Effective policy and decision-making rely on the integration of scientific evidence into governance frameworks. In this post, we explore the role that research-based information can play in shaping environmental policy. Translating research into actionable knowledge for policymakers faces many challenges due to persistent knowledge-action gaps. Gaps occur when knowledge that is produced is difficult to access, interpret, or implement, and, therefore, is often not used to inform policy (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024; Bennett et al., 2022; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 2024). The knowledge-action gap highlights the need for open-access publications, timely research, and alignment with policy priorities (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024; Bennett et al., 2022; FAO, 2024). Our objective in this post is to outline how scientific information is characterized, how it differs from other forms of knowledge, and how it is published and utilized in policymaking. Through examination of conservation efforts and the integration of social science methodologies into traditional scientific approaches, we highlight the complexities of applying scientific research in governance.
Best practices for producing actionable knowledge: Co-producing knowledge
Practices to produce actionable knowledge include interdisciplinary research and co-production of knowledge, which involves collaborations between researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and local communities to ensure research is relevant and applicable to decision making.
An interdisciplinary research approach is well-suited to produce actionable knowledge that can inform conservation policy during three decision-making phases: planning, doing, and learning (Bennet et al., 2022). According to Bennett et al. (2022), an interdisciplinary approach to “planning” involves designing conservation strategies that align with local demographics, knowledge systems, and stakeholder dynamics. Interdisciplinary perspectives can be incorporated into decisions at the “doing” phase, where research focuses on policy implementation, governance structures, and decision-making processes. Interdisciplinary researchers can also contribute to decisions at the end of a policy process by emphasizing “learning,” such as by monitoring outcomes, integrating traditional knowledge, and adapting strategies to refine ecological and social outcomes, thereby creating a continuous feedback loop for policy improvement.
Integrating Indigenous and local knowledge into conservation and resource management is also crucial to broaden decision-making beyond natural science perspectives (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024). Rooted in deep environmental relationships, Indigenous knowledge complements Western research, strengthening decision-making through multiple generations of place-based learning. Indigenous and local knowledge can contribute to strong decision-making by adding context-based learning, and ensuring the decisions reflect the needs and priorities of local communities. In Canada, this approach aligns with broader themes of Indigenous self-determination, reconciliation, and federal commitments.
In order to improve interdisciplinary approaches to decision-making, expanding knowledge exchange beyond academic publications is essential. Social and natural sciences, as well as local and Indigenous knowledges should be brought together to inform holistic, sustainable policy solutions (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024; Bennett et al., 2022; FAO, 2024). Arseneault-Deraps et al. (2024) also highlight training early-career researchers in policy engagement as a long-term strategy for strengthening collaboration between scientific and policy communities.
Challenges in science-based decision-making
Barriers continue to hinder the integration of scientific knowledge into policy. Institutional resistance is a major challenge, as bureaucratic structures and political priorities can impede the adoption of research-based recommendations. Policymakers may feel reluctant to embrace new approaches due to risk aversion or concerns about political feasibility or social stigma (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024). Additionally, Arseneault-Deraps et al. (2024) highlight resource constraints like limited funding and lack of institutional capacity as obstacles for knowledge exchange initiatives. Policymakers may recognize scientific research’s value but lack the funding and human resources to implement evidence-based recommendations.
Another challenge is time misalignment between scientific research and policy needs. Policymakers often require rapid responses to immediate challenges, whereas scientific research typically follows longer timelines, requiring careful data collection and validation. Multidisciplinary research, particularly, relies on relationship building with stakeholders and developing trust as a necessary aspect of meaningful collaboration (Aresneault-Deraps et al., 2024). This time discrepancy between policymaking and research can complicate the incorporation of scientific findings into timely policy intervention.
Furthermore, conflicting knowledge systems increase tensions between policymakers, scientists, and other stakeholders. As noted above, integration of the valuable perspectives of Indigenous and local knowledge can improve the policymaking process (Bennett et al., 2022). Yet, policymakers may hesitate to adopt interdisciplinary methods due to uncertainties in translating qualitative data into policy frameworks.
