The knowledge (K) produced and used by a scientist, which includes theories, models, methodologies and empirical data, is important to inform decision-making and to plan management actions (McKinley et al., 2013; Roux et al., 2006; Wallace, 2012). By dealing with this knowledge, the scientist also establishes scientific practices (P), that is, know-how related to framing treatable research questions, gathering relevant information, and interpreting scientific contents (Johnson et al., 2002) that can be helpful to improve management actions. In addition, the scientist is usually concerned about epistemic virtues (V), including objectivity, neutrality, accuracy, and impartiality (Lacey, 1999). However, despite the epistemic values, the discipline of Conservation Biology, with which many scientists akin to environmental problems are involved, has to deal with difficulties of harmonizing scientific values and a conservation mission based on the assumption that biodiversity is good and must be conserved (Noss, 2007). Moreover, the socio-cultural values of individual scientists, developed along their own personal trajectory, influence their acts and ideas. Values are not usually explicit during communication, and their influences on self-conviction may even not be realized, but are usually in the middle of environmental debates (Sarewitz, 2004). Therefore, it is important for the manager to evaluate the ethical commitment with the norms of science in technical propositions of scientists in the management context, avoiding that scientific advocacy replaces democratic debate (Wallace, 2012) (Fig. 2, upper triangle).

Scientist's conceptions are usually available to managers indirectly through published material, such as papers, books (Hulme, 2014), and consulting reports, and also directly in private or public consulting activities (Fig. 2, arrow 1). However, the research institutional system rewards mainly communication and interactions (within the academy) and the production of papers published in English and in specialized journals, which inhibits possible initiatives to interact with managers (Acreman, 2005; Finch and Patton-Mallory, 1992) (Fig. 2, right upper gray arrow). Such lack of interaction precludes scientists in producing knowledge that considers the specificities of application contexts faced by managers (Knight et al., 2008; Pullin et al., 2004). Moreover, as resources to develop research projects usually come from funding agencies, only projects that are considered relevant by them are supported (Laudel, 2006). Although investments in applied research may exist, the evaluation of the scientist profile by agencies is usually based primarily on measures of communication with peers. Consequently, scientists are not encouraged to interact with applied sectors (McKinley et al., 2013). In addition, if peer reviewing of projects in agencies is accomplished by scientists trained to interact only inside the academy, they would be unable to properly evaluate the application impact of projects because they do not consider application issues, or they do it without recognizing actual application challenges (Knight et al., 2008). Although the scientist may recognize that the communication with managers is relevant (Roux et al., 2006), it may not rank high in his/her priorities due to those constraints, which in turn causes a lack of understanding about the implementation of challenges.

Manager's conceptions are essential to provide the scientist with a better understanding of application challenges (Kennedy, 1997; Knight et al., 2008). Managers work daily to elaborate, evaluate, and apply management actions under a usually complex, normative and legal framework. This results in the production of situated knowledge on environmental management (K). It usually remains tacit, but might be recorded in documents such as evaluation reports, rules and manuals (Hulme, 2014). Due to his/her work context, the manager develops practices (P) related to mediating conflicts of interests and managing situations in urgent contexts and during a lack of resources. Such know-how prepares a manager to make decisions and to deal with tricky situations. If the scientist perceives that contextual know-how, he/she would be able to understand challenges in management and would be to better contribute to solving them (Hulme, 2014). In addition, the manager works in contexts that involve distinct social, political, and economic interests, mediated by laws intended to provide guidelines to solve them. Such These kinds of context usually reveals conflicts of values (V) that should be negotiated: anthropocentric values, such as utilitarian, esthetic, and spiritual/religious, and environmental values, such as biocentric and ecocentric (Hull et al., 2003; Wallace, 2012). Moreover, as for the scientist and any other social actor, the manager's acts and ideas are influenced by their socio-cultural values. The acknowledgment of the wide specter of the values involved in decision-making is relevant for them to better contribute to this process (Wallace, 2012) (Fig. 2, bottom triangle).

