Applied Filters
- Perspective
- Science and PolicyRemove filter
- Cooke, Steven JRemove filter
Journal Title
Topics
Publication Date
Author
- Bennett, Joseph R4
- Lapointe, Nicolas W R2
- Nguyen, Vivian M2
- Abrams, Alice E I1
- Aiken, Alice1
- Algera, Dirk A1
- Amirfazli, Alidad1
- Anagnostou, Michelle1
- Anastakis, Dimitry1
- Ansari, Daniel1
- Antle, Alissa N1
- Austin, Claire C1
- Babel, Molly1
- Bailey, Jane1
- Bard, Brittany1
- Bernstein, Daniel M1
- Bihun, Christian J1
- Birnbaum, Rachel1
- Bourassa, Carrie1
- Brooks, Jill L1
- Calcagno, Antonio1
- Campana, Aurélie1
- Cassey, Phillip1
- Chen, Bing1
Access Type
1 - 7of7
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
Search Name | Searched On |
---|---|
[Paper Type: Perspective] AND [Subject Areas: Science and Policy] AND [Author: Cook... (7) | 13 Sep 2024 |
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSContemporary conservation problems are typically positioned at the interface of complex ecological and human systems. Traditional approaches aiming to compartmentalize a phenomenon within the confines of a single discipline and failing to engage non-science partners are outmoded and cannot identify solutions that have traction in the social, economic, and political arenas in which conservation actions must operate. As a result, conservation science teams must adopt multiple disciplinary approaches that bridge not only academic disciplines but also the political and social realms and engage relevant partners. Five reasons are presented that outline why conservation problems demand multiple disciplinary approaches in order to move forward because: (i) socio-ecological systems are complex, (ii) multiple perspectives are better than one, (iii) the results of research must influence practice, (iv) the heterogeneity of scale necessitates it, and (v) conservation involves compromise. Presenting reasons that support multiple disciplinarity demands a review of the barriers that impede this process, as we are far from attaining a model or framework that is applicable in all contexts. Two challenges that impede multiple disciplinarity are discussed, in addition to pragmatic solutions that conservation scientists and practitioners can adopt in their work. Overall, conservation researchers and practitioners are encouraged to explore the multiple disciplinary dimensions of their respective realms to more effectively solve problems in biodiversity and sustainability.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Dimitry Anastakis,
- Shannon D. Scott,
- Merritt R. Turetsky,
- Alidad Amirfazli,
- Alison Hearn,
- Cynthia E. Milton,
- Laura Loewen,
- Eric E. Smith,
- D. Ryan Norris,
- Kim L. Lavoie,
- Alice Aiken,
- Daniel Ansari,
- Alissa N. Antle,
- Molly Babel,
- Jane Bailey,
- Daniel M. Bernstein,
- Rachel Birnbaum,
- Carrie Bourassa,
- Antonio Calcagno,
- Aurélie Campana,
- Bing Chen,
- Karen Collins,
- Catherine E. Connelly,
- Myriam Denov,
- Benoît Dupont,
- Eric George,
- Irene Gregory-Eaves,
- Steven High,
- Josephine M. Hill,
- Philip L. Jackson,
- Nathalie Jette,
- Mark Jurdjevic,
- Anita Kothari,
- Paul Khairy,
- Sylvie A. Lamoureux,
- Kiera Ladner,
- Christian R. Landry,
- François Légaré,
- Nadia Lehoux,
- Christian Leuprecht,
- Angela R. Lieverse,
- Artur Luczak,
- Mark L. Mallory,
- Erin Manning,
- Ali Mazalek,
- Stuart J. Murray,
- Lenore L. Newman,
- Valerie Oosterveld,
- Patrice Potvin,
- Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham,
- Jennifer Rowsell,
- Dawn Stacey,
- Susan L. Tighe,
- David J. Vocadlo,
- Anne E. Wilson, and
- Andrew Woolford
Various multiple-disciplinary terms and concepts (although most commonly “interdisciplinarity,” which is used herein) are used to frame education, scholarship, research, and interactions within and outside academia. In principle, the premise of interdisciplinarity may appear to have many strengths; yet, the extent to which interdisciplinarity is embraced by the current generation of academics, the benefits and risks for doing so, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving interdisciplinarity, represent inherent challenges. Much has been written on the topic of interdisciplinarity, but to our knowledge there have been few attempts to consider and present diverse perspectives from scholars, artists, and scientists in a cohesive manner. As a team of 57 members from the Canadian College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada (the College) who self-identify as being engaged or interested in interdisciplinarity, we provide diverse intellectual, cultural, and social perspectives. The goal of this paper is to share our collective wisdom on this topic with the broader community and to stimulate discourse and debate on the merits and challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Perhaps the clearest message emerging from this exercise is that working across established boundaries of scholarly communities is rewarding, necessary, and is more likely to result in impact. However, there are barriers that limit the ease with which this can occur (e.g., lack of institutional structures and funding to facilitate cross-disciplinary exploration). Occasionally, there can be significant risk associated with doing interdisciplinary work (e.g., lack of adequate measurement or recognition of work by disciplinary peers). Solving many of the world’s complex and pressing problems (e.g., climate change, sustainable agriculture, the burden of chronic disease, and aging populations) demands thinking and working across long-standing, but in some ways restrictive, academic boundaries. Academic institutions and key support structures, especially funding bodies, will play an important role in helping to realize what is readily apparent to all who contributed to this paper—that interdisciplinarity is essential for solving complex problems; it is the new norm. Failure to empower and encourage those doing this research will serve as a great impediment to training, knowledge, and addressing societal issues. - OPEN ACCESS
- Dominique G. Roche,
- Monica Granados,
- Claire C. Austin,
- Scott Wilson,
- Gregory M. Mitchell,
- Paul A. Smith,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Governments worldwide are releasing data into the public domain via open government data initiatives. Many such data sets are directly relevant to environmental science and complement data collected by academic researchers to address complex and challenging environmental problems. The Government of Canada is a leader in open data among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, generating and releasing troves of valuable research data. However, achieving comprehensive and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) open government data is not without its challenges. For example, identifying and understanding Canada’s international commitments, policies, and guidelines on open data can be daunting. Similarly, open data sets within the Government of Canada are spread across a diversity of repositories and portals, which may hinder their discoverability. We describe Canada’s federal initiatives promoting open government data, and outline where data sets of relevance to environmental science can be found. We summarize research data management challenges identified by the Government of Canada, plans to modernize the approach to open data for environmental science and best practices for data discoverability, access, and reuse. - OPEN ACCESS
- Connor H. Reid,
- Emma J. Hudgins,
- Jessika D. Guay,
- Sean Patterson,
- Alec M. Medd,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Invasive alien species (IAS) pose threats to native biodiversity globally and are linked to numerous negative biodiversity impacts throughout Canada. Considering the Canadian federal government’s commitments to environmental stewardship (e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity), the successful management of IAS requires an understanding of how federal infrastructure, strategies, and decisions have contributed to previous outcomes. Here, we present an analysis of current efforts by the federal government to prevent IAS establishment in Canadian ecosystems and the unique challenges associated with Canadian IAS management. We then examine historical and current case studies of IAS in Canada with variable outcomes. By drawing comparisons with IAS management in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, we discuss how the Canadian government may refine its policies and practices to enable more effective responses to IAS threats. We conclude by considering how future interacting stressors (e.g., climate change) will shape how we address IAS threats, and list six lessons for successful management. Most importantly, Canada must regard biodiversity impacts from IAS with as much urgency as direct economic impacts that have historically garnered more attention. Although we focus on Canada, our findings may also be useful in other jurisdictions facing similar challenges with IAS management. - OPEN ACCESS
- Dirk A. Algera,
- Kate L. Neigel,
- Kerri Kosziwka,
- Alice E.I. Abrams,
- Daniel M. Glassman,
- Joseph R. Bennett,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Nicolas W.R. Lapointe
