Applied Filters
- Perspective
Journal Title
Topics
- Integrative Sciences61
- Conservation and Sustainability32
- Science and Policy24
- Science and Society21
- Biological and Life Sciences12
- Ecology and Evolution9
- Earth and Environmental Sciences8
- Public Health7
- Ethics6
- Science Communication6
- Science Education5
- Marine and Aquatic Sciences4
- Biomedical and Health Sciences3
- Geosciences3
- Atmospheric and Climate Sciences2
- Data Science2
- Epidemiology2
- Research Data Management2
- Zoology2
- Engineering, Technology, and Mathematics1
- Mental Health1
- Microbiology1
- Plant and Agricultural Sciences1
- Technology1
Publication Date
Author
- Cooke, Steven J10
- Bennett, Joseph R5
- Cooke, S J3
- Loring, Philip A3
- Beazley, Karen F2
- Copes-Gerbitz, Kelsey2
- Daniels, Lori D2
- Dickson-Hoyle, Sarah2
- Dufour-Beauséjour, Sophie2
- Ford, Adam T2
- Fortin, Marie-Josée2
- Hoffman, Kira M2
- Jacob, Aerin L2
- Lapointe, Nicolas W R2
- Littlechild, Danika Billie2
- Mauro, Nicholas2
- Nguyen, Vivian M2
- Pither, Richard2
- Abrams, Alice E I1
- Adamson, S1
- Ahenakew, Cash1
- Ahmed, M M M1
- Aiken, Alice1
- Aitken, Sally1
- Akeju, Tolutope1
Access Type
61 - 66of66
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 (66) | 22 Jul 2024 |
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESS
- Catherine Potvin,
- Divya Sharma,
- Irena Creed,
- Sally Aitken,
- François Anctil,
- Elena Bennett,
- Fikret Berkes,
- Steven Bernstein,
- Nathalie Bleau,
- Alain Bourque,
- Bryson Brown,
- Sarah Burch,
- James Byrne,
- Ashlee Cunsolo,
- Ann Dale,
- Deborah de Lange,
- Bruno Dyck,
- Martin Entz,
- José Etcheverry,
- Rosine Faucher,
- Adam Fenech,
- Lauchlan Fraser,
- Irene Henriques,
- Andreas Heyland,
- Matthew Hoffmann,
- George Hoberg,
- Meg Holden,
- Gordon Huang,
- Aerin L. Jacob,
- Sebastien Jodoin,
- Alison Kemper,
- Marc Lucotte,
- Roxane Maranger,
- Liat Margolis,
- Ian Mauro,
- Jeffrey McDonnell,
- James Meadowcroft,
- Christian Messier,
- Martin Mkandawire,
- Catherine Morency,
- Normand Mousseau,
- Ken Oakes,
- Sarah Otto,
- Pamela Palmater,
- Taysha Sharlene Palmer,
- Dominique Paquin,
- Anthony Perl,
- André Potvin,
- Howard Ramos,
- Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne,
- Natalie Richards,
- John Robinson,
- Stephen Sheppard,
- Suzanne Simard,
- Brent J. Sinclair,
- Natalie Slawinski,
- Mark Stoddart,
- Marc-André Villard,
- Claude Villeneuve, and
- Tarah Wright
This perspective documents current thinking around climate actions in Canada by synthesizing scholarly proposals made by Sustainable Canada Dialogues (SCD), an informal network of scholars from all 10 provinces, and by reviewing responses from civil society representatives to the scholars’ proposals. Motivated by Canada’s recent history of repeatedly missing its emissions reduction targets and failing to produce a coherent plan to address climate change, SCD mobilized more than 60 scholars to identify possible pathways towards a low-carbon economy and sustainable society and invited civil society to comment on the proposed solutions. This perspective illustrates a range of Canadian ideas coming from many sectors of society and a wealth of existing inspiring initiatives. Solutions discussed include climate change governance, low-carbon transition, energy production, and consumption. This process of knowledge synthesis/creation is novel and important because it provides a working model for making connections across academic fields as well as between academia and civil society. The process produces a holistic set of insights and recommendations for climate change actions and a unique model of engagement. The different voices reported here enrich the scope of possible solutions, showing that Canada is brimming with ideas, possibilities, and the will to act. - OPEN ACCESSConservation interventions can keep critically endangered species from going extinct and stabilize threatened populations. The species-specific, case-by-case approaches and small sample sizes inherent to applied conservation measures are not well suited to scientific evaluations of outcomes. Debates about whether a method “works” become entrenched in a vote-counting framework. Furthermore, population-level replication is rare but necessary for disentangling the effects of an intervention from other drivers of population change. Turtle headstarting is a conservation tool that has attracted strong opinions but little robust data. Logistical limitations, such as those imposed by the long lives of turtles, have slowed experimental evaluation and constrained the use of replication or experimental controls. Headstarting project goals vary among projects and stakeholders, and success is not always explicitly defined. To facilitate robust evaluations, we provide direction for data collection and reporting to guide the application of conservation interventions in logistically challenging systems. We offer recommendations for standardized data collection that allow their valuable results to contribute to the development of best practices, regardless of the magnitude of the project. An evidence-based and collaborative approach will lead to improved program design and reporting, and will facilitate constructive evaluation of interventions both within and among conservation programs.
