CLOSE
Advanced searchCitation search
Suggested Terms:
Skip main navigation

Search Result

1 - 15of15
per page:
Relevance
Filters

You do not have any saved searches

  • OPEN ACCESS
    Necessary but challenging: Multiple disciplinary approaches to solving conservation problems
    FACETS • Vol. 1 • pp. 67 - 82
    Contemporary 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
    Taxonomic bias and international biodiversity conservation research
    FACETS • Vol. 1 • pp. 105 - 113
    While greater research on threatened species alone cannot ensure their protection, understanding taxonomic bias may be helpful to address knowledge gaps in order to identify research directions and inform policy. Using data for over 10 000 animal species listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, we investigated taxonomic and geographic biodiversity conservation research trends worldwide. We found extreme bias in conservation research effort on threatened vertebrates compared with lesser-studied invertebrates in both terrestrial and aquatic habitats at a global scale. Based on an analysis of common threats affecting vertebrates and invertebrates, we suggest a path forward for narrowing the research gap between threatened vertebrates and invertebrates.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Correction: Necessary but challenging: Multiple disciplinary approaches to solving conservation problems
    FACETS • Vol. 2 • pp. 476
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Diverse perspectives on interdisciplinarity from Members of the College of the Royal Society of Canada
    FACETS • Vol. 5 • No. 1 • pp. 138 - 165
    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
    Open government data and environmental science: a federal Canadian perspective
    FACETS • Vol. 5 • No. 1 • pp. 942 - 962
    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
    Fixing the Canadian Species at Risk Act: identifying major issues and recommendations for increasing accountability and efficiency
    FACETS • Vol. 6 • pp. 1474 - 1494
    Since the implementation of the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2003, deficiencies in SARA and its application have become clear. Legislative and policy inconsistencies among responsible federal agencies and the use of a subjective approach for prioritizing species protection lead to taxonomic biases in protection. Variations in legislation among provinces/territories and the reluctance of the federal government to take actions make SARA’s application often inefficient on nonfederally managed lands. Ambiguous key terms (e.g., critical habitat) and disregard for legislated deadlines in many steps impede the efficacy of SARA. Additionally, the failure to fully recognize Indigenous knowledge and to seek Indigenous cooperation in the species protection process leads to weaker government accountability, promotes inequity, and leads to missed opportunities for partnerships. New legislative amendments with well-defined and standardized steps, including an automatic listing process, a systematic prioritization program, and clearer demands (e.g., mandatory threshold to trigger safety net/emergency order) would improve the success of species at risk protection. Moreover, a more inclusive approach that brings Indigenous representatives and independent scientists together is necessary for improving SARA’s effectiveness. These changes have the potential to transform SARA into a more powerful act towards protecting Canada’s at-risk wildlife. (The graphical abstract follows.)
  • OPEN ACCESS
    The state of Canada’s biosecurity efforts to protect biodiversity from species invasions
    FACETS • Vol. 6 • pp. 1922 - 1954
    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
    Assessing a proponent-driven process for endangered species threat mitigation: Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, American Eel, and hydropower
    FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 153 - 173
    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
    A more nuanced analysis of evidence-based decision-making by Canada’s protected area managers: a comment on Lemieux et al. (2021)
    FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 1 - 9
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Emerging issues for protected and conserved areas in Canada
    FACETS • Vol. 6 • pp. 1892 - 1921
    Horizon scanning is increasingly used in conservation to systematically explore emerging policy and management issues. We present the results of a horizon scan of issues likely to impact management of Canadian protected and conserved areas over the next 5–10 years. Eighty-eight individuals participated, representing a broad community of academics, government and nongovernment organizations, and foundations, including policymakers and managers of protected and conserved areas. This community initially identified 187 issues, which were subsequently triaged to 15 horizon issues by a group of 33 experts using a modified Delphi technique. Results were organized under four broad categories: (i) emerging effects of climate change in protected and conserved areas design, planning, and management (i.e., large-scale ecosystem changes, species translocation, fire regimes, ecological integrity, and snow patterns); (ii) Indigenous governance and knowledge systems (i.e., Indigenous governance and Indigenous knowledge and Western science); (iii) integrated conservation approaches across landscapes and seascapes (i.e., connectivity conservation, integrating ecosystem values and services, freshwater planning); and (iv) early responses to emerging cumulative, underestimated, and novel threats (i.e., management of cumulative impacts, declining insect biomass, increasing anthropogenic noise, synthetic biology). Overall, the scan identified several emerging issues that require immediate attention to effectively reduce threats, respond to opportunities, and enhance preparedness and capacity to react.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Revisiting the challenge: perspectives on Canada’s freshwater fisheries policies three decades after the Pearse Report
    FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 912 - 935
    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
    Ecological restoration research in Canada: who, what, where, when, why, and how?
    FACETS • Vol. 8 • pp. 1 - 11
    Much has been achieved by research into ecological restoration as a nature-based solution to the destruction of ecosystems, particularly in Canada. We conducted a national-level synthesis of Canadian restoration ecology research to understand strengths and gaps. This synthesis answers the following questions: Who is studying restoration? What ecosystem types are studied? Where is restoration studied? Which themes has restoration research focused on? Why is restoration happening? And how is restoration monitored and evaluated? We employed systematic searching for this review. Our results show that restoration research is conducted mainly by academics. Forest, peatland, grassland, and lake ecosystem types were the most commonly studied. There was a concentration of research in four provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia). Research into restoration has changed its thematic focus over time from reforestation to climate change. Legislation was the most common reason given for restoration. Restoration research frequently documented results of less than 5 years of monitoring and included one category of response variable (e.g., plant response but not animal response). Future research could investigate the outcomes of restoration prompted by legislation. At the dawn of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, this work demonstrates Canada's momentum and provides a model for synthesis in other countries.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Compliance and enforcement in a brave new (green) world: best practices and technologies for green governance
    FACETS • Vol. 9 • pp. 1 - 8
    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.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Assessing species at risk legislation across Canadian provinces and territories
    FACETS • Vol. 9 • pp. 1 - 18
    Canada’s provinces and territories govern species at risk across most of Canada, with the federal Species at Risk Act generally covering only aquatic species, migratory birds, and species living on federal land. More than a decade after a 2012 report by the environmental law charity Ecojustice on species at risk protection in Canada, we use the same criteria to evaluate the current state of provincial and territorial species at risk legislation, and we provide updates on changes in each jurisdiction since 2012. These criteria are as follows: whether at-risk species are being identified, whether these species are being protected, whether their habitat is being protected, and whether species recovery plans are being created and implemented. We find that there is considerable variation across jurisdictions, with shortcomings that result in inadequate protections for at-risk species, as well as strong components that should be adopted by all jurisdictions. We recommend seven key areas for improvement: dedicated and harmonized legislation, limited discretionary power, increased embrace of scientific and Indigenous knowledge, appropriate timelines for actions, reasonable exemptions to protections, habitat protection across land ownership types, and transparency throughout the process. We urge policymakers to address current shortcomings as they work toward meeting Canada’s biodiversity conservation commitments.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections
    FACETS • Vol. 9 • pp. 1 - 14
    This candid perspective written by scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds is intended to advance conversations about the realities of peer review and its inherent limitations. Trust in a process or institution is built slowly and can be destroyed quickly. Trust in the peer review process for scholarly outputs (i.e., journal articles) is being eroded by high-profile scandals, exaggerated news stories, exposés, corrections, retractions, and anecdotes about poor practices. Diminished trust in the peer review process has real-world consequences and threatens the uptake of critical scientific advances. The literature on “crises of trust” tells us that rebuilding diminished trust takes time and requires frank admission and discussion of problems, creative thinking that addresses rather than dismisses criticisms, and planning and enacting short- and long-term reforms to address the root causes of problems. This article takes steps in this direction by presenting eight peer review reality checks and summarizing efforts to address their weaknesses using a harm reduction approach, though we recognize that reforms take time and some problems may never be fully rectified. While some forms of harm reduction will require structural and procedural changes, we emphasize the vital role that training editors, reviewers, and authors has in harm reduction. Additionally, consumers of science need training about how the peer review process works and how to critically evaluate research findings. No amount of self-policing, transparency, or reform to peer review will eliminate all bad actors, unscrupulous publishers, perverse incentives that reward cutting corners, intentional deception, or bias. However, the scientific community can act to minimize the harms from these activities, while simultaneously (re)building the peer review process. A peer review system is needed, even if it is imperfect.