American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) were used as a case study to assess whether Ontario’s Endangered Species Act proponent-driven regulatory approach resulted in successful imperilled species management outcomes. American Eel observation databases and proponent-prepared mitigation plans and monitoring data were used to assess whether: (i) facilities within the distribution range were registered, (ii) effects monitoring protocols were adequate to evaluate adverse effects of facilities, (iii) proponents implemented mitigation actions that followed best management practices (BMPs), and (iv) effectiveness monitoring designs were adequate to evaluate effectiveness of mitigation actions. Less than half of the facilities (8 of 17) within the extant species range were registered. Few eels were observed at each facility, precluding proponents from effectively evaluating the facilities’ effects. Mitigation actions following BMPs were only implemented for eel out-migration at three facilities. Half of the registered facilities implemented effectiveness monitoring, but experimental designs did not follow best practices and standards. To improve this proponent-driven approach, regulators could reduce ambiguity in regulation language and provide clearer, quantitative requirements for facility registration, effects monitoring, mitigation actions, and effectiveness monitoring. Proponents could improve monitoring efforts to establish species occurrence and generate baseline data to measure facility effects and mitigation action effectiveness. - OPEN ACCESS
- Morgan L. Piczak,
- Jill L. Brooks,
- Brittany Bard,
- Christian J. Bihun,
- Andrew Howarth,
- Amanda L. Jeanson,
- Luc LaRochelle,
- Joseph R. Bennett,
- Nicolas W. R. Lapointe,
- Nicholas E. Mandrak, and
- Steven J. Cooke
A seminal report by Peter H. Pearse (1988; Rising to the Challenge: A New Policy for Canada’s Freshwater Fisheries, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa) outlined 62 policy recommendations focused on the management of Canada’s inland fisheries. Over three decades later, freshwater ecosystems and inland fisheries in Canada are still facing similar challenges with many emerging ones that could not have been foreseen. Here, we reflect on the contemporary relevance of the Pearse Report and propose recommendations that policy makers should consider. Broadly, our recommendations are: (1) manage fishes, fisheries, and habitat using a holistic co-management framework, with clearly defined fishery jurisdictions and partnerships with Indigenous governments; (2) engage in transparent, inclusive, and agile research to support decision-making; (3) facilitate knowledge co-production, involving interdisciplinary projects with diverse groups of actors and sectors including Indigenous Peoples, anglers, policy makers, scientists/researchers, governments, and the public; (4) embrace technological advances to support freshwater fisheries stock assessment and management; and (5) align policy and management activities in Canada with global initiatives related to increasing the sustainability of inland fisheries. We advocate for an updated comprehensive report such as the Pearse Report to ensure that we embrace robust, inclusive, and sustainable management strategies and policies for Canada’s inland fisheries for the next 30 years. It is time to again rise to the challenge. - OPEN ACCESS
- Delon Omrow,
- Michelle Anagnostou,
- Phillip Cassey,
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Sheldon Jordan,
- Andrea E. Kirkwood,
- Timothy MacNeill,
- Tanner Mirrlees,
- Isabel Pedersen,
- Peter Stoett, and
- Michael F. Tlusty
International and transnational cooperation is needed to strengthen environmental governance initiatives with advanced technologies. In January 2023, Ontario Tech University hosted a symposium entitled Tech With a Green Governance Conscience: Exploring the Technology–Environmental Policy Nexus. Attendees spanned diverse disciplines, sectors, and countries, bringing unique and diverse perspectives to the technology–environmental policy nexus. Emergent themes arising from the symposium include the role of artificial intelligence in environmental governance, while eliminating the detrimental social impacts associated with these advanced technologies via algorithmic bias, misunderstanding, and unaccountability. The symposium explored the tech–society–ecology interface, such as the authoritarian intensification of digitalized environmental governance, “technocracy”, and the ethical implications of sacrificing democratic legitimacy in the face of imminent environmental destruction. Select participants (i.e., co-authors) at the symposium provided input on a preliminary framework, which led to this perspective article focused on the politics surrounding green governance in the 21st century. We conclude that while emerging technologies are being deployed to address grand environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion, the use of these various technologies for progressive environmental policy development and enforcement requires co-productivist approaches to constructive technology assessments and embracing the concept of technologies of humility. This necessitates a space for dialogue, reflection, and deliberation on leading adaptive environmental governance in the face of power and politics, as we interrogate the putative neutrality of advanced technology and techno-solutionism.