| Popis: |
We hear about it all of the time - researchers are feeling the pressure to create actionable science. “Actionable science” is the gold standard; many researchers want their science to be used, after all. However, this push for actionable science commonly results in a few different results (or some combination of them): inflexible or non-adaptive timelines; on-the-ground projects that are difficult to afford; data that does not make sense for utilization at the scale for which it is being used; and more tools in an already-overflowing toolbox of information. There is a disconnect between researchers who are conducting valuable science that investigates resilience options and generates data to support resilience activities and the practitioners on the ground who are trying to utilize these data to increase their community's resilience within the context of their local needs. This disconnect is exacerbated by many factors including disparate timelines, distinct vocabulary, and lack of opportunities to build interpersonal networks and collaborations across the research to decision-maker continuum. However, with the need for actionable science it becomes more important than ever to bridge that gap and understand what makes research outcomes more likely to be applied. In order to understand this, we need to look at the realities that practitioners - professionals implementing resilience strategies, such as planning and zoning officials, natural resource managers, floodplain managers, and many more - face when working on resilience. This paper covers four key realities of resilience experienced by practitioners in coastal Gulf of Mexico and what is needed in terms of actionable science in order to overcome the challenges presented by these realities. Specific examples are incorporated to illustrate these concepts with realworld examples. |
