Summary: Evidence‐based policy requires researchers to provide the answers to ecological questions that are of interest to policy makers. To find out what those questions are in the UK, representatives from 28 organizations involved in policy, together with scientists from 10 academic institutions, were asked to generate a list of questions from their organizations. During a 2‐day workshop the initial list of 1003 questions generated from consulting at least 654 policy makers and academics was used as a basis for generating a short list of 100 questions of significant policy relevance. Short‐listing was decided on the basis of the preferences of the representatives from the policy‐led organizations. The areas covered included most major issues of environmental concern in the UK, including agriculture, marine fisheries, climate change, ecosystem function and land management. The most striking outcome was the preference for general questions rather than narrow ones. The reason is that policy is driven by broad issues rather than specific ones. In contrast, scientists are frequently best equipped to answer specific questions. This means that it may be necessary to extract the underpinning specific question before researchers can proceed. Synthesis and applications. Greater communication between policy makers and scientists is required in order to ensure that applied ecologists are dealing with issues in a way that can feed into policy. It is particularly important that applied ecologists emphasize the generic value of their work wherever possible.

We review the conservation issues facing migratory shorebird populations that breed in temperate regions and use wetlands in the non‐breeding season. Shorebirds are excellent model organisms for understanding ecological, behavioural and evolutionary processes and are often used as indicators of wetland health. A global team of experienced shorebird researchers identified 45 issues facing these shorebird populations, and divided them into three categories (natural, current anthropogenic and future issues). The natural issues included megatsunamis, volcanoes and regional climate changes, while current anthropogenic threats encompassed agricultural intensification, conversion of tidal flats and coastal wetlands by human infrastructure developments and eutrophication of coastal systems. Possible future threats to shorebirds include microplastics, new means of recreation and infectious diseases. We suggest that this review process be broadened to other taxa to aid the identification and ranking of current and future conservation actions.

Summary: 1. The conservation of biodiversity depends upon both policy and regulatory frameworks. Here, we identify priority policy developments that would support conservation in the UK in the light of technological developments, changes in knowledge or environmental change. 2. A team of seven representatives from governmental organizations, 17 from non‐governmental organizations and six academics provided an assessment of the priority issues. The representatives consulted widely and identified a long‐list of 117 issues. 3. Following voting and discussion during a 2‐day meeting, these were reduced to a final list of 25 issues and their potential policy options and research needs were identified. Many of the policies related to recent changes in approaches to conservation, such as increased interest in ecosystem services, adaptation to climate change and landscape ecology. 4. We anticipate that this paper will be useful for policy makers, nature conservation delivery agencies, the research community and conservation policy advocates. 5. Although many of the options have global significance, we suggest that other countries consider an equivalent exercise. We recommend that such an exercise be carried out in the UK at regular intervals, say every 5 years, to explore how biodiversity conservation can best be supported by linked policy development and research in a changing world. 6. Synthesis and applications. Opportunities for policy development were prioritized and for each of the top 25 we identified the current context, policy options and research questions. These largely addressed new issues relating to developing topics such as ecosystem services, landscape planning and nanotechnology. We envisage that this will largely be used by researchers wishing to make a contribution to potential policy debates.

Natural flood management (NFM) techniques attract much interest in flood risk management science, not least because their effectiveness remains subject to considerable uncertainty, particularly at larger catchment and event scales. This derives from a paucity of empirical studies which can offer either longitudinal or comparison data sets in which changes can be observed. The Eddleston catchment study, with 13 stream gauges operated continuously over 9 years, is based on both longitudinal and comparison data sets. Two years of baseline monitoring have been followed by 7 years of further monitoring after a range of NFM interventions across the 69 km²catchment. This study has examined changes in lag as an index of hydrological response which avoids dependence on potentially significant uncertainties in flow data. Headwater catchments up to 26 km²showed significant delays in lag of 2.6–7.3 hr in catchments provided with leaky wood structures, on‐line ponds and riparian planting, while larger catchments downstream and those treated with riparian planting alone did not. Two control catchments failed to show any such changes. The findings provide important evidence of the catchment scale at which NFM can be effective and suggest that effects may increase with event magnitude.

Presented as a panacea for the problems of environmental management, ‘participation’ conceals competing frames of meaning. ‘Ladders of participation’ explain insufficiently why public engagement is often limited to consultation, even within so-called higher level partnerships. To explain how participation is shaped to produce more or less symmetric exchanges in processes of deliberation, this article distinguishes between (1) discourses/practices , (2) frames and (3) power effects . This article’s empirical focus is the experience of participatory catchment organisations and their central but under-researched role in integrated catchment management. In addition to an analysis of policy statements and other relevant documents, this article draws on qualitative interview and participant-observation data gathered in an international participatory knowledge exchange that we facilitated among four participatory catchment organisations (and various other agencies). Results suggest that while statements about legislation promise symmetric engagements, the mechanics of legislation frame participation as asymmetric consultation. In their own arenas, participatory catchment organisations deploy participation within a framework of grassroots democracy, but when they engage in partnership with government, participation is reshaped by at least four competing frames: (1) representative democracy , which admits, yet captures, the public’s voice; (2) professionalisation , which can exclude framings that facilitate more symmetric engagement; (3) statutory requirements , which hybridise participatory catchment organisations to deliver government agendas and (4) evidence-based decision-making , which tends to maintain knowledge hierarchies. Nevertheless, participatory catchment organisations proved capable of reflecting on their capture. We thus conclude that the co-production of science and society, and the power effects of framing, must become explicit topics of discussion in processes of environmental policy deliberation for participation to result in more symmetric forms of public engagement.