In the decision-making process, the manager acts on problem identification, through elaboration and implementation. The potential influence of manager's conceptions on scientists usually occurs via direct interactions in consulting meetings and public audiences, or indirectly, through available technical documents (Fig. 2, arrow 2). The manager faces the upper level's constraints mainly from executive power (environmental sector) and the judiciary. Most of those constraints are legal requirements that are based on the regulatory context that is defined by legislation (Gregory et al., 2012). The manager action is also constrained by political and economic pressures related either to environmental social disputes or to the urgency and lack of resources (Fig. 2, left bottom gray arrow) (Hulme, 2014; Pullin et al., 2004). As a result, the manager may have to continuously make difficult decisions in situations of intense conflict with too short of a notice (Pullin et al., 2004; Roux et al., 2006). Due to the immediacy of results and the high demands, the manager has time limitations that hinder efforts to improve his/her environmental conceptions by interacting with scientists and scientific production (Gregory et al., 2012; Pullin et al., 2004). Consequently, he/she usually continues to use a limited amount of sources, which are more easily accessed and understood, but lack scientific updates (Finch and Patton-Mallory, 1992).

Most of the literature analyzed claim that communication between scientist and manager are essential and stress that the relationship must be reciprocal and iterative (Groffman et al., 2010; Hulme, 2014). However, the majority of the discussion about constraints and solutions focus on a unidirectional influence of conceptions, in which the scientist improves the dissemination of scientific conceptions to the manager, and the manager enhances efforts to access and apply scientific conceptions. The literature which suggests that the task of improving a bidirectional flow of communication between manager and scientist is a shared responsibility (Finch and Patton-Mallory, 1992; Roux et al., 2006), also sustains that: (a) the scientist should make efforts to better understand practical problems and to publish applied research in an accessible and easily understandable format, and (b) the manager should make efforts to search and understand scientific publications and apply them to decision-making (Groffman et al., 2010; Knight et al., 2008). However, such solutions disregard the constraints at the institutional level, which limit individual's actions.

Solutions to overcome those limitations may take place at the individual level if we focus on the direct, rather than the indirect interactions between scientists and managers. Direct interaction is considered a fundamental tool to change conceptions because it may provide an easier and faster way to access each other's conceptions (Groffman et al., 2010). “Collaborative learning” between scientist and manager (Roux et al., 2006) can be achieved by establishing: (1) participative and collaborative projects in which both work together, from problem identification to elaboration and implementation; (2) educational activities that involves members from academy and from applied sectors and that focus on problem solving (Lewinsohn et al., 2015; Pardini et al., 2013). Collaborative enterprises can also be helpful to provide them with a better comprehension of their system of values (Minteer and Collins, 2005). That is fundamental because concepts and decisions are usually value-laden and the comprehension of values that drive their actions is crucial for improving decision-making (Hull et al., 2003; Lackey, 2001; Noss, 2007).

Science journalism aims at disseminating science and technology contents to all areas of the public. Thus, it is considered to be a bridge between academia and society (Baker et al., 2012; Bertolli-Filho, 2006; Maia and Gomes, 2008). In addition, the science journalist is considered to be an educator who allows the public to learn and understand science, which contributes to improving its environmental literacy (Allan, 2011; Bertolli-Filho, 2006; Caldas, 2004). To adequately inform other people about scientific subjects related to the environment, the science journalist must be well-informed on the subject and be able to translate science conceptions appropriately to a journalistic format (Baker et al., 2012; Berkowitz et al., 2005; Brewer, 2006). Therefore, the scientist plays an important role in providing scientific conceptions to the journalist (Caldas, 2004; Geller et al., 2005).

