU - Marqusee, J

AU - Noon, B R

AU - Nordgren, J

AU - Orbuch, P

AU - Powell, J

AU - Saterson, K A

AU - Savitt, C

AU - Stein, B

AU - Webster, M S

AU - Vedder, A

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - To maximize the utility of research to decisionmaking, especially given limited financial resources, scientists must set priorities for their efforts. We present a list of the top 40 high-priority, multidisciplinary research questions directed toward informing some of the most important current and future decisions about management of species, communities, and ecological processes in the United States. The questions were generated by an open, inclusive process that included personal interviews with decisionmakers, broad solicitation of research needs from scientists and policymakers, and an intensive workshop that included scientifically oriented individuals responsible for managing and developing policy related to natural resources. The process differed from previous efforts to set priorities for conservation research in its focus on the engagement of decisionmakers in addition to researchers. The research priorities emphasized the importance of addressing societal context and exploration of trade-offs among alternative policies and actions, as well as more traditional questions related to ecological processes and functions.

AB - To maximize the utility of research to decisionmaking, especially given limited financial resources, scientists must set priorities for their efforts. We present a list of the top 40 high-priority, multidisciplinary research questions directed toward informing some of the most important current and future decisions about management of species, communities, and ecological processes in the United States. The questions were generated by an open, inclusive process that included personal interviews with decisionmakers, broad solicitation of research needs from scientists and policymakers, and an intensive workshop that included scientifically oriented individuals responsible for managing and developing policy related to natural resources. The process differed from previous efforts to set priorities for conservation research in its focus on the engagement of decisionmakers in addition to researchers. The research priorities emphasized the importance of addressing societal context and exploration of trade-offs among alternative policies and actions, as well as more traditional questions related to ecological processes and functions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953839436&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.9

DO - 10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.9

M3 - Article

SN - 1525-3244

VL - 61

SP - 290

EP - 300

JO - BioScience

JF - BioScience

IS - 4

ER -

Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Consultative Group on Biological Diversity, Integrating Social Science into Conservation CGBD Webinar Series - "Consultative Group on Biological Diversity, Integrating Social Science into Conservation CGBD Webinar Series"

Cite this

Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Activities

Consultative Group on Biological Diversity, Integrating Social Science into Conservation CGBD Webinar Series - "Consultative Group on Biological Diversity, Integrating Social Science into Conservation CGBD Webinar Series"

Cite this