Specialists working in practical nature conservation and management (e.g. ecologists, biologists, forest scientists or foresters) depend on up-to-date knowledge on the protection of biodiversity and the conservation and restoration of habitats. However, the importance of different information sources and whether practitioners really use these sources of information for their work in nature conservation are largely unknown. Knowing the information sources used in conservation practice will improve the exchange and information flow between science and practice and should help to overcome the science-praxis gap in nature conservation. We therefore conducted a survey to identify the information sources used by specialists in nature conservation in general, and in the forest sector in particular. By this, we could detect potential gaps in knowledge transfer. The survey was carried out online with national, cantonal and local practitioners in nature conservation in Switzerland.

Our results show that practitioners in nature conservation use a wide range of information sources. Experience-based information sources (e.g. personal experience, conversations with colleagues and field trips) are more important than evidence-based information sources (e.g. fact sheets, specialized journals in national languages or international scientific journals). Therefore, it is especially important that scientists engage as experts, offer field trips and reserve time for personal contact and exchange with practitioners.

Articles in international scientific journals are very rarely read by practitioners. Articles in specialized journals in national languages, fact sheets or targeted books are more often, but not regularly used by practitioners. The internet and Google-Search play an important role for the searching of information. The extent to which different sources of information are used depends on a variety of factors, such as the position (e.g. authority, consulting office, practical application), the degree of formation, the language and, in particular, the sector in which practitioners work: practitioners working on forest habitats and biodiversity use different sources of information than practitioners focusing on open land or aquatic ecosystems. However, available working time or, in other words, an ubiquitous lack of time, plays an important role in whether information is read and used by practitioners. Short, field-specific, targeted and multilingual presentation of information in synthetizing publications or in specialized websites should improve the exchange with practitioners in diverse areas of nature conservation. Our report shows options to reduce the gap between science and practice in nature conservation.