The scientist produces scientific knowledge (K) that is relevant to educating the science journalist (Maia and Gomes, 2008; Rublescki, 2009). Moreover, he/she has know-how for searching relevant information and understanding the scientific content available in the usual scientific format (P), which is essential to improve the ability of the journalist to understand the content (Fioravanti, 2015). This production of scientific knowledge (K) and practice (P) occurs in a system of values that involves epistemic and non-epistemic values (V), as we explained before (Fig. 2, upper triangle). Those conceptions are available to science journalists through the published material, but also directly through interviews (Fig. 2, arrow 3). However, as discussed in the previous section, the scientist's institutional system usually evaluates the scientist based on the quantity and quality of his/her communication with peers (Fig. 2, right upper gray arrow). Consequently, he/she puts more effort into that goal than in communicating scientific findings to a broader audience (Rublescki, 2009), although the latter kind of effort would help journalists to better understand scientific subjects. One consequence of that lack of stimulus in communicating with the general public is that the scientist is not trained to communicate properly with the media (Fioravanti, 2015). In addition, the scientist is usually concerned that the journalist may misstate or oversimplify his/her work and therefore, may avoid communicating with journalists what reinforces his/her inability to communicate effectively (Cavalcanti, 1995). Despite that pressure from the institutional system, scientists still engage and communicate with the public by comprehending and enjoying the importance of their participation in influencing the public understanding of science (Dunwoody et al., 1993). Yuan et al. (2017) highlighted that communication efforts and training among scientists has increased, however, the one-way communication from scientists to the public is still dominant. The scientist usually does not know how to distinguish audiences and fails to communicate their conceptions (Yuan et al., 2017). Science journalist's conceptions hold journalistic knowledge (K), such that the development of scientific divulgation and popularization, and practices (P) that are relevant to improve scientist's ability, reach other areas of the public. Moreover, both are embedded in journalistic values that include objectivity (Pihl-Thingvad, 2015) and neutrality (Albagli, 1996; Rublescki, 2009), as well as socio-cultural values (V) (Firmstone, 2008) (Fig. 2, bottom right triangle). The journalist conceptions are usually available to the scientist directly through interviews and indirectly through media products on television, newspapers, internet, and others (Fig. 2, arrow 4). From the institutional level, journalist's actions are constrained by media companies and their editorial interests (Firmstone, 2008), which sometimes involves political and economic values (Bueno, 2010). Even though a journalist claims to be driven by epistemic values, such as neutrality and objectivity, those constraints make it difficult to keep these values (Firmstone, 2008). In addition, editorial constraints impose a sense of immediacy to the journalist that compels him/her to publish in a short amount of time, what prevents them to put enough effort into properly adapting the science content to a journalistic format (Deuze, 2005). (Fig. 2, right gray arrow).

Solutions within the individual levels have also been proposed, including efforts from the scientist to understand the importance of science communication and develop more popular projects, and efforts from science journalist to be science (and environmental) literate and consequently, to be able to publish more relevant issues for science education (Amorim and Massarani, 2009; Bertolli-Filho, 2006; Nascimento, 2008). Collaborative science divulgation projects that help to improve the communication between them may be considered a fruitful strategy because the work helps these groups to overcome cultural, social and language barriers (Groffman et al., 2010). For instance, Caldas (2004) developed a project in a course in the science journalism graduate program at the University of the State of São Paulo at Campinas (UNICAMP) that involved collaborative work between journalists and scientists to produce an electronic journal. She stated that the project allows scientists and journalists to identify the advantages and challenges of working together. The students said that it was possible to understand how fundamental collaborative work is in order to understand each other's particularities caused by distinct cultural contexts. That project also showed that the relationship among journalists and scientists has improved, but still has important challenges to overcome.

By applying these solutions, the science journalist could become environmentally literate and more capable of writing about science. This would help him/her to improve citizen environmental literacy (Baker et al., 2012; Berkowitz et al., 2005). In addition, scientists must be more engaged in science dissemination and in communicating with journalists. Other solutions include ‘media training’, which prepares the scientist to communicate. For instance, interviews and projects may be useful to help journalists to better understand production in science (Fioravanti, 2015).

The literature related to the research traditions evaluated here does not cover directly the relationship between the manager and the science journalist. Even though both hold conceptions that may improve the decision-making process. Manager's conceptions are fundamental to the science journalist because they provide him/her with an understanding of environmental management. Hence, a literate science journalist should be capable to understand better the environmental situations, and make useful and contextualized complaints about problems and negligence. In addition, he/she should be capable of writing about exemplary environmental achievements (Baker et al., 2012).

