Scientists’ responsibilities towards evidence-based conservation in a Small Island Developing State

Much has been written about bridging the implementationgap, also known as the ‘great divide’ or the ‘knowledge–action boundary’ (e.g. Gibbons et al. 2008; Arlettaz et al.2010; Cook et al. 2013). Most of these authors make validand needed points concerning the application of scienceto conservation management, including the proposal ofconceptual frameworks or changes to the structure of theresearch system. Recommended measures range fromcollaborative exercises for identifying important researchquestions, which, when addressed, will provide theevidence base for effective conservation policies (Rudd2011; Braunisch et al. 2012), to creating an institutionalplatform to engage individuals from across the knowl-edge–action boundary (Cook et al. 2013). While suchrecommendations for higher-level structural changes aredesirable, they are rarely in sync with the constraints ofconservation scientists (e.g. Soule 1985; Balmford et al.2003), which call for rapidly achievable outcomes withlimited resources. As a consequence, the recommendationsof many well-intentioned researchers end with publication(Fazey, Fischer & Lindenmayer 2005), despite the factthat publication alone is usually ineffective in triggeringmanagement changes (Pullin & Knight 2005). Here,largely following the model proposed by Gibbons et al.(2008), we show, using a successful case study from theSeychelles, how researchers and practitioners have workedtogether to change strategy and policy for conservation ofan endangered species based on scientific evidence.Further, the example expands on the responsibility ofresearchers by demonstrating immediate actions that canbe taken by scientists to improve uptake of their researchresults. Such steps can be highly effective, and practicalguidelines can be drawn from this example by otherresearchers hoping to more effectively bridge the gapbetween their research and management.