Strengthening science-policy interfaces (SPIs)
In order to bridge the gap between science and policy in practice, researchers have highlighted several key principles that enhance effectiveness (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024; Bennett et al., 2022; FAO, 2024). First, fostering credibility in research is essential, and policymakers should prioritize the use of rigorous, peer-reviewed research and transparency in data collection. Bennett et al. (2022) emphasize the value of bringing diverse knowledge systems into decision-making to enhance the legitimacy of policy decisions, showing how qualitative research strengthens SPIs by integrating stakeholder narratives and traditional ecological knowledge into conservation governance. Legitimacy fosters inclusive decision-making, with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2024) emphasizing how Indigenous and local knowledge improves policy effectiveness. Researchers should be prepared to tailor their research to the policy needs, because relevance ensures research aligns with policy priorities and timelines. Interactivity enables continuous feedback and adaptation. Policies must evolve with new data, stakeholder input, and shifting conditions. Strengthening SPIs through these principles fosters more adaptive, evidence-based policymaking.
Limitations of the reviewed literature
The literature we examined did not include real-world case studies that demonstrate successful application of SPIs. Concrete examples of policy failures or successes would have further illustrated the importance of SPIs. The generalized nature of the recommendations presented in the readings suggested broad solutions applicable across different sectors. More specific, sector-focused strategies would be beneficial for addressing unique policy challenges in fisheries, conservation, and other domains (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024; Bennett et al., 2022; FAO, 2024).
Additionally, the readings did not fully explore political considerations regarding the role of lobbying, ideological influences, and power dynamics in shaping policy decisions. While they acknowledged institutional barriers, they did not delve deeply into how political agendas can either facilitate or obstruct the adoption of research-based policies (Aresneault-Deraps et al., 2024; Bennett et al., 2022; FAO, 2024). Although Bennett et al. (2022) provided a comprehensive theoretical framework for integrating social science into conservation policy, they do not fully explore the political dimensions of decision-making. Their study highlights institutional and governance challenges but doesn’t meaningfully address how political agendas, lobbying efforts, or economic interests shape conservation policies. Future research could build on these findings by examining how interdisciplinary conservation models are implemented in practice and identify strategies to navigate these complexities.
Key takeaways
Four key takeaways emerged from the discussion in our class seminar on this subject. First, collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches enhance the impact of research on policy. By engaging multiple stakeholders and combining different knowledge systems, policies can be more comprehensive and effective by contributing to the credibility, relevance, legitimacy and interactivity of research. Second, institutional, resource, and time-related constraints pose significant barriers to evidence-based decision-making. Addressing these barriers often requires structural reforms and increased investment in knowledge translation initiatives. Third, science-policy interfaces must balance credibility, relevance, and legitimacy, to be effective. Ensuring that research is scientifically sound, timely, inclusive, and adaptable will improve its policy impact. Finally, policymakers and researchers need more structured frameworks for continuous engagement and knowledge exchange. Formal mechanisms for collaboration, such as policy advisory panels or science-policy networks, can strengthen the integration of research into decision-making (FAO, 2024).
Conclusion
All three articles emphasize the need for a holistic approach to environmental research, recognizing that scientists, policymakers, and communities are integral to the ecosystems they study (Aresneault-Deraps et al., 2024; Bennett et al., 2022; FAO, 2024). These papers highlight the importance of contextualizing conservation efforts by incorporating social science and relevant stakeholders to generate generalizable knowledge and novel insights that can transform collective thinking and inform policy design. Additionally, these studies stress the necessity of reflecting on biases, acknowledging limitations, and fostering institutional buy-in to legitimize research and maintain conservation as a policy priority at both regional and global levels.
References
Arseneault-Deraps, C., Davis, R., MacLeod, M. E. C., Wilson, E., Aubrey, B., Goodenough, A., Madden, J. C., Adeli, K. A., Cvitanovic, C., Young, N., Hinderer, J. M., Nyboer, E. A., Nguyen, V. M., Piczak, M. L., & Cooke, S. J. (2024). Best practices for producing actionable knowledge to inform fisheries management and conservation. Environmental Biology of Fishes. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-024-01591-6
Bennett, N. J., Dodge, M., Akre, T. S., Canty, S. W. J., Chiaravalloti, R., Dayer, A. A., Deichmann, J. L., Gill, D., McField, M., McNamara, J., Murphy, S. E., Nowakowski, A. J., & Songer, M. (2022). Social science for conservation in working landscapes and seascapes. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 3, 954930. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2022.954930
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2024 [Updated 9 January 2025]). Guidance on strengthening national science policy. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd3125en
Authors: Deanna Manolakos, Muhammad Ibrahim Bin Tariq, and Chloe Fine
This blog post is part of a series of posts authored by students in the graduate course “Information in Public Policy and Decision Making” offered at Dalhousie University.
Tags: Information Use & Influence; Public Policy & Decision-Making; Science-Policy Interface; Student Submission