The manager has knowledge (K) and practices (P), regarding the environmental management context (Hulme, 2014), that can help science journalist to understand the process, its priorities, and to judge what relevant material should be communicated to the citizens. The system of values (V) that involves the manager is entangled by the distinct interests involved in the decision-making process, as well as by their own personal values (Hull et al., 2003; Minteer and Collins, 2005; Wallace, 2012) (Fig. 2, bottom left triangle). The influence of the manager's conception of the science journalist happens indirectly via management project reports, models, and frameworks developed, indirectly and directly, through interviews (Fig. 2, arrow 6).

Due to institutional constraints, the manager usually has a large demand for projects and limited time to develop and implement them (Pullin et al., 2004). He/she usually has to face political and economic pressures, which sometimes involves institutional’ interests (Kagan et al., 2003; Rothenberg, 2007). Hence, the interaction with the journalist usually is not a priority to him/her (Fig. 2, left bottom gray arrow). Because of these pressures, which are usually complex, the manager may avoid communicating the projects’ planning and goals to a large audience.

Science journalist's conceptions include journalistic knowledge and scientific content (K) (Bertolli-Filho, 2006). The manager may want to access ecological information that is useful for management. However, the deficit of ecological useful updates is kept due to the challenges to access and understand the scientific knowledge, in the way that it is produced today (Knight et al., 2008; Pullin et al., 2004). Even with the efforts from scientists to make their findings more comprehensible, and to reach a wider public, environmental professionals need alternative ways to reach the scientific updates (Groffman et al., 2010; Pullin et al., 2004). Considering that the scientific journalism should be easy to read and understand, and considering that it should be integrated with other content (Bertolli-Filho, 2006; Maia and Gomes, 2008), then it would be an alternative way to share adequately scientific updates and to make them easily available to the manager.

Science journalist's conception also includes journalistic practices (P), which are essential to understanding the context of journalism production (Fioravanti, 2015). He/she is involved in the system of values, including objectivity, neutrality (Albagli, 1996; Pihl-Thingvad, 2015; Rublescki, 2009), and also socio-cultural values. The influence of individual conceptions between them occurs through media products and during interviews (Fig. 2, arrow 5). Media products might be available through the internet, newspapers or television. Besides the time constraints at the institutional level, the science journalist is also limited by the editorial's interests from the media company, as highlighted before (Fig. 2, left gray arrow). Those constraints influence what he/she consider relevant to publish, and consequently, limit him/her time to get into other issues that might be essential to the manager. Usually, the editor decides the issue to be published according to what they think will get more of the public's attention. That practice sometimes makes the production sensational, not just adequate, to the more specialized public, such as managers (Firmstone, 2008; Rublescki, 2009).

Although the relationship between these actors seems to be fundamental to create strategies to bridge them and allow that they influence each other's conceptions, it is still restricted. Perhaps if they understand their importance to each other, and the possible outcomes to improve the decision-making process, then they may start to make efforts to interact. Besides that, strategies to improve their actions involve the acknowledgment of the values necessary to provide them a clarification of their work and its limitations.

The scientific journalist is not only a translator but also an educator (Allan, 2011; Caldas, 2004). The media is the primary source of science information and scientific informal education for the general public (Fig. 2, arrow 7) (Amorim and Massarani, 2009; Geller et al., 2005; Groffman et al., 2010). The journalist should be concerned with how to provide an adequate dissemination of scientific conceptions, and how to improve the citizen's scientific literacy beyond the traditional education from schools (Bertolli-Filho, 2006; McClune and Jarman, 2014). To fully accomplish this, he/she should be able to understand the origins, strengths, and limits of scientific propositions and the context in which environmental decision-making occurs, that propositions by scientists and managers should influence his/her conceptions (knowledge, practices, and values).

However, due to institutional constraints that usually require daily publications and a higher audience (Fig. 2, right gray arrow), the journalist usually does not prioritize their educational function to the citizen (Nascimento, 2008). As a result, his/her products can be prepared mainly to attract attention from most of the public, but without adequate criticism about scientific relevance of the content and its impact on citizen (Rublescki, 2009).