- OPEN ACCESSPolicy-makers are confronted with complex problems that require evaluating multiple streams of evidence and weighing competing interests to develop and implement solutions. However, the policy interventions available to resolve these problems have different levels of supporting scientific evidence. Decision-makers, who are not necessarily scientifically trained, may favour policies with limited scientific backing to obtain public support. We illustrate these tensions with two case studies where the scientific consensus went up against the governing parties’ chosen policy. What mechanisms exist to keep the weight of scientific evidence at the forefront of decision-making at the highest levels of government? In this paper, we propose that Canada create “Departmental Chief Science Advisors” (DCSAs), based on a program in the UK, to help complement and extend the reach of the newly created Chief Science Advisor position. DCSAs would provide advice to ministers and senior civil servants, critically evaluate scientific work in their host department, and provide public outreach for the department’s science. We show how the DCSAs could be integrated into their departments and illustrate their potential benefits to the policy making process and the scientific community.
- OPEN ACCESSWe have applied a Bauhaus design lens to inform a visual conceptual framework for a rational mental health care system. We believe that Canada’s healthcare system can often be fragmented and does not always allow for service delivery to easily meet patient care needs. Within our proposed framework, the form of services provided follows patient- and healthcare-centred needs. The framework is also informed by the ethics and values of social responsibility, population health, and principles of quality of care. We review evidence for this framework (based on need, acuity, risk, service intensity, and provider level) and describe patient care pathways from intake/triage to three patient-centred tiers of care: (1) primary care (low needs), (2) acute ambulatory transitional care (moderate needs), and (3) acute hospital and complex care (high needs). Within each tier, various models of care are organized from low to high service intensity as informed by reports from the British Columbia Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization. We hope that our model may help to better conceptualize and organize our mental health care system and help providers clarify roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities to improve quality of care.
- OPEN ACCESSHuman well-being depends on the health of ecosystems, but can human well-being also be an indicator of ecosystem health, and perhaps even sustainability? Research shows that ecosystem health and human well-being are often mutually reinforcing, whether in the direction of wellness and sustainability or poverty and degradation. However, while well-being is increasingly recognized as an important consideration when managing ecosystems, human needs and activities are often still thought of only in terms of their negative impacts on ecosystems. In this essay, we explore the proposition that there can be a mutually constitutive relationship between people’s well-being and the health of ecosystems, and discuss what such a relationship would mean for expanding the use of human well-being indicators in ecosystem-based management. Specifically, we discuss two areas of theory: ecosocial theory from social epidemiology and the marginalization–degradation thesis in political ecology; collectively, these provide a justification, in certain circumstances at least, for thinking of well-being as not just an add-on in natural resource management but as an indicator of ecosystem health and a prerequisite of social-ecological sustainability. We conclude with a discussion of future research needs to further explore how human well-being and ecosystem health interact.